Logical Fallacy and You!
 

It occured to me that in the interests of encouraging intelligent discussion, with appropriate discourse, in a way that really fosters intellectual growth it might be helpful to have a sort of primer for critical thinking around.

In formal logic and argumentation, there are a number of types of faulty reasoning that people are often prone to, called the logical fallacies. These are bits of flawed logic that we all fall pray to at times, but being aware of them and how they work can be very helpful in deciding if your post directly contributes to the discussion at hand.

So with that in mind I'm going to run down all the logical fallacies, and provide an example of each. In most cases I'll be using a pretty absurd and over-the-top (potentially offensive) example simply to highlight how the fallacy works, hopefully since this is a collection of ways to -fail- at argument, it won't be held against me if my post contains inappropriate statements.

Logical Fallacies

Biased Sample - This is where you provide statistical data in support of your point, but those sampled misrepresent the subset of people you are proposing to speak for. Example: Pointing out that 85% of people surveyed opposed gay marriage, when you only surveyed practicing christians. Bear in mind that every sample is biased in some small way, and the biased sample fallacy is only a fallacy if you fail to point out any potential biases when presenting your data.

Hasty Generalization - This is where you conclude something far beyond the scope of existing evidence. Example: That Middle Eastern man was rude to me, all Middle Easterns are rude.

Package Deal Fallacy - This is where you group together concepts that are usually but not always grouped together, functionally misusing an "and" in your description. Example: Concluding that because someone is a liberal and supports welfare, that they must also be pro-choice, and anti-gun.

Fallacy of the excluded Middle or False Dilemma - This is when you present an issue as having only two (or three or whatever) possible conclusions when there are in fact more conclusions possible. Example: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.

Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc or Correlation implies Causation - This fallacy is where you conclude that because two events occur simultaneously, that the two events are necessarily related. Example: When I sneezed, the power went out, therefore my sneeze caused a power outage.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc or False Cause - A similar fallacy to the Cum Hoc fallacy above, in the Post Hoc fallacy you falsely conclude that because two events happened in sequence, the latter was necessarily caused by the former.

Argumentum ad consequentiam or Appeal to consequences - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise must be right/wrong because the consequences of it being right/wrong are desireable/undesireable. Example: If God didn't exist, life would be meaningless. I desire life to have meaning, therefore God exists.

Argumentum ad Baculum or Appeal to force - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise is right/wrong because there is a threat of punishment to do otherwise. Example: Believe in God or you will go to hell.

Appeal to probability - A logical fallacy wherein you decide that simply because something is -possible- it is inevitable that it will happen. Example: There are pedophiles on the internet, therefore if you let your child use the internet unsupervised they will encounter a pedophile.

Slippery Slope - A slippery slope fallacy is when you incorrectly (There -are- correct slippery slopes as well) claim that accepting premise A will lead to B->C->D where D is something undesireable, therefore you ought not to accept A. Example: If you legalise marijuana use, more people will start using it, which will make them more likely to use harder drugs.

Ignoratio elenchi or Red Herring - An argument where the conclusion has nothing to do with the premises. Example: I shouldn't get a speeding ticket, there are murderers and rapists out there that the police -should- be chasing. (That there are other criminals has nothing to with the fact that you broke a law and got caught)

Straw Man - The Straw Man fallacy is when you deliberately misrepresent a position in order to make it easier to attack. Examples of this are everywhere: Quoting someone out of context, holding up a weak defender as indicative of all defenders, oversimplifying the other person's argument.

Association Fallacy or Guilt by association - Associating qualities of one thing onto another simply because the two have some kind of link. Example: The Nazis were evil. The Nazis were Germans, therefore Germans are evil.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to ignorance - The argument that a statement is true simply because it has never been proven false, or that it is false simply because it has never been proven true. NOTE: This does not mean that any time someone points out the lack of proof for something, that they are commiting this fallacy. It is only fallacious to point to lack of evidence if you use that to -CONCLUDE- that the argument is false/true. Pointing out a lack of evidence in general is just good debate.

Appeal to Emotion - An argument where you attempt to convince someone to agree with your argument on emotional grounds rather than on the logical strength of your argument. Example: Any argument that ends with "Think of the children!"

Ad Hominem Attacks- An ad hominem attack is when you direct your argument against the person, rather than their own argument. Example: Why should we listen to you, you're an idiot! (If they're unintelligent, you should be perfectly able to show your disagreement by attacking the point, not the speaker)

Ad Hominem Fallacy- The Ad hominem fallacy is when you use your ad hominem attack to conclude that the person's point is therefore invalid.

Ad populum or Appeal to the Majority - When you present a view such that "everyone knows it is true" to defend your point, rather than actually providing evidence. Example: It's silly for you to claim that Hitler would not have attacked the United States if they hadn't entered World War II. Everyone knows that he planned to conquer the world.

Ad Antiquitatem or Appeal to Tradition - Presenting your view as correct because "It has always been this way" Example: The law has always said that marriage is between a man and a women, there's no reason to change it.

There are a few more, but they are generally minor, or subsets of the larger ones I mentioned above. If I made any glaring omissions, please point them out and I'll add them in, but hopefully even just reading over this will help people draw the distinction between a random conversation or stating of opinion and an actual critical debate or discussion.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Oh, good. I think it would be good to have a list of these somewhere, certainly.

For more/different descriptions of the same fallacies, here's a good concise list as well: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

This makes me happy.

I'm sure that when you describe, for example, the slippery slope, probability, association... some people start wondering "Well, I didn't realize these were fallacies - what kind of arguments CAN I use that aren't fallacious?" The guide could do with some examples of what TO do, to balance out all the "what not to do".

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I vote for a sticky. :)

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I'll get on a nice explanation of inductive and deductive logic, some basic argument forms and so on to go alongside this list if that seems like something people want.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I'd like to point out that there is a difference between an Ad Hominem attack and an Ad Hominem fallacy. Although both are poor form, an Ad Hominem attack is not always Argumentum Ad Hominem. Making the statement "person x is unintelligent => person x is wrong about issue y" is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Making the statement "person x is wrong about issue y for reason z & person x is unintelligent" is only an Ad Hominem attack.

Not that this is that important since it would be preferable if neither of these things arose in debate, but since mistaking one for another is often a cheap way to avoid addressing the important content of a post by focusing on the insult, in a way opening the door for more fallacious reasoning, I figured it was worth mention.

More bluntly, try not to make insults but if some slip into the otherwise well formed post of your opponent in a debate, take it in stride or ignore it.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

It would seem to me that an Ad hominem attack is simply each individual instance of Ad Hominem fallacy.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Not at all. An Ad Hominem fallacy only occurs when an inductive or deductive logical statement is attempted based on the Ad Hominem Attack. If an Ad Hominem attack is isolated from the actual argument it doesn't change the values of the argument. You are familiar with formal logic I understand?

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I'm well aware that if an otherwise valid argument includes an ad hominem attack, you can't invalidate the entire argument simply because the person making it decided to sink to taking a shot as well. Mostly I either ignore the attempt entirely, or I point out what it was and why it has no place in the argument, then cary on as normal.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

devonin, basically,

Ad hominem attack: You're just an idiot, you don't know anything! I'm not listening to you.
Ad hominem fallacy: Nobody should listen to this person because they are an idiot, which obviously invalidates what they are saying.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I'm not really seeing a difference in content there, just in tone. In the first example, I am attack you rather than your argument with the unspoken addendum that since I'm not listening to you, nobody else should either, and the second just directly tells others to also not listen to you on the same grounds.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

The ad hominem attack is the part where you call the person an idiot. The fallacy is connecting that idiocy to their ability to argue well.

Or at least this is my understanding. I could be wrong.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Fair enough, at least in my head for Ad Hominem I use 'attack' and 'fallacy' interchangably depending on the context of the sentence I'm mentioning it in. Ought I to edit the post you think?

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I say that this should be stickied.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I second this. It was a great help to me, and certainly will be to others as well.

Now we can point to this to show what we're talking about if we ever call someone on a logical fallacy. Great work devonin!

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Tangentially, note that due to the rapid nature of attrition in any theoretical argument you quickly will come to a point where there is a boolean answer based on a need for some evidence to prove the seminal statement for the entire theory, and the only human way to support a stance with this answer is to use the Petitio Principii fallacy, or begging the question, or to intentionally not take a stance based on the lack of evidence.

Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement. It should be noted that statements aren't really "critical thinking." A statement is any claim that is either true of false, and when we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, develop a method for determining the truth value of the statement, the statement is therefore not worth discussing, because it is simply just a convoluted discussion in which the only real result is a series of complex and superfluous statements which the content only really contains the ideas of "I agree." or "I disagree."

In general, any statement is not really worth discussing in the realm of "critical thinking" because this forum is about arguments (in the technical sense of the word.) It is not really about illuminating to people the mechanics of arguing, it is for those who already wish to argue, and know how.

To simplify for those who do not have the capacity to grasp what I'm explaining, imagine me saying the following statement:

"The UW is the coolest college in Washington."

This statement may have a truth value, but it does not illuminate the ambiguity of the word "coolest," therefore the only true discussion that can follow is based on individual perceptions of what the word "coolest" means, and there can be no true argument made because you cannot argue against someones personal definition of "coolest," because they believe it's cool simply because they believe it's cool. These types of things do not beget arguments, they beget discussion, and this forum infers that it is for arguments, not statements and loosely associated claims.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that there really is nothing critical about discussing topics such as God, infinity, Eternity, or really any purely philosophical belief. This forum is not the "post-modern feel-goodery club" or the "comparative religion club." The stickies are quite clear about the intent of the forum. To make arguments within a belief set with the determination that everyone arguing will assume statements A, B, and C for arguments sake of statements D, E, and F clearly does not fall under the Petitio Principii problem, as clarification for those who might not think critically about what I said.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

This seems to (at least attempt to) throw philosophical discussion out the window entirely, and I hope it is not what you are trying to get at. I don't see anything inherently wrong with discussing life philosophies, at least not that would make doing so not "thinking critically". If people out there that partake in such discussions do not do so beyond "hay me 2" then they will be reprimanded accordingly by those appointed to do so while the rest of us can simply ignore them and move on at no cost to ourselves if we wish. Hopefully some will stick around and learn more about what they believe - perhaps they will even change their mind. The experience may not necessarily be beneficial to the highest thinkers of the forum but nothing in the rules says they're the only ones that should be allowed to benefit.

Besides, reducing allowed topics of discussion to those where truth values can be readily determined by those who partake risks drifting toward the Algebra homework help forum direction, and I don't think any of us want to see that.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

It does not throw philosophical discussion out the window. Nothing is thrown out the window. You've misunderstood what I'm saying. For instance, discussing "romanticism" in terms of its truth value is arbitrary, but discussing "romanticism" in terms of other values is fine, such as the impact it would have on a follower of the ideas of "romanticism." If we are to allow people to discuss arbitrary things in terms of truth value, we perpetuate a two-tiered system for this forum in which there are the morons and the teachers. I don't feel like perpetuating this place as the "A concise introduction on why your statement cannot be supported, 101" forum.

I didn't say where truth values can't be "readily determined." Nothing in what I said implies that. I said where truth values CANNOT be determined under any methodology. There is a very, very big difference. If you honestly don't understand the difference I will illuminate it for you.

I think that you are unsure about the types of things that I wish to see less of, and that is an error in my communication. I am trying to get rid of the periodical "Does God Exist?" threads for one, and a lot of the other threads that have the aroma of being brought up by a 14 year old or someone who is sophomoric in their belief set who come in with an agenda to make a claim, and then stick to that claim despite their lack of evidence, rhetoric, fluency, etc. It is one of the things that I think many of us feels plagues this forum, and I'm just trying to develop a concise logical defense against this kind of thing. Critical thinking is not for rampant apologetics, and I think we all commonly agree of that. I know what I am saying is probably a basic statement taken to technical levels, but I'm saying it for the purpose of discussion. This is a thread on logical fallacies, and thus I used the logical fallacy that is akin to this kind of apologetics in general, the Petitio Principii fallacy, to try and show the lack of argumentative value in someone who posts with that sort of aroma.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Here's a cool new logical fallacy I just randomly thought of... I can't seem to name it well though... seeing as I only speak English and French (not Latin... haha.)

The False Based on Use of Fallacies Fallacy - Believing that what the other debater is saying is wrong, because of their use of logical fallacies or lack of arguing ability.

Example Below:

Idiot: HEY GUYS 2 + 2 = 4 BCUZ IT IS!!!!!! KAY!?

In this situation, Idiot is right despite his immense lack of support behind what he said.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Well, first of all I object to your use of 'morons' in this context. Simply being unfamiliar with how to properly carry out a discussion does not make one a moron. That said, is there something wrong with a subsection of the forum topics following along student/teacher lines? How do you think students stop being students? When they've been taught what they need to know.

If we lock out everyone who isn't up to your stringent standards, how will any of them ever become more reasoning, critical thinkers?


Philosophy as a field has spent several thousand years discussing the potential ramifications of various theories whose truth values cannot be determined. I'm not sure where you feel justified in saying that such actions are bad or wrong, or that they shoudln't be allowed in this forum.

I, and quite a few others in this forum find such discussions interesting and enjoyable to take part in, even knowing full well that no conclusion is going to be reached in such a thread. Sometimes the process and the analysis of other viewpoints is worth doing in itself, even though no solid conclusion will result.

This forum has a lot of 14 year olds. A lot of threads will therefore be started by 14 year olds. It happens. Some of them will stick to their claim. This is not remotely a failing unique to 14 year olds. However, some of them do re-evaluate their beliefs in light of the reasonable evidence that this forum provides. Explain to me how that is not a boon to humanity in general? Many people have improved dramatically their ability to put forward a reasoned argument, and expanded their viewpoint substantially because they were -allowed- even -encouraged- to make their "sophomoric" thread.

Some sort of petition or other source to back up the claim that -many- people would like to see well over half of the kinds of threads made here be completely disallowed would be warranted here, I think.

Um...apologetics is an integral part of any and every philosophical or critical discourse. Apologetics is the process of addressing objections which have been stated or are likely to be stated in opposition to your point. If nobody practiced apologetics, we'd see a thread go:
I make statement A
I object, on grounds B
Um...I make statement A!

Apologetics is the art of dealing with objection B within the context of statement A, and without the ability to respond to people's objections, CT would stop being about discussion or debate and start being a collection of un-responded to essays.

So here it looks like you're trying to forward the claim that "Everybody who practices apologetics begs the question to do so" Which is clearly hogwash. You've practiced apologetics in this very thread, as soon as you said that you were forming "a defense" against "this kind of thing." You were anticipating an objection to your stated point, and then addressed it in advance. That's one of the most common ways to practice apologetics.

You'll forgive my saying so, but this entire post sequence comes across as quite superior and elitist. To claim that some large number of the threads in this forum ought not to be allowed simply because they occasionally -start- speaking to some larger context than you feel they ought to?!

(Further, calling people morons, your line about 'those who do not have the capacity to grasp what I'm explaining', and your dramatic overuse of "hundred-dollar words" doesn't lend you the credibility you seem to think it does. Instead of seperating yourself from the "14 year old aroma" you disdain so much, you instead paint yourself with a "14 year old with a thesaurus" aroma that is pretty unappealing itself.)

A thread entitled "Does God Exist?" implies a question that has no concrete answer. Yes, we know. Presumably the person who made the thread also knows that. If there -were- proof, the answer would already be known.

But please, explain to me how discussion along the lines of "If God -did- exist, what would the ramifications be" and "If God -didn't- exist, what would the ramifications be?" is somehow not worthy of you or this forum.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.

This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.

And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church, and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument. I have no problems with the defense of an argument.

My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.

And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.

In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.

You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum.

Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

dont mak fun o me.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

People use the former, are corrected, and either learn from it, and contribute, or don't learn from it, and are generally summarily ignored. If the other random people pile on random comments, what should you care? Just do as we do, pass the thread over in favour of more appropriate discourse, and it will eventually sink down off the page, or be closed by a mod.

So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

Christian apologetics is as large a field as it is, because christianity is a large religion, and has many supporters as well as many detractors. I hardly think that constitutes "rampant" apologetics.

Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

But this is the fundamental definition of apologetics. If you have a problem with apologetics but no problem with defending your argument, perhaps you should restate your argument in a way that actually says what you want it to.

People who post threads whose only support assumes you grant them their view as correct tend to attract two things: People pointing out the untenability of the argument and mods closing the thread, depending on who got to it first. Many times, if the more practiced critical thinkers don't want to turn the discussion into something more valid, the thread is simply closed. At the worst case, it lives on the front page for a week or two, with the odd person poking their head in to correct the more egregious errors, and try to get them onto a useful track. I fail to see how this is necessarily a bad thing.

If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as youv'e taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

I think I've done a fairly adaquate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. As Abraham Lincoln said: "For the people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like." I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?

Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.

I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.) It sends the message that the forum expects more. That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.

I have misapplied the term.

I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.

At this point I think if we continue to keep arguing this point it will go further off on a tangent than we already, but I think that there is a personal disagreement here, and not necessarily a logical one. Yes, I know it disposes people against me, but sometimes a dry insult makes a rhetorical effect, sometimes an insult invokes humor. Sometimes it may do exactly what you're saying, but that's a case by case thing, not a blanket rule. Just like my choice of inflammatory words and pretension are not always used and applied the same way. In this instance, it worked for my intended purposes. If I were to do this in the exact same manner repeatedly it would not work.

No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.

It does not necessarily change to suit just myself. This was based on conversations with upstanding, regular forum members (of FFR in general) and what we felt to be the problem with Critical Thinking. I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..." The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.

I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.

I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

"Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement."

And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin?

Also, your standards are way too high for an online DDR simulator site, and I also think that if stricter standards were adopted, we'd be cutting out the majority of users from CT, and some wouldn't even know why. If you think the quality of FFR's CT forum is too low, then I'm sure there're thousands of higher quality CT threads to frequent where you'd fit in better. If not, feel free to start more threads of your own, and ignore the stupid ones.


Anyways, about the OP, I totally thought I had some inkling of an idea what it meant when someone said something like "That's just a straw man fallacy" when I totally didn't. I've learned a lot of new terms.

What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory?

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Since the moderators have direct vested authority from Synth, it is absolutely a case that it is invalid because the moderators don't like it. The original quote you're paraphrasing loses some of its elan when you apply it to a situation in which the "god" in question is provably here and exercising authority in an objective measurable way. In its original context, your quote was trying to get at a question of whether objective morality exists outside of even the Gods, or if what is right and wrong is simply an arbitrary creation of the gods. Well, on FFR, Synth makes rules, we follow them or leave or are made to leave, as simply as that. He could state that everyone must speak in rhyme or be banned forever, and we would -have- to comply or face the consequences.

As soon as you say "This is invalid" and not "I think this is invalid" you are assuming some level of authority. You are not claiming authority by disagreeing with authority, you are claiming authority by making absolute statements about what is and is not acceptable in these threads. My statements aren't even necessarily agreeing with authority, and certainly aren't assuming authority, I'm just pointing at the existing authority and saying "There are authorities, take it up with them"


That will almost certainly result in a) Many locked threads and b) Very few unlocked threads and c) Very few active participants in this forum.

Does it actually expect more, or do you just wish that it would?
The example you keep quoting is both one that we know you're making (So you can stop quoting it every time) and one that is explicitly stated in the rules of the forum as being not allowed by the rules of the forum. (So I don't know why you keep bringing it up)

Perhaps instead of reading the posts -below- the original post, you might try reading the original post, which clearly seperates the two. Alternatively, you could read the discussion about how they are different, and by then seeing my edit (which took place -after- that discussion) in conjunction with the discussion, to critically evaluate the situation, and conclude that I was convinced, changed my mind, and edited the main post to reflect that.

"Taking great pains" doesn't involve pain or pains in the sense you seem to think it does. "Taking great pains to" is analogous to "Going to great lengths to" or even simply "Going out of your way to" It doesn't imply difficulty of process, it implies you writing a very long-winded and overly verbose statement when a private message to the usual forum moderators would have been just as good.

And limiting the creation of topics yet further will somehow change that? Suddenly a loyal cadre of philosophers in exile will come spilling in from the Garbage Bin where they've been waiting for the chance to finally recreate the Aristotalian academy they've been dreaming of?

I'm making a claim about the beliefs of many people, not just my own, despite nobody else jumping on this bandwagon once I got the ball rolling, and despite my not furnishing names of these old CT veterans who've been turned away by all this chaff in the forum?

Well, this could have and likely should have been a new thread created specifically for this point, rather than a hijacking of an existing thread that was intended primarily to be a simple resource listing informal logical fallacies, but I'm happy to defend the right of less "qiualified" critical thinkers to discover the way they should do things by having them pointed out during the process of discussion, instead of making mods lock a thread and then spell out exactly what things they did right or wrong, so they can try again.

I'd rather have 9 bad threads out of 10, in which we slowly turn them into good threads by demonstration, example, and helpfulness, than have 10 good threads, and 90 locked threads.


The shortcomings that are usually the case when applying inductive logic, and why deductive logic is generally stronger and more useful a tool.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I think that what Vendetta was getting at is saying that begging the question is very often done through circular logic, which is one of the ways you can beg the question. it doesn't need another label, the one is just a subtype of the other.

Well...you don' so much 'appeal' to fallacies, as you do fall afoul of them. I'm not sure how the appeal of yours would work...The appeal to probability is when you conclude that because it is possible for something to happen, that its happening is inevitable. (This is a fallacy because there is no way to prove that it is inevitable simply because there is a chance that it will happen) While chaos theory (correct me if I'm wrong) tends to state that outcomes are inherantly unpredictable, which seems to -support- why the appeal to probability is a fallacy.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I think it was quite clear that I was always stating my belief. Whether or not I title each claim with "I believe this..." or "I think this..." is arbitrary given the content we are discussing. That kind of label is necessary for things such as math. You can assume, and have, that I believed it. Anyone who reads my post automatically assumes that it is my own personal belief. And there is no doubt in my mind that had I, or had I not "claimed" authority, that the argument would still remain the same in terms of the content value, and be objected in the same way. This point is moot. I don't have authority, so even if I did imply that I "claim" it, it doesn't make any difference. It is readily apparent that I don't have authority.

That's a very good question, and I'm honestly not sure. But I will deliberate on it and tell you in a PM sometime. The latter is obviously true, but whether or not it practically does expect more would take a bit of thought to conclude.

That is my mistake.

I hope it is clear that we both intend for the same thing, though. Our goals are not different: higher level of content and thinking. Methodology is where we differ. So don't think I am at odds with you for your goals, or methods for that matter, I just am seeking a more effective method, for I think yours isn't as effective as others might be.

I feel that we are really becoming overly tangential at this point, so if you would like to continue this discussion, please send me a PM. If this were the original topic of discussion, I would have no problem continuing on, but I think that at this point the argument is more personal than anything, so if you wish to continue, don't hesitate to in a PM.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I can see much of this has been covered. However, my english teacher offered me this site which has even more thorough explanations of logical fallacies. Thanks to gmail I can retrieve it in my archives :-)

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

To add to the list: tl;dr symptom. Don't go into Critical Thinking forums if you have this.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I don't think it quite falls under any of the two categories you have suggested. It is basically, someone being lazy, and not reading the entire argument or entire thread before replying with a counter argument, which was probably already used in the thread, or was not targeted towards the general issue in the thread because they did not read it. It isn't "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position", its more like "I'm lazy and want to bring up my post count" or something.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Well, this is a list of the "informal fallacies of logic" and the general philosophical community hasn't recognized tl;dr as a formal objection to an arguement *grin*

I think that tl;dr falls under the actual forum rules dictating that every post must be about something, and address the subject at hand.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

But tl;dr is apart of the subject at hand.

The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read :).

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

lets not start a debate in a topic about logical fallacies...

I'll just agree with what Devon says

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

A post to that effect is non-contributory and would be deleted for breaking the CT forum rule dictating that all posts must contribute to the discussion.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#hominem

Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything.

I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

What about appeal to authority? Where people conclude that something is right because someone in power or of higher authority than them said it. Because the president says it's true, it is true!

And what about when someone says that since something can be interpreted multiple ways, it isn't true and there is no true interpretation. Since this huge metaphor is confusing and can be interpreted many different ways, there is no true interpretation of the subject.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

... what about the lack of appeal to authority?

EDIT: Just in case you get jumped to Ad Hominem (which you should, it's what the link is designed to do), remember, up scrolling is your friend. Link contains every appeal and every other logical fallacy you'll ever need.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Thank you so much for this. I have no doubt in my mind that I will be quoting this. <3

Do you mean occur simultaneously?

Edit: Ohcrap. I just fed a bump. Mahbad :<

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I know this a long bump, but I want to point something out.

So are you saying that if I give a completely biased survey (ex. according to a group of marijuana users, 100% admit to smoking marijuana), as long as I mention the bias, it's no longer a fallacy? I don't understand this.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Okay: Let's say I say, "After taking a poll of 1038 citizens over the age of 18, 100% admitted to smoking marijuana", and then use said poll to say everyone smokes pot.

That's a fallacy.

Now, change "citizens" to "marijuana users".

Instead of a fallacy, it's now just a plain wrong conclusion.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I did not read all the posts so forgive me if there is any repitition.

I feel as though the impression that this thread has created is that fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, which is not the case. Maybe it would benefit the discussion if the concepts of validity and truth were explained along with the levels of "goodness" of an argument (validity, consistancy, sound, good). I am assuming that my terms will be wrong, but hopefully everyone understands what I am saying.

An argument can be valid but have a false conclusion.
An argument can be sound and contain a fallacy.
-----These are the types of concepts I think should be explained in the thread before going into deep discussion on the effects of logical fallacies.

Also, I know there are different ways to pick fallacies out of an argument, but I could not explain them myself. The three ways I can think of off the top of my head are counterexamples, recognizing faulty structure in arguments, and some sort of 'logical tree'. If someone could explain the 'logical tree' (If anybody knows what I am talking about), I would love to learn how to use it.

side notes:
When it comes to God, aliens, and many other topics, there is still the fallacy of proving non-existence.

I did not look closely at the list of fallacies, but I do not think I saw circular reasoning.

Would anybody like to discuss the argument "I think, therefore I am"?

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

The intention of the thread is within the context of "A valid argument" for the purposes of this flash rhythm game's critical thinking subforum full of highschoolers, and isn't really intended to get into the depths of formal or symbolic logic, etc.

Yes, an argument can be semantically valid and have an invalid conclusion. Yes an otherwise sound argument can have one or more fallacies present, and the intention here was never to suggest that those things are not true.

The purpose of this sticky is simply to say "Here are some of the things you can do, thinking they are okay, but which aren't, and detract from whatever point you're trying to make" for the sole purpose of avoiding those things wherever possible in what is pretty much a completely informal discussion group.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I absolutely agree with everything you just posted.

Unfortunately, I am not blessed with writing ability, especially when it comes to thought organization.

I was just trying to spark responses that provide information that I would find interesting. (I feel that I can get a better understanding of certain topics if different people explain them)

Forgetting everything that I previously posted, I do still feel that distinguishing truth from validity would benefit readers. (I've seen mutliple posts, even outside this thread, where these have been mixed up)

----Thanks for reading and responding to my post

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Well if you assume that since we're pretty much always discussing actual events, or actual concepts, and formulating our opinions on them, if you simply assume that for the purposes of this forum, something is valid insofar as it is true, that will pretty much cover it.

I'm sure people could put forward some false but semantically valid arguments in our discussions, but nobody ever does, since we're typically presenting our own personal opinions on subjects.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I think you should add in the appeal to motive (a type of ad hominem circumstantial) just because it is ludicrously common. In fact, I think it may be even more common than the insult-style ad hominem that's written in guides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I remember this thread lol @ me 3.5 years ago.

Also a list of fallacies is really not very helpful in improving people's thinking and understanding because it doesn't serve to make a person more rational it just gives them ammunition for Fully General Counterarguments So I Don't Have To Read What You Said (tm)

Same goes for a list of biases.

You should probably just list the sequences page from lesswrong because they give better context and understanding of these issues: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

A list of fallacies is good. It is always nice to reply to a post by noticing that the person before you has used a logical fallacy and then posting a link to this thread.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

This is exactly what a Fully General Counterargument So I Don't Have To Read What You Said (tm) is.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I was very tickled with reading through this thread. These are discussions I strive for in a forum with a great member base. I miss discussions that don't simply break out into internet yelling matches. As of late, all the forums or news threads I see are just about ad hominems and hatred of everything. Disgusting.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Front attack = Human's primary defense system.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Notice I was referring to my opinion of forums I've visited that I see people just starting violent arguements. I'm not telling anyone that is how everything is. It is simply my opinion that all my favorite regular spots to read news and such have just turned into childish never ending arguements. It's really silly to ME, how I see no civility in internet conversation. Like for instance, Youtube. It seems as if people only comment to troll. I'm sure people can agree with this. It's just ridiculous. To ME.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Posted almost a year ago, and it is technically a subset of the ad hominem (note the disclaimer at the bottom of the OP), but I agree that it is encountered frequently enough to warrant special mention. One example of this arose during the "Eternal Second" game between U-M and MSU a few years back, when MSU was able to run in the winning touchdown because the clock operator, who was wearing an MSU hat, stopped the clock with one second to go when he shouldn't have. Cue speculation about the clock operator throwing the game in favor of his beloved Spartans.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Needed bump because I found this GEM today.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages

Useful definitions of things like the difference between a valid and a sound argument, as well as charming illustrations of each fallacy at work.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

That was a very refreshing read, thank you :)

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Ooh! Got a new logical fallacy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Playing devils advocate, I think that the person making such a ridiculous claim in the first place should attempt to formulate their argument such that the ending conclusion doesn't seem as ridiculous. For example, the claim that "1+2+3+4+...=-1/12" sounds incredibly absurd without any other context. However, properly taking the steps necessary to build up to a such a conclusion can make the statement of the conclusion seem not as far-fetched.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

Nice it would be good. that's nice and informative about Logical Fallacy and You.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

This is correct in the informal fallacy aspect, yeah. If I was arguing with like Ben Shapiro I'd probably pretty frequently be like "hahaha you're fucking stupid but that's not why you're wrong! You're wrong because of xyz..."

However, in the field of rhetoric, it might be seen as a fallacy TOO. After all, the words "fucking stupid" DO have a connotation to them, one that could reasonably undermine the audience's perception about the argumentation of that person. The "fallacy" might be seen as present even if you don't make that explicit connection, since, like so many rhetorical strategies, the subtext and implicit meaning of that attack serve to undermine your opponent's ethos, which directly connects with their perceived correctness.

EDIT: To be clear I'm in the "not a fallacy" camp since I've studied more as a logician than a debater, but the issue isn't always clear-cut depending on what angle a certain person comes from.

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

13 years later, dbp swoops in with the dope clarification

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I miss Chrissi

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

DBP setting the record straight, decades be damned

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

agreed

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
 

I know a person or two who ought to read that list in the OP.

Oh also, nice bump.