10 Logical Fallacies in TBBT
The Big Bang Theory is a show about brainiacs and it is one of the most low brow humour sitcoms ever made. It makes Two and a Half Men look thought provoking and deep. The old adage goes that intelligent minds presume their own ignorance, ignorant minds presume their own intelligence. That is why TBBT is unrealistic and watching a single episode of it as a person with an IQ over freezing temperature is like watching a crime documentary as a police officer. A lot of these smart characters are unbelievably stupid.
Here are 10 logical fallacies used by characters in TBBT.
- Genetic Fallacy (Sheldon).
The genetic fallacy is when you assume an answer or argument to be incorrect specifically because of its source.
In season 1 episode 13 The Bat Jar Conjecture, the four male leads are practising in preparation for the Physics Bowl. At one point, even though Howard buzzed in, Sheldon answered the question. When Howard points out that someone else might know the answer, Sheldon says “Oh please, you don’t even have a PhD.”
In this case, Sheldon assumed that any answer Howard gives is automatically wrong, because the person who gave the answer has a Master’s Degree or less.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Mary Cooper).
This fallacy occurs when you assume that, because event Y followed event X, event X must have caused event Y.
In the premiere of season 3, when Sheldon arrives home safe from his trip to the Arctic, he speaks on the phone with his mother. Mary Cooper fallaciously assumed that her prayers caused Sheldon to arrive home safe.
This is a fallacious assumption, as Mary assumed that there must have been some relation between her prayers and Sheldon’s safe arrival back home. First of all, that would be like saying that 100% of people diagnosed with cancer consumed dihydrogen monoxide in their lifetime, so obviously drinking water (that is what dihydrogen monoxide is by the way) causes cancer. Second, there exist lots of people who go on trips like that and don’t return alive. Do you expect me to believe that God is playing favourites? Third, if it really was by the grace of God that Sheldon arrived home safe, why would anyone need to pray to make that happen? If it is God’s will that Sheldon arrive home safe, then that should happen anyway. Something tells me that had Sheldon gotten hurt, Mary would assume that that was God’s will. Praying is basically saying that you do not trust the plan God has for you.
- Special Pleading (Bernadette).
This fallacy occurs when one attempts to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, without justifying the exception. This logical fallacy usually involves unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter.
In season 11 episode 8 The Tesla Recoil, Bernadette got mad at her coworker Ruchi for seizing Bernadette’s projects while she is on pregnancy leave. This was hypocritical of Bernadette, as she once convinced her coworker it was to bring your cat to work day, knowing her boss had asthma. Bernadette rationalised that the two are morally different, but did not explain why they were different.
- Affirming the consequent (Raj).
This fallacy occurs when you assume a premise to be true, because the converse of the premise is true.
In season 12 episode 3, Leonard says that you can’t know someone without first spending a lot of time with them. Raj attempted to disprove Leonard’s claim by proving that he does not know Penny. Leonard was saying that knowing someone means that you’ve spent lots of time with them. That does not mean that spending lots of time with them means you know them.
- Red Herring (Sheldon).
A red herring is when you attempt to redirect the discussion of the conversation while fallaciously making it seem like the derailing tactic being used is actually a relevant point.
In season 4 episode 21 The Roommate Dissection, Sheldon invokes the section of the roommate agreement which says that the right to bathroom privacy is suspended in cases of bathroom emergencies. Priya asks Sheldon what counts as a bathroom emergency, citing a hypothetical where Leonard needed to trim his nose hair. Sheldon replies by stating that Leonard never trims his nose hair.
This is a red herring. The question that Priya asked and the question that Sheldon answered were two different questions. Priya asked if it would count as a bathroom emergency as specified by the roommate agreement if Leonard needed to trim his nose hair. Sheldon’s reply would be the answer to the question; How often does Leonard trim his nose hair?
6. Straw man argument (Raj).
A straw man argument is the act of willfully misrepresenting an argument, usually in a massive and hyperbolic fashion.
In the season 4 episode The Irish Pub Formation, when it is revealed that Leonard did it with Priya, Howard is angry at Leonard for breaking the pact they made. Raj says to Howard “I think you slept with my sister trumps a four year old pinky swear.”
Raj was very pedantic about how breaking a pinky swear compares to sleeping with your friend’s sister. A lot of people, myself included, disagree with Raj. Priya is a grown woman. If Leonard invited every female member of the Koothrapalli family to an orgi, it would be none of Raj’s business. Even if Raj’s assessment of reality were accurate (in my opinion, it isn’t) that still would not mean that Raj’s statement makes sense contectually. Raj stated that he is more of a victim than Howard. Howard never said otherwise. Therefore, Raj was replying to something that Howard did not even say.
- Appeal to worse problems (Leonard).
This is a combination of a straw man argument, a red herring and a bifurcation fallacy. It is when you assume that a person being concerned with one small problem means that he or she is not even slightly concerned with a larger, more important problem.
In the season 6 episode The Bakersfield Expidition, when Raj complains of poached testicles, Leonard points out that his car was stolen, as if Raj actually said otherwise, which he did not.
- Argumentum ad verecundiam (Sheldon).
An ad verecundiam fallacy occurs when one appeals to the testimony of an expert outside his or her respective field.
In the premiere of season 4, Penny gives Sheldon dating advice. Sheldon said that he knows all the things that he should, because he has two PhDs and a Master’s. However, that does not say anything about his knowledge of dating.
- Fallacy of Composition (Penny).
The fallacy of the composition occurs when it is assumed that that which true of the parts must be true of the whole.
In the season 2 episode The Killer Robot Instability, Penny said she would never flirt with Howard, so she assumes no woman ever would. Penny is a woman and she would never flirt with Howard, so she claims to speak for all women.
- Non-sequiter (Sheldon).
A non-sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise.
In the season 5 episode The Weekend Vortex, Sheldon assumed that because the relationship agreement was not designed for Amy to get her way, it cannot be used for that purpose. However, something can be used for more than one purpose.