This essay explores how conspiracy theorists employ analogical arguments, a logical form that establishes similarities between two subjects to draw conclusions. These arguments consist of three premises that compare properties of two items, reaching a conclusion based on shared characteristics. For instance, an anti-vaxxer might compare the government’s handling of vaccines to the opioid crisis to suggest a conspiracy. While this reasoning may appear sound, it is often flawed, as exemplified in the misapplication of analogies in supporting unwarranted conspiracy beliefs.
The analogical argument, with its structure of comparing properties, allows conspiracy theorists to draw parallels that can make their claims seem plausible, even if they're incorrect.
For example, the anti-vaxxer creates an analogy between deceptive vaccine promotion and the opioid crisis, assuming similar government malfeasance, which illustrates a flawed reasoning process.
Collection
[
|
...
]