5 Logical fallacies in the era of RFK Jr.
Common rhetorical tricks that are trending right now
Last week, I lectured my students on mis- and disinformation and asked Kristen Panthagani to design an activity exploring the fallacies we’re seeing play out in real time. She knocked it out of the park, so naturally, I asked if she’d write a piece for you all. She said yes! Kristen, take it away…
How do we address the firehose of inaccurate information that is flooding the internet right now? It’s tempting to try to play whack-a-mole, tackling one rumor after another, and there is certainly value in addressing individual claims.
But emerging research shows that a better (and less exhausting) method —“prebunking,” or teaching people to recognize falsehoods before they encounter them—is highly effective. If you can teach people to recognize the common rhetorical tricks that are used to sell falsehoods, they can identify them for themselves in the wild, instead of relying on scientists and doctors to chase down every individual claim, meme, or video (which is impossible).
With that, here’s a prebunking lesson for you.
Logical fallacies are at the root of many inaccurate health claims
Much of inaccurate health information sounds true because it uses common errors in reasoning called logical fallacies. These are shortcuts in thinking—statements that seem true on the surface, but are often oversimplifications. We all use them (and fall for them) from time to time, but once you recognize the pattern, it’s easier to identify when a claim doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny.
RFK Jr. gravitates towards these in his messaging. Here are a few common ones that have been used over and over again.
Appeal to nature fallacy
The appeal to nature fallacy assumes that because there are so many good things that come from nature, things from nature are always better than things that are human-made. This is of course untrue, as there are many bad things that come from nature (like hurricanes, arsenic, and viruses) and many good things that are human-made (like breakfast tacos).
This fallacy is appealing because it often is true that natural is better (vegetables are definitely healthier than junk food, for example). The error in reasoning comes from assuming the “natural” label is enough to say it’s better without additional evidence.
Examples of this fallacy in action:
Natural immunity is better than vaccine-induce immunity.
Raw milk is better than pasteurized milk because it’s more natural.
Natural remedies like vitamin A are better that the MMR vaccine.
Naturally occurring pesticides or food additives are safer than human-made ones.
The false dichotomy
What really led to the decline of measles in the twentieth century? Was it the measles vaccine, or better sanitation, nutrition, and medical care generally?
The answer is: both. This question sets up a fight that doesn’t need to happen, making people unnecessarily choose between two options, when in fact more options exist. This is a false dichotomy fallacy in action, which inaccurately splits complex issues into either/or answers, making both answers incomplete.
Other false dichotomy examples include:
Do children need vaccines or a healthy diet? (They need both!)
If a vaccine doesn’t prevent 100% of infections, it doesn’t work. (A third, accurate option is missing: they reduce risk of infection.)
You either support medical freedom or forced vaccination. (More nuanced options exist.)
Ad hominem fallacy
“Pharma shill!” “Doctors are all corrupt and just want to make money off keeping you sick!” These are examples of the ad hominem abusive fallacy. One of the most common logical fallacies online, this logical error pivots away from talking about the scientific question under discussion and starts attacking the person making the argument instead.
RFK Jr. has used this fallacy extensively, sowing distrust in medical institutions by claiming they are “corrupt” and in bed with pharma, and telling people to stop trusting experts and doctors because they are part of a corrupt system. While corruption certainly exists in specific situations, making sweeping conclusions about all doctors, experts, or institutions (without specific evidence to back up the claims) makes this argument logically flawed.
Common sense fallacy
The common sense fallacy argues a claim is true because it seems true or lots of people believe it’s true or it’s just common sense, without providing additional evidence to back it up.
This fallacy is appealing because it takes complicated issues and makes it seem as if the right answer can be discerned by simply trusting your intuition, rather than doing the hard work of digging into the evidence. For complex health issues, this “it’s just so simple” messaging is very persuasive, but logically invalid. This fallacy is commonly used in RFK Jr’s messaging:
The post hoc fallacy
The post hoc fallacy assumes that if one event came after another, the first event must have caused the second (without providing additional evidence). This is a version of the “correlation implies causation” argument. But the world is a busy place, and two events may happen in succession without an actual connection between them.
This post hoc fallacy has been used extensively to sow distrust in vaccines:
Claiming that if a child develops autism sometime after getting vaccinated, the vaccine was to blame.
Claiming that because chronic childhood illnesses have increased along with the number of vaccines in the childhood immunization schedule, that shows children are getting too many vaccines.
Claiming deaths after vaccination prove the vaccine caused the death. (Watch the video below for a deep dive into that one.)
Link to video on YouTube and Instagram if you’d like to share it.
What does this mean for you?
Playing whack-a-mole with inaccurate health claims is exhausting and, at a point, futile. Instead, try teaching people the rhetorical tricks that are used to spread these health rumors. Many people want to be empowered to do their own research into health information, and teaching them to recognize these logical errors is one powerful way to help them do that.
Was this post helpful? If so, I will do a round two of logical fallacies. Let me know!
A version of this post was originally published on You Can Know Things.
Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD, is completing a combined emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she is a contributing writer for Your Local Epidemiologist and creator of the newsletters You Can Know Things and The Public Health Roundup. You can also find her on Instagram, Threads, and LinkedIn. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer.
Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE reaches more than 425,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:
To answer the question at the end of the post: yes, it was extremely helpful. I have two high-schoolers and this is exactly the kind of content I print and put on the breakfast table for them to absorb while snarfing down highly processed Rice Krispies with homogenized, pasteurized milk (RFK, GFY). As a parent I want to help them find ways to understand the world around them without the kind of irritating (and mostly wrong) ideological lectures my parents subjected me to, and this "here's something worth pondering" type of content I can share with them is my favorite method. Please do Round Two, and thank you! :-) PS, the subtitle "trending right now" isn't wrong, but these are all the same types of fallacies I grew up with 40 years ago, too. And if you ever do any browsing of archives, you can find it in e.g. newspapers and books and so on, as far back as you want to look, back to the Greeks and Romans. This stuff is timeless.
Excellent piece. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.
As a neurologist who teaches residents, I was struck by how closely this mirrors clinical reasoning. One of the most common cognitive errors we teach trainees to avoid is assuming that because one event follows another, the first must have caused the second. In medicine that mistake leads to bad diagnoses. In public health discussions it leads to bad conclusions.
What you describe as “prebunking” is essentially teaching people to recognize patterns of flawed reasoning. Once someone sees the pattern, they can spot it almost anywhere.
That is far more powerful than trying to chase down every individual rumor. Thank you for a thoughtful and practical explanation.