Avoiding logical fallacies

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Zerotheory, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. #1 Zerotheory, Jun 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
    So you're having a debate and your argument just isn't working. You're being accused of ad homs, strawmanning, and red herrings. What the fuck are these people talking about?

    Let me tell you then.

    A logical fallacy is an approach to making an argument or point by breaking rules that are known to not be sound in reasoning and logic. There are many many of these fallacies but I'll list and describe some of the main ones.

    Ad Hominem (the argument against the man)
    Attacking the person's character instead of attacking the argument.
    Examples:
    "Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school."
    "You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?"

    Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc (After this, therefore, because of this)
    This one is a favorite of mine. Drawing a conclusion that two or more events are related when there is no real proof they are.
    Examples:
    "We ate fish tacos last night and this morning my head was pounding. Fish tacos give me headaches I guess" (the person isn't qualified to conclude fish tacos were definitely the cause of the headache)
    "I had a dream I won the lotto, so I bought 20 scratch off tickets and one ended up being a winner for 500 bucks! I must be psychic."

    circular logic (The conclusion of the argument is the same as the premise)
    Examples:
    "The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible."

    Ad baculum (appeal to the stick or force)
    An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force is used to justify the conclusion.
    Examples:
    "If you don't repent your sins you will burn for eternity in hell, therefore you MUST repent."
    "Don't argue with the king's policies or he will lock you up and toss away the key. Therefore keep your mouth shut."

    Ad lapidem (throwing stones)
    Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving reason why it is absurd.
    Examples:
    "You don't believe in a divine being? That's just fuckin' retarded!"
    "You don't think marijuana is addictive? Are you crazy!? Pull your head out of your ass."

    Untestability fallacy
    Argument based on assertions that cannot be tested.
    Examples:
    "You're not old enough to really understand life."
    "Eating beans prouts may not kill you today, but one day you may eat a poisonous one and die. Therefore you should just avoid eating bean sprouts."
    "All atheists secretly believe in a god."

    Red Herring
    An attempt to divert the argument or change the subject
    Examples:
    Person A- "Bush should have been tried as a war criminal."
    Person B- "What about all the other people in the world that commit crimes and get away with it? What about that justice not served? In fact, the murder rate in Romania is bla bla yack yack....."

    loaded question
    Asking a question that presupposes something that isn't yet proven.
    Examples:
    "Do you still beat children up with baseball bats?"
    "Why is Obama afraid to admit he was born in Kenya?"

    Straw Man
    Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man.
    Examples:
    "Of course evolution isn't true. No one has ever seen a reptile turn into a bird."
    "Liberals just want a big nanny state."

    Ad Populum (appeal to the people)
    Concluding an argument is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.
    Examples:
    "Most people in the US believe marijuana is a dangerous drug therefore it is."
    "Majority of the world believes there is a divine being, they can't all be wrong."

    Subjectivist Fallacy
    Using the fact that one wants to believe something to be true as evidence of it's truth.
    Examples:
    "We are all beings of spirit and light."

    Person A-"We are an electro-chemical system."
    Person B-"That may be true to you, but that's not true to me. That's just your opinion."

    negative proof (argument from ignorance)
    Appealing to lack of proof of the negative. X is true because there is no proof X is false.
    Examples:
    "There is no evidence Glenn Beck didn't rape and kill a woman in 1984."
    "You can't prove god doesn't exist!"

    There are many many more but these are some of the most common. If you're in a debate and you see these tactics being used, call them out on their fallacies.

    ----------

    Newly added fallacies as submitted by commenters.


    Argumentation ad misericordiam - (appeal to pity) Recommended by Dryice
    Using an emotion like pity, sympathy, or compassion for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
    Examples:
    "If you don't give me a job here, I can't donate to the starving children's fund! My life dream would be ruined."
    "Of course the judges should vote me winner of the chili cookoff, I've recently had a death in the family."

    false dilemma or false dichotomy - (either-or fallacy) Recommended by tongues
    An argument where only two choices are given when there are in fact more.
    Examples:
    "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
    "Either love your country with all it's problems or leave it."

    inductive fallacy - (Hasty Generalization) Recommended by mrgoodsmoke
    Fallacy committed when one comes to a quick conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
    Examples:
    "My town is mostly republican. Three of the five houses on my street have republican signs in them."
    "I did a survey in my town by going to three different Dentists and they all said Crest was the best toothpaste to use so Crest must be the best."
     
  2. I was wondering when this would be put here. Please sticky mods. :)
     
  3. Fantastic post!
     
  4. I like this.
     
  5. Thanks for putting up the info :)
     
  6. Reallly good post, +rep. :hello:
     
  7. The logical fallacy is mankind's greatest enemy. Every time we find a flaw in our logic, the species gets a little closer toward extinction. And every time I find a flaw in my own logic, I'm so glad to have found it.
     
  8. Now guys, I'm as much for the primacy of logic as anyone here, but at the same time, I've come to a conclusion about fallacies of the above sort after long and careful deliberation.

    The problem with these kinds of fallacies when it comes to determining the logic of sentences is the same problem that makes sentences sentences, and math math.

    Logic in it's true for is purely quantitative. Sentences are sort of shoved into a framework of quantification in order to illustrate the logical principles behind them, be they ones derived from moral foundations or things as simple as illustrating the law of identity in conjunction w/ the transitive property in order to teach what a valid deductive syllogism is.

    Logic is our map. Yet if we're not mathematicians, then sentences are our terrain.

    Some smart guy once said about language and reality that, "the map is not the terrain", (or something like that, maybe even in another language originally).

    Anywho, to make a long story short, and in order to illustrate the fallacious application of these kind of fallacies, I think it might be neat to start sub-threads in which one person or another tries to defend the application of one of these fallacies or another.

    I'm pretty sure it could be done.

    I doubt anyone here can produce a bit of meaningful language that isn't subject to a modal interpretation or another that puts it right there next to one fallacy or another.

    Yep....fallacies are just problems w/ language, that's how you know you're speaking and understanding a language.

    You can't make sentences that aren't subject to one fallacy or another.

    You just can't.
     
  9. Great video that im sure explains your point

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro]YouTube - Skewed views of science[/ame]


    Logic and reason ftw.
     
  10. Here's an interesting peice.

    Doxastic logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Also I posted this here because it's certainly logic, and logic is in the title of this thread, and if any, then only a few others.

    If I'm in any way pissing on someone's thread, MODS feel free to move, delete, or flame as you wish.

    Nice vid too btw buddah. I used to make little videos similar to that one to teach ethics to scientists when I was in college!
     
  11. #11 ChronicPooper, Jun 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2010
    sigh*...

    all will eventually be awakened... nothing singular is fact. Everything in existence is fact.

    Honestly I come here with prophetic visions not induced by dmt, or any other psychedelic, to warn you all that the course we are going will lead to that. Nothing I say is fact so don't assume I am being factual about anything, i'm no scientist to tell you everything, and even a scientist can't tell you factual information about any more than 1% of this universe.

    Peace all
     
  12. define existence.

    We know alot about the universe. We gain more knowledge everyday.
     
  13. Existence to me is everything and anything that can be perceived by any state of mind.

    We know? don't you mean scientists look at lines and dots on paper and figure shit out?

    ^^ that might be a fallacy right there but you dont need to be a scientist to know that one..

    How hard is it to set up an institute where science and spirit meet. In a scientifically controlled environment astral projection can be done and the projector can tell how the universe works in its entirety. Not through testing and looking at the universe through a microscope. Again there's no point for me to push this issue any further, all will awaken to the truth at some point. I can't operate truthfully, and honestly inside of a society full of liars, greed, ego, and no trust, and expect open mindedness towards anything.
     
  14. I got another for the list; (Because its very popular)
    Argumentation ad misericordiam, which is an appeal to pity.

    This with ad baculum, and ad populum are considered appeals to emotions. Copi and Cohen try to make that establishment in their Introduction to Logic. They all fail the relevance of an argument.
     

  15. Do you know how many scientists have tried to confirm something.. anything spiritual? MANY. They all fail to demonstrate anything spiritual existing. The ones that do think they've found evidence are later found they were duped by con-men claiming to be psychic or possessing some sort of power. James Randi has devoted a life time offering anyone 1 million dollars if they can prove they have some special powers. Psychics, dowsing rods, astral projection, the list really goes on as to how many self-proclaimed psychics he's debunked. To this day NO ONE has been able to successfully demonstrate they have an extraordinary ability.

    If you claim you have powers of divination, give James Randi a call, he'll be glad to give you 1 million dollars if you can demonstrate it in a controlled setting. If your next response is you don't want the money or won't demonstrate it for money then offer to donate it to charity.
    The burden of proof lies on the one that makes the assertion.
    You have made many assertions that I am highly skeptical of you being able demonstrate to be true.

    Could you show how you got that 1% figure as to what we know about the universe? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass like I believe?
     
  16. #16 SIRSOG, Jun 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2010
    ^^ I believe the reason for lack of discovering answers, is simply, a puzzle can not solve itself. But as for the defensive argueing.... so epic hahaha you pretty much just laid out ANY form of defense a troll/ or someone lacking knowledge just wanting to a. sound smart, or b. just argue, would use

    EDIT: and as for knowing/ discovering 1% of the universe, you are aware we have only explored 1% of the Mariana Trench, and its on earth....... They technically cant derive a number for % on the universe due to not being able to prove it ends, so, if for example, it is ever expanding, at almost the speed of light, you do realize, that, every few seconds, 10 billion square light years, becomes infinitesimally smaller than it was a few seconds before that.....
     
  17. When you obey the logical fallacies, arguements take on new life.
     
  18. zerotheory, if you love science so much why are you in the spirituality section trying to disprove everything with James Randi and through science?



    You are constantly being fallatic in this case having so much faith in one thing that you dont want to even regard there is a whole nother world out there besides our itty bitty science community in this MASSIVE yet oh so Tiny creation..

    So before you start a thread trying to disprove spirituality, just accept that you cannot prove it in the first place with science, you honestly answered all your own questions from past present and future with your last post...

    science this science that.. only science.. science is the way to go.. youre all crazy for assuming spirituality.. thanks man good talkin to ya, but I dont even see a reason for any kind of sticky like this.


    And wow, I am not literally saying through tested scientific evidence that EXACTLY 1% of our universe has been figured out. IM SAYING WE DONT KNOW SHIT AND WE WONT KNOW SHIT UNTIL WE DROP OUR DIFFERENCES AND WORK THA HECK TOGETHER!
     
  19. ^^^^ that last sentence, is the only truth there ever was
     
  20. Science has nothing to do with faith.
    He is welcome there if he wants.
    If you can't prove your spiritual talk to be true, thats your fault.
    Exactly 1% ? What if I were to say it was exactly 47% ? still no proof.
     

Share This Page