No, it’s not the beginning of a logic course. Nor am I going to explain the intricacies of drafting an argument – virtually no one actually needs to know how to argue formally so why bother?

There are things we can learn from formal argument like who has the right of way. Seriously, fancy term is the burden of proof. Basically, you state it as fact or conclusion, you own the burden of proving it really is a fact or the correct conclusion. It’s usually not as bad as it sounds – if you say Bob said X you just need to show the citation of Bob saying X. It’s also a great time saver. If the person you are arguing with demands you prove every statement, you have good reason to assume that this argument is on its way downhill.

Unless you are making claims that most people don’t accept as true, in which case you started the argument in the bottom of a pit and you should really stop digging.

Formal argument just writes down the rules that should be common sense. You don’t need to prove every single statement; you only need to prove the ones that are being argued about. If you are arguing that clouds are in the sky and mention that the sky is blue you don’t need to prove that the sky is blue. You do need to prove that bit about clouds. Unless you live in Arizona, you can usually just walk outside and point up – case closed.

Formal argument is like chess; rules are basic but the game is complex. If you are going to be making formal academic arguments or working on a degree in Philosophy, you need to learn all the rules and the various gambits. Otherwise, we’re done here.

I hear just about every day how the modern world bombards people with information and the Average Joe can’t sort it all out. I can sum that up in one word – balderdash. It’s not true. You are perfectly capable of sorting through information and reliably deciding which to accept and which to discard. Not perfectly, human after all, but more than reliably enough for everyday purposes.

First off, ninety percent of the information you are hit with is garbage and can be ignored. You do need to know your mom’s birthday is today; you do not need to know where your friend Sally from high school that you haven’t seen in ten years went on vacation. Enjoy the pretty pictures, scroll on past and forget it.

This is not rocket science. You know danged good and well who you actually need to keep track of and who’s new pet is not your business. Most of the information you are bombarded with is social media and the vast majority of it is useless. Don’t bother remembering or even sorting information you do not need.

Okay, but what about Cousin Susie’s back surgery? Well, did you need to send her flowers? If you need to respond then it’s important. The second question is whether or not the information is credible. Did you hear from Cousin Marty who thinks high school pranks are still funny and is from the other side of the family? Maybe double check before dropping the card in the mail.

This is pretty obvious, right? Here’s the thing: all information is sorted this way. Is it important? If not, toss. If so, is it credible? If not, toss or confirm, depending on how important the information is.

So, it’s important and credible, but is it true? If the information is important enough, we proceed to figuring this part out; but only when we have reason to continue. Most of the time important and credible are sufficient. Mom told you about Cousin Susie so you call the florist. You don’t bother driving to the hospital to confirm Cousin Susie is really there, right? Same thing with most information. We just presume truth when we have no cause to question it.

Remember Cousin Marty? Why wasn’t he credible? Odds on favorite, you’re thinking it’s because of his penchant for pranking but you’re mistaken. His credibility is in question because he is from the wrong side of the family and doesn’t even know Cousin Susie as far as you know. He could be correct anyway – maybe he met her somewhere else – but without a known connection his credibility is in question.

The pranking thing matters, though. Cousin Marty may know Cousin Susie BUT he may not reliably report what he knows. He may think it’s hilarious to convince people to send flowers to hospitals and therefore lie about Cousin Susie. Marty is an unreliable source and we should probably just give Susie a call first.

Reliability and credibility are different things. Credibility tells us that the source has access to the information being reported and is likely to report it correctly. A blind man may believe earnestly that the sky is purple. He has access to the information through other people. Unfortunately, Cousin Marty is his source so the blind man is reporting truthfully as he understands it but incorrectly because Marty is a jerk.

But Bob can see just fine and isn’t a jerk. Our blind friend can safely trust Bob when he says the sky is actually blue. Marty is credible but not reliable. Bob is both credible and reliable.

We usually assume reliability from credible sources. Until we watch the media in action a few times then we question our sanity. The AP is pretty credible. They have 250 locations worldwide so they certainly have access to lots of potential news sources. But by the time a story have been through the AP, Twitter (I so wish I were kidding) and then MSNBC reliability has been dead for at least a week.

Okay, I’m not being fair. Reliability was DOA and credibility is on life support.

No, I don’t know why anyone watches any legacy media anymore. Why do you ask?

Okay, okay, back on track. The point is we usually don’t consider reliability unless we have some other cause to do so. Important and credible are usually enough categories for sorting the vast majority of information. The more important or critical the information is, the less we trust and the more we confirm. This is why pilots walk around their own planes before every flight. Sure, the nice guy on the ground crew says everything looks fine but does he really know? You can’t just pull over on a cloudbank if something goes wrong.

So the pilot checks for himself.

When information has to be true then you pursue confirmation. When information should be true you question reliability. When it would be nice but you don’t really need information to be true, you can just trust the credible source.

This means that only a tiny proportion of that bombardment needs to be confirmed. Most doesn’t even need to be considered. The only question you have to ask is how important is it that this information be true?

So now you have the basics. You know when you actually have to prove what you say and how to figure out what information needs to be confirmed before you rely upon it. The rest of reasoning is just common sense. If you can navigate arguments between your siblings, you can handle this just fine. Same rules apply for figuring out which kid broke the vase as whether or not the President is telling the truth.

Does it pass the sniff test? Does it make sense? If the same thing happened in your neighborhood rather than at the nation-state level, would the reasons given be acceptable? If your brother told you the same thing would you believe him or punch him?

Oh yeah, I promised to explain the Strawman Fallacy. It’s simple. Your kid brother probably did this to you a million times. You say Mom said eat the spinach. Your brother proceeds with a dissertation on why your mom couldn’t have said ‘eat your spinach’ the way that you pronounced ‘spinach’ because she just had her wisdom teeth pulled. Your brother can actually prove this argument – your mom couldn’t pronounce spinach correctly right now no matter how hard she tried.

But that doesn’t mean she didn’t leave strict instructions for the little jerk to eat his spinach. so what if she pronounced the word ‘spinrage’, you both knew exactly what she meant.

The argument should be whether or not your mom left orders for eating spinach, not how well she pronounced the word. Little Bro has pulled a fast one by setting up an argument he knew he could win even though it had nothing to do with the actual argument.

This is the Strawman Argument. The idea is to set up a strawman which is easily knocked down rather than actually attack the real argument. It’s a logical fallacy because it has nothing to do with what was actually being argued.

It’s also either a sign of lazy reasoning or, more often, deception. Either way, it’s crap.

So why did I think the journalist trying to debunk the doctor was using this? Because he states that the study does not prove that Vitamin D prevents COVID 19. This statement is true but has nothing to do with what the doctor and the study actually said about Vitamin D reducing hospitalization and the likelihood of poor outcomes.

Yeppers, most journalists learned how to argue from your little brother. Unlike your little brother, they don’t seem to grow out of being jerks about it, though.

Cousin Marty became a journalist.