Dr. Greg Loeben joined us today for our Conversations & Coffee event and took on a problem every public health professional runs into: misleading arguments that sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny.
His core points were that bad reasoning spreads faster than good evidence. If you can recognize the pattern, you can respond more effectively in real time.
Greg walked through seven common logical fallacies that show up all the time in public health debates:
- Appeal to authority – leaning on a person’s status instead of evidence
- Ad hominem – attacking the person rather than the argument
- Appeal to nature – assuming “natural” means safe or better
- False dilemma – presenting only two choices when more exist
- Straw man – distorting someone’s position to make it easier to attack
- Slippery slope – claiming one step will trigger extreme outcomes
- Hasty generalization – drawing broad conclusions from limited data
He made a useful distinction: cognitive biases are how our brains tend to process information, while fallacies are errors in the structure of an argument. Social media makes both worse by rewarding attention, not accuracy.
The practical takeaway wasn’t “win the argument.” It was to recognize the pattern and respond strategically. Sometimes that means asking a clarifying question (“Are those really the only two options?”). Sometimes it means pointing out the mismatch (“That’s not what I said”). And sometimes—especially with family—it means disengaging.
Bottom line: You don’t need to memorize philosophy terms. You need pattern recognition. Once you see the structure of a bad argument, it’s a lot harder to be pulled in by it—and a lot easier to steer the conversation back to evidence.
I really encourage you to invest an hour in the webinar! I mean it. I learned more in that 50 minutes Friday than I have in a long time.








