You should drink more water because unicorns love it.

Huh? Picture Spock with one eyebrow raised.

That's a classic example of The Fallacy Fallacy. The conclusion might be fine (yes, you probably should drink more water), but the reasoning has nothing to do with it. It's when someone dismisses an idea entirely just because the argument for it is flawed. But bad reasoning doesn't automatically mean the conclusion is false. You can stumble into a correct answer by accident, but it's still the right answer.

It's like solving a math problem the wrong way and somehow still ending up with the right number. That doesn't mean your method was valid, but it also doesn't mean the result is useless. (1) This fallacy shows up everywhere once you know how to spot it.

In tech circles, you'll hear things like, "You should only use a wired keyboard." Fair enough - wired devices are often faster and more reliable. But then the explanation comes in: "because Bluetooth waves fry your brain." Now we've wandered off into conspiracy territory. The conclusion might be fine - wired connections are great for gaming and low latency - but not for the reason being offered.

I see examples of this fallacy in Microsoft Access forums all the time. "You should never use lookup fields at the table level because real developers don't do that." While that might seem helpful, it misses the actual issue. The real danger is that table-level lookups can mask relational design, confuse queries, and make your data structure less transparent - especially for anyone maintaining or integrating the system down the line. The takeaway? You're right to be cautious with lookup fields, but not because "real developers" avoid them. That's not a reason - that's a badge of tribalism. (2)

In marketing, you see this fallacy. Someone might say, "You should never use Comic Sans in your marketing materials because it causes people to subconsciously associate you with clowns." Now, the conclusion might be right - Comic Sans often does look unprofessional, especially in corporate settings - but the reasoning is a bit much. You shouldn't use Comic Sans because it lacks visual credibility, not because it triggers some deep psychological circus trauma. Unless you're designing for a kindergarten class, pick something cleaner.

Same goes for the classic business meeting. "We should increase our ad spending this quarter," someone says, and you nod along. Then they add, "Because I read a business blog that said it's lucky to launch campaigns during a waxing moon." You don't need a lunar calendar to justify marketing strategy. The spending increase might be smart based on market data - not moon phases.

And of course it shows up in politics. "We should raise teacher salaries." I agree. But then someone says - usually when they think the mic is off - "Because it'll win us more votes with working-class families." That might be a politically convenient side effect, but it's not a solid reason for making such an important policy change. How about we focus on the real justifications instead - like teacher retention, overwhelming workloads, and the fact that most educators end up paying for classroom supplies out of pocket? (3)

In philosophical debates, this fallacy crops up in well-meaning but misplaced arguments. Someone says, "You should be kind to others," which is a great moral rule. But then they follow it with, "Because if you aren't, the gods will punish you." That might be part of someone's belief system, but kindness is still a good idea on its own. You don't need fear of divine punishment (or a promise of eternal reward) to justify basic human decency.

And now we come to Star Trek, where logic and reason are supposed to reign supreme - yet even here, the fallacy fallacy can sneak in.

In Home Soil (TNG), the Enterprise crew responds to a distress call from a terraforming station after a technician is killed by a malfunctioning laser drill. At first, the team suspects a simple equipment failure. Then, when the logs show the drill's programming was altered to target the technician, they begin to suspect sabotage. But the truth is stranger still: the soil contains a silicon-based lifeform that took control of the machinery in self-defense. The crew's reasoning evolved from a random glitch, to sabotage, to ultimately discovering a new lifeform. Their first two theories were wrong, but the conclusion - that something intelligent was behind the incident - turned out to be right. A classic fallacy fallacy: flawed reasoning led to a correct result.

In "The Devil in the Dark" (TOS), miners think a monster is killing people. Their reason? It's just a wild animal attacking randomly. Turns out the creature - the Horta - is intelligent and protecting her eggs. Their actions were based on bad assumptions, but their instinct that something was happening underground was valid.

The lesson here is simple: don't throw out an idea just because someone makes a bad argument for it. Judge the idea on its own merit. It's entirely possible to be right for the wrong reasons.

LLAP
RR

(1) This is why math teachers always say, "Show your work."

(2) This is a perfect example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

(3) It's absolutely ridiculous what teachers have to go through. They should be paid ten times as much.