Whenever I share information, the responses almost always contain at least one logical fallacy, often many. Sometimes, I get the urge to simply list the fallacies, instead of offering detailed rebuttals. While I have never resorted to this extreme, pointing out the logical fallacy can be an effective way to diminish its impact.

Useful Resources for Identifying Fallacies

I refer regularly to this chart of logical fallacies, and it has proven to be very helpful, though it is not exhaustive. This resource assists in quickly identifying the fallacies present and enables me to nae and explain them.  

Common Logical Fallacies in Nuclear Debates

Ad Hominem Attacks

The most frequently used logical fallacy is the ad hominem attack and the most popular version of this is the accusation that the authors comment on nuclear issues is driven entirely by the fact they are paid to make that comment or that they are a shill.  In my case this claim is untrue as CNS does not remunerate my social media work.  However, the accusation can still diminish credibility in the eyes of the reader. Denying the accusation rarely helps and typically leads to them using what I call the negative proof fallacy, where they expect me to prove that I am not paid. Proving a negative is challenging, so my response is to clarify my motivation: I comment because I believe sound environmental decisions require accurate information. It’s not perfect but it does help reclaim the higher ground.

Negative Proof Fallacy

The negative proof fallacy also appears frequently on its own, in statements like “prove that shipments of used fuel will be safe.” Such proofs are nearly always impossible, though few members of the public appreciate this. My response strategy is to first call out the fallacy, then present relevant safety facts, such as the thousands of successful shipments of used fuel.  It isn’t a “proof” but it creates useful compelling context. 

Moving Goalposts

Moving the goalposts is another popular fallacy. After their initial argument is refuted, anti-nuclear campaigners often shift to another issue, for example, “So yeah, proliferation isn’t possible, but what about Chernobyl?” It is easy to be drawn into responding to these new points, but I have found it effective to return to the original topic, thereby maintaining control of the discussion and drawing focus to the original error.  In this case I might start by thanking them for accepting their original comment about proliferation was wrong. 

The Titanic Fallacy

The Titanic fallacy is where the fact that one engineering project failed is used to imply that all engineering projects could fail and also that engineers cannot be trusted because an engineer once said the Titanic was unsinkable.  In fact, no engineer is on record of ever saying that. They correctly said it was virtually unsinkable, and it was the bizarre, unfortunate and very unlikely circumstances of the actual incident that made it possible.  But observing this subtle but important point rarely helps in the argument.  I have taken to pointing out that the Titanic clearly could sink but that does not mean that if an engineer had said it could not sprout wings and fly that the engineer would be wrong.  It seems to work.  Most responses do not address this but instead move the goal posts.

The Murphy’s Law

Murphy’s Law states that if something can go wrong it will go wrong.  The whole concept is a comic one made real by confirmation bias brought on by the fact that we tend to remember when things go wrong.  But it is used as a logical fallacy to suggest everything will go wrong all of the time.  Unfortunately, as an industry because we are so often involved in risk assessments that look at worst cases, we often throw fuel on this fire while intending to try and put it out.  Once again calling out the fallacy has been more successful for me than trying to correct the statement. 

Other Observations and Future Discussion

There are many other fallacious arguments that I encounter regularly, which I plan to address in future blog posts. But for now, I am interested in learning about the fallacious arguments you have seen and how you have responded to them. 

Please comment here if you have any you would like to share.

The Canadian Nuclear Society