04-13-2007, 03:59 PM | #1 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
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. Last edited by devonin; 01-4-2009 at 10:09 AM.. Reason: Made better some of the defintions and examples. |
04-13-2007, 04:52 PM | #2 | |
FFR Player
|
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
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-13-2007, 07:21 PM | #3 |
FFR Player
|
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".
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! Last edited by Chrissi; 04-13-2007 at 07:24 PM.. |
04-13-2007, 07:22 PM | #4 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 32
Posts: 504
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
I vote for a sticky.
|
04-13-2007, 08:44 PM | #5 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
|
|
04-13-2007, 11:58 PM | #6 | |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
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. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 04-14-2007 at 10:40 AM.. |
|
04-14-2007, 01:18 AM | #7 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
It would seem to me that an Ad hominem attack is simply each individual instance of Ad Hominem fallacy.
|
04-14-2007, 10:40 AM | #8 |
Little Chief Hare
|
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?
|
04-14-2007, 03:33 PM | #9 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
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.
|
04-14-2007, 03:50 PM | #10 |
FFR Player
|
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.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
04-14-2007, 03:53 PM | #11 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
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.
|
04-14-2007, 03:55 PM | #12 |
FFR Player
|
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.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
04-14-2007, 03:56 PM | #13 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
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?
|
06-30-2007, 05:18 PM | #14 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
I say that this should be stickied.
|
06-30-2007, 05:38 PM | #15 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
|
07-1-2007, 01:55 AM | #16 | |
Sectional Moderator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-1-2007 at 02:12 AM.. |
|
07-1-2007, 03:24 AM | #17 | |
Ryoko Shintani is #1!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transbaal Galaxy
Age: 35
Posts: 403
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
07-1-2007, 07:18 PM | #18 | ||
Sectional Moderator
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-1-2007 at 08:13 PM.. |
||
07-2-2007, 08:56 AM | #19 |
Lol Hellbeat
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here
Age: 33
Posts: 212
|
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. |
07-2-2007, 01:45 PM | #20 | |||||||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Logical Fallacy and You!
Quote:
If we lock out everyone who isn't up to your stringent standards, how will any of them ever become more reasoning, critical thinkers? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by devonin; 07-2-2007 at 01:47 PM.. |
|||||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|