The work of philosopher Schopenhauer, which analyzes argumentative strategies, speaks directly to that of psychologist Claude Steiner on power plays. We can say that a person who deliberately uses power plays to control others does so through fallacies: they provoke, manipulate, use false premises and appeal to authority to sustain an argument. This connection becomes clear when we analyze a specific fallacy that inspires this text: false equivalence.

It is an error in logic that occurs when two things are compared as if they were equal merely because they share some characteristic, while their differences (often substantial) are ignored. By treating what is unequal as if it were equal on the basis of superficial similarity, this distortion serves as a tactic for invalidating arguments.

But what, after all, is a fallacy? The word means falsehood: any false statement or reasoning that simulates truth. Although it is an uncommon term, it identifies very frequent behaviors. The temptation is to say that, today, lying and fallacies have a guaranteed place in the pantheon of glory. However, saying so would be imprecise, since the way of altering facts and versions seems to be as old as human beings themselves.

Origins of deceit

I believe that, by not learning to ground their arguments, individuals seek, throughout their development, survival resources in which deceit or manipulation become alternatives. In family arguments, for example, someone may exaggerate a situation to convince the others. In political debates, candidates may distort data to win support.

On the other hand, there are people who use fallacies consciously and by design. On social media, fake news is deliberately spread to manipulate opinions. Between one extreme and the other are the credulous: fragile branches shaken by any wind. By accepting fallacious arguments without question, these people become vulnerable and end up contributing to the spread of mistakes.

Lessons from the philosophers

To dissect these strategies, it is essential to turn to two philosophers who mapped them: Aristotle and Schopenhauer.

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century B.C., pioneered the systematic study of fallacies in his work Sophistical Refutations. He presents formal fallacies, whose logical structure leads to a false conclusion even with true premises, and informal ones, where false premises invalidate the argument. Among those he conceptualized are:

• Appeal to authority: uses a figure’s reputation to validate an argument outside their area of expertise.
• Appeal to pity: uses the interlocutor’s compassion to get one’s points accepted, even if irrelevant.
• Cause-and-effect fallacy: assumes a causal relationship merely because one event happens after another, with no real connection.

Schopenhauer, in turn, described in The Art of Being Right the tactics for winning debates at any cost. The best known are:

• Ad hominem (personal attack): attacks the person instead of their arguments.
• Undue amplification: exaggerates the other’s argument to the point of absurdity to invalidate it.
• False dichotomy: reduces the alternatives to just two options, ignoring other possibilities.

Impact and the critical stance

Frequent use of fallacies has social and ethical impacts. The spread of misleading arguments generates disinformation, polarization and conflict, besides compromising honesty and harming the search for fair solutions.

By understanding fallacies and their effects, we can develop a more critical stance toward the debates we face. We do not need extensive research to find current examples of these strategies for propping up lies.

My personal goals are not to fall for fallacies, to have the patience not to step in with clarifications when I am not explicitly invited, and to make a pact with myself to examine reality consciously, strengthening analysis with solid foundations.