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.