The Logic of ADHD: A Brief Review of Fallacious Reasoning

Abstract

This paper has two central purposes: the first is to survey some of the more important examples of fallacious argument, and the second is to examine the frequent use of these fallacies in support of the psychological construct: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The paper divides 12 familiar fallacies into three different categoriesmaterial, psychological and logical-and contends that advocates of ADHD often seem to employ these fallacies to support their position. It is suggested that all researchers, whether into ADHD or otherwise, need to pay much closer attention to the construction of their arguments if they are not to make truth claims unsupported by satisfactory evidence, form or logic.

Diagnosis and the DSM

“…Meehl observed these problems even before the appearance of the DSM-III, yet in contemporary clinical practice the same problems return. Research on how people reflect on DSM disorder categories demonstrates that similar fallacious lines of reasoning permeate our current age of criteria-based diagnosis (see Tait, 2009). Instead of denying these issues or covering them up with protocols, clinicians could be schooled in handling the elements that undermine their credibility.…”

Reflection and our professional lives

“…Strikingly different from a scientific paper, a reflective piece is likely to be written in the first person. The third person plays down the personal and emphasises objectivity in relation to the individual as an external observer, in line with scientific method (Tait 2009). As is being discussed at length here, the large part played by the individual in all the processes of clinical practice means that a consideration of "the self" cannot be excluded.…”

Identifying fallacious arguments in a qualitative study of antipsychotic prescribing in dementia

“…While some of these views may be valid, problematic arguments relating to antipsychotic prescribing in dementia, especially if they become everyday discourses, are potentially significant as they could reinforce poor practice, but this concept has not been formally investigated. The premise of this study is that reasoning errors could have a role in constructing and validating antipsychotic prescribing in dementia in practice akin to what has been argued to occur in attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by Tait . Reasoning errors in this context are invalid or faulty explanations used in a discussion resulting in erroneous or fallacious arguments.…”

“…Reasoning errors in this context are invalid or faulty explanations used in a discussion resulting in erroneous or fallacious arguments. Tait studied the contribution of fallacious reasoning in reinforcing the veracity of ADHD as a mental health condition . Using the typology set out by Fearnside and Holther (cited in Ref.…”