Muhammed Erkan Karabekmez
Logic is the science of reasoning. Modern logic attempts to express this in mathematical forms, leading to structures like “if p, then q” which occasionally appear even in high school curricula. Classical logic, borrowed from Ancient Greek thought and solidified in Islamic philosophy through Al-Ghazali, became a central component of Islamic thought and traditional kalam theology, despite opposition from early Salafi thinkers and, interestingly, some Mu‘tazilite scholars. For centuries, it remained one of the fundamental subjects in madrasah education, next in importance after Arabic language.
With the emergence of modern science, logic faced serious criticism. Some argued that “logic does not generate new knowledge; instead, we should replace it with empiricism as a scientific method.” However, logic can be viewed not as a tool for producing knowledge but as a means of evaluating it. When seen merely as a safeguard against fallacies, even the harshest criticisms lose their force. Conducting an experiment is one thing, but understanding what its results mean (or do not mean) is another—logic provides essential frameworks for this. While in theory, reductionist and empiricist scientific methods should be free from fallacies, in practice, data-driven and experimental fallacies are quite common. Therefore, as a framework for reasoning, logic remains relevant and necessary.
So, what is a fallacy? Simply put, fallacies are common patterns of faulty reasoning. They are often dismissed as mere nonsense, yet their significance lies in how easy it is to fall into them and how their flaws are not always obvious. One of the greatest benefits of logic education is that it protects individuals from committing fallacies. But is logic only useful in philosophy or scientific methodology? My answer is clear: absolutely not. However, the formulas introduced in high school curricula are of little practical use.
We frequently see that even individuals who claim to produce serious content on social media fall into logical fallacies. The same is true for scientists dealing with statistics and data analysis. While it might not require special training to recognize a generalization fallacy like, “A certain herb worked for one patient, so everyone should consume it for all diseases,” many digital fallacies are far more insidious. In fact, one can even win a Nobel Prize by mistakenly attributing causality to a mere correlation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Political motivations can create severe biases, leading to cherry-picking fallacies, where people highlight only the evidence that supports their argument while ignoring the rest. In debates, logical reasoning often takes a backseat to personal attacks—ad hominem fallacies, “whataboutism,” and similar tactics are rampant. While we can choose not to engage with someone due to their character, if we do engage, we cannot base our arguments solely on attacking their character.
There is substantial data showing a link between excessive social media use and emotional instability, the fact that digital spaces reward aggression over rational discourse, and how online environments have eroded norms of civility in communication. In short, the digital world appeals more to emotions than to logic. This significantly increases our exposure to digital fallacies. Yet many of us now rely solely on social media for news or fulfill much of our need to social interaction online. As a result, despite increased communication channels, we paradoxically find ourselves complaining more about misinformation and the so-called post-truth era.
One of the most important steps to breaking free from this chaos—at least partially—is to return to logic, which can help us regain common sense and balance.