An argument which appears to be quite valid but is in reality invalid is one which suffers from any of a number of fallacies or other flaws. We should expect to see this sort of thing because most people do not reason very well and no one reasons perfectly. Fallacious arguments, then, are natural — but what is not so natural is to offer fallacious and flawed arguments deliberately. When that happens, we call it sophistry.
The term sophistry comes from the ancient Greek Sophists, philosophers who were thought to teach their students to win arguments by any means necessary. Sophists were able to argue for any side in an issue equally well — for some, this might be considered a mark of intellectual sophistication and development, but critics blasted them for not holding true to any one position and not really believing in anything.
Thus, the Sophists were accused of not really being interested in truth or reason; instead, they were only interested in making money by helping their pupils argue, and by using arguments they knew were wrong or at least flawed in the hopes that others would be convinced anyway. Today, a person being accused of sophistry is being accused of sacrificing truth and reason by trying to argue for their position with reasoning which they know is invalid.
Despite this knowledge, the sophist hopes that no one will realize that the arguments are invalid and will believe them anyway based upon how strongly the argument appears to be valid. Thus, the accusation of sophistry is a pejorative claim — it is essentially the equivalent of saying that the person is deceitful in how they approach the discussion and even a charlatan in their pretensions of making valid arguments.
Accusations of sophistry can be made too quickly and should be done with care. Sophistry is a matter of intention. When you accuse someone of sophistry, you aren’t simply accusing them of using flawed arguments — you are accusing them of using deliberately flawed argument in an effort to deceive others. That is a serious claim which goes much further than merely pointing out fallacies.
Nevertheless, sophistry does occur over the course of quite a few debates. People want to be right, they want to win arguments, and they want to be seen winning those arguments. Sophistry may not be the most honest means of achieving such goals, but it can be a very effective means when used by someone who knows what they are doing against someone else who doesn’t know nearly as much.
The only truly effective means of combatting sophistry is a clear understanding of logic and reasoning yourself. When you know how arguments need to be structured in order to be valid and how the various fallacies work, then you will also understand when an argument being offered is simply unacceptable. You cannot prevent a person from trying to use sophistry, but you can demonstrate that their attempts won’t work because you know more than they are giving you credit for.
