Here's how you can steer clear of common logical fallacies in Public Administration.

1 Spot Ad Hominem

Ad hominem attacks can derail rational policy debates by shifting focus from the issue at hand to personal characteristics. In public administration, you might encounter situations where colleagues discredit proposals based solely on the proposer's background or personality. To avoid this fallacy, concentrate on the merits of the argument itself, not the individual presenting it. Evaluate policies and ideas based on evidence and relevance to the public interest, not on who proposes them.

2 Avoid Slippery Slope

The slippery slope fallacy assumes that a minor action will lead to significant and often disastrous outcomes without providing evidence for such a drastic progression. In your role, you might hear arguments that a small change in policy could lead to extreme consequences. To steer clear of this fallacy, require that claims be supported by data or historical precedent. Look for concrete steps in the progression of events, and assess the likelihood of each step independently.

3 Question Authority

Authority should be respected, but not blindly followed. The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the opinion of an authority figure is taken as truth without critical examination. In public administration, it's essential to question the basis of an authority's claims. Scrutinize the evidence and reasoning they provide, and consider alternative perspectives. This ensures that policies are not adopted based solely on an individual's status or reputation.

4 Recognize False Dilemma

The false dilemma fallacy presents two options as the only possibilities when others exist. As a decision-maker, you might be pressured to choose between two extremes when a spectrum of alternatives is available. Avoid this trap by actively seeking multiple solutions to a problem. Encourage open discussion and brainstorming to uncover a range of options that may not be immediately apparent.

5 Dissect Circular Logic

Circular reasoning is when an argument's conclusion is used as its premise, providing no actual evidence. In public administration, circular logic can make unfounded policies seem justified. To avoid falling into this loop, always look for independent evidence supporting a claim. If the justification for a policy is simply restating the policy in different terms, it's time to ask for more substantial backing.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?