Transform Fallacies Into Actionable Reality

Yonason Goldson
Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:00:00 -0800
Lifestyle

There's nothing more beautiful than a syllogism — a logical argument that derives novel insights from known facts or principles. Except when it's not. Too often, we weaponize logic by manipulating facts to affirm predetermined outcomes.

What is the first enemy of ethics? Rationalization. From the moment we begin evaluating data and constructing arguments, our biases and preconceptions steer us toward the conclusions our unconscious minds have already reached. There is really no limit to how grossly we can distort evidence to get wherever our impulses and inclinations want us to go.

In the extreme, logic masquerades as reason to the point of absurdity. When it does, we end up with this addition to the Ethical Lexicon:
Updated: Fri Feb 27, 2026

There's nothing more beautiful than a syllogism — a logical argument that derives novel insights from known facts or principles. Except when it's not. Too often, we weaponize logic by manipulating facts to affirm predetermined outcomes.

What is the first enemy of ethics? Rationalization. From the moment we begin evaluating data and constructing arguments, our biases and preconceptions steer us toward the conclusions our unconscious minds have already reached. There is really no limit to how grossly we can distort evidence to get wherever our impulses and inclinations want us to go.

In the extreme, logic masquerades as reason to the point of absurdity. When it does, we end up with this addition to the Ethical Lexicon:

Casuistry (cas*u*ist*ry/ KAZH-ew-iss-tree) noun

Clever but unsound reasoning claiming to resolve moral problems by applying theoretical rules to new situations.

Derived from the Latin noun casus, meaning "case," casuistry originally meant a "case of conscience." From its earliest origins, it was used to unmask deceptive moralizing that attempts to exploit rational argument, defend untenable conclusions and validate intellectual subterfuge.

The proliferation of casuistry is all around us — on social media, in business strategies and in what passes for political debate. Convinced that we know the answers to our questions, we enter the world of decision-based facts, heedless of the obvious truism that successful outcomes emerge only from fact-based decisions.

This is why we need trusted advisors willing to tell us the hard truths we don't want to hear. Sometimes all it takes is a look of incredulity on the face of a wise friend to show us the folly of our own faulty reasoning. A simple reality check can compose our thoughts into a symphony of clear thinking and avoid fallacies best described as intellectual kazoo-istry.

Here's a simple exercise to test your own syllogistic objectivity. Take a current topic from the headlines, something that really inflames your passions. Now write a paragraph or two defending the position opposite to your own. If you can't do it, seek out a thoughtful acquaintance who holds that opinion and ask for their exposition. Then attempt to restate their argument back to them until they are satisfied you have accurately represented their position.

The benefits of this discipline will serve you in business, in family and in society. Once adversaries discover you understand them, they become far more inclined to try to understand you. And the effort to achieve mutual understanding will save you both from the chaotic thinking of self-validating argument.

This is quite different from agreeing to disagree, which is nothing more than a polite way of avoiding intellectual discomfort. Often, we tire of arguing because we've begun to suspect — consciously or unconsciously — that our arguments don't hold water. It's safer to call a truce than risk having our positions exposed as indefensible.

But is that really what you want? Wouldn't you rather discover that you're wrong so you can start being right? I've never forgotten the words of my college professor, Max Byrd, who remarked, "I don't understand people who complain about being disillusioned. I would be grateful the chance to be relieved of my illusions."

Exposing casuistry, however, is dangerous business. No one enjoys being embarrassed by having their arguments exposed as imbecilic or unsound. That's why addressing convoluted reasoning from others requires the soft hand of diplomacy and tact. Providing interlocutors with cover helps them to relinquish their positions gracefully while keeping their self-respect intact.

Study the dialogues of Socrates to see how, by gently asking questions, he led others to a place where they could recognize their own inconsistencies. Of course, Socrates annoyed so many people that he was eventually sentenced to death. But given today's culture of rabid bloviating, asking civil questions in a pleasant voice might be disarming enough to encourage reciprocal collegiality.

So don't gloat. Don't ridicule. Don't condescend. Instead, celebrate that we've all arrived, together, one step closer to the truth. By doing so, we exchange casuistry for the kind of constructive disagreement that yields clear thinking, fresh insights and informed consensus. Even if we don't agree on everything, we can still have confidence in the process that promotes intellectual integrity and allows us to respect one another along the way.

See more by Yonason Goldson and features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists; visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2026

CREATORS.COM