Optometrists responses to logical fallacies
Optometry is one of those professions where never-ending products, services, and technologies are developed and being brought to the market on daily basis. This builds pressure on the eye care professionals to constantly be able to develop and employ logical arguments in addressing patients about new findings. It also requires them to listen and be able to analyze the logical arguments that the patients are submitting about a product they have tried or an experience related to care they have been through.
For example, most of us have certainly had a patient rejects our proposition of multifocals because he is convinced or he believes that multifocals are hard to adapt to. This misconception or logical fallacy came from a previous experience with multifocals, that he or someone he knew, had a bad experience with multifocals.
This example shows us that logic is one element of a thriving argument. It is true that “Illogical arguments” are false and must be ruled out, but we cannot consider the argument that the multifocals patient brought to be illogical. But rather his argument is simply a “Non-logical argument” because it cannot be logically proven or disproved. The patient’s “Non-logical argument” about multifocals is very important because it appeals to the emotions and values he has to the product or the service. And we all know that a product like multifocals fulfills more than the patient’s “emotional needs”: there are also “functional” and “social” needs.
The emotional attributes of the multifocals are related to past experiences with the product, the brand, or the provider. The social attributes of the multifocals are related to how socially switching between far and near spectacles is acceptable. The functional attributes are related to the quality of vision and life that multifocals are providing. Unless we don’t want the patient to change his beliefs, we have to build our proposition around logical and non-logical arguments to have a thriving and successful argument.
Logical fallacies are widespread errors in reasoning that sabotage the logic of an argument. The above example of logical fallacy is called “Hasty Generalization”, and it pertains to drawing a conclusion and generalizing it based on insufficient or biased evidence in the absence of sufficient relevant facts. Commonly known logical fallacies include “Slippery Slope”, “Ad hominem”, “Ad Populum”, ” Red Herring”, “Straw Men”, and many others.
We should resist these common logical fallacies in our arguments and watch for them in the arguments of patients and others. In the example of multifocals, the optometrist should resist making a logical fallacy himself while responding to the patient’s argument. For example, the optometrist should not bring about an “Ad hominem” fallacy in his argument by attacking the character of the patient rather than his argument, and stating that the patient didn’t know how to use the multifocals. Or bringing about an “Ad populum” fallacy by stating that all people are comfortable wearing multifocals therefore the patient should get on the bandwagon no matter what. Instead, he should talk about the risks and alternative solutions in a logical and transparent way.