Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) (Dr. Bo's Critical Thinking Series)

by Bo Bennett

Is including the line “just food for thought” a legitimate way of making a bad argument? For example, “Just food for thought, if foods were meant to be genetically modified, they’d appear that way in nature.” This is similar to the “just playing devil’s advocate here” line. An important part of critical thinking is to consider as many possibilities as possible, so “food for thought” should be welcomed. However, it could be used as a way of just simply making a bad argument and prefacing it with “just food for thought” to get out of having to defend it. This is like saying, “No offense, but you are a jackass.” The “no offense” does not excuse you for calling the person a jackass. Just food for thought, if foods were meant to be genetically modified, they’d appear that way in nature. The best response to this would be an analogy that clearly shows the error. Just food for thought, if people were meant to take medicine, there would be penicillin trees. We save lives through “unnatural” means such as surgery, medicines, and technology because nature doesn’t care about us any more than it cares about the survival of the virus’ and bacteria that kill us. The example given is a clear appeal to nature.