logical fallicies

[nathan]

Of all the boards I've been on I like SFReader the best. Part of the reason is the lengths people go to in order to remain civil. This isn't only the case though the finger could never be pointed at any particular person as I happen to be as guilty as the next poster at times.

I thought I'd post this brief excerpt of logical fallicies as way of pointing out how disagreements can be kept "civil" and "on tract". While they are structured "formally" I'm not attempt to put "rules of behavior" I'm just pointing these out as good neighbor or good faith things like "don't lie."

Some maynot, for whatever reason, realized these understandings existed. If they sound like crap--please say so.

The links are wiki for convience but cruise down the list and see if you recognize any.

VIEW IMAGE (http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/bloodstone2.jpg)
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) interview with Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

[nathan]

In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_logic), a formal fallacy or a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) which renders the argument invalid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity). A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy), which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise_%28argument%29).


The term fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.


The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) or causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) can be said to commit a formal fallacy.


Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) or intellectual or psychological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences.


A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory); see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_%28diplomacy%29) between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.


These fallacies are used in many forms of modern communication where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs. Examples in the mass media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) today include but are not limited to propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda), advertisements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertisement), politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), and opinion news shows.

VIEW IMAGE (http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/bloodstone2.jpg)
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) interview with Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

[nathan]

Argument from fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) "ad logicam"

Affirming the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) or Denying the antecedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
Faulty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization) Inductive fallacies such as

Biased sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample)
Half-truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth)
Hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)
Misleading vividness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)
Package-deal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy) or False dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)
Proof by example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example)
Data-snooping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-snooping_bias)
Questionable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause) Informal causal fallacies

Begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), circular logic "petitio principii"
Correlation implies causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)
Appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) "ad consequentiam"
Appeal to force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_force) "ad baculum"
Appeal to probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability) & Slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
Informal Relevance fallacies

Irrelevant conclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)
Straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)
Ad hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothesis)
Argument from ignorance, incredulity, belief, conviction... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) "ad ignorantiam"
Appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) like Appeal to fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear), Appeal to flattery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery), Appeal to pity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity), Appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature), Appeal to spite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite)...
Wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)
Appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) or Appeal to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)
"Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)" ? Attacking the person rather than the argument
Appeal to the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) "ad populum"
Appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) "ad antiquitatem"
Informal Verbal fallacies


VIEW IMAGE (http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/bloodstone2.jpg)
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) interview with Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

[nathan]

Besides the personal attack and the strawmen I personal hate this one which can also including "loading" your statement with so many fallicies you try to wear your oppenant down.


Proof by verbosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity), sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.


If you have to coninutal spend time and energy correcting fallicies the argument then cannot be advanced.





Just thoughts.


VIEW IMAGE (http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/bloodstone2.jpg)
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) interview with Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

[davidolson22]

Pretty funny.

Usually arguments on this type of forum (but not this one) rely heavily on the straw man argument. Politicians also rely heavily on this type of argument, IMO.

read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html

Part dark, part light. And gooey in the middle.

[nathan]

Judgmental language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmental_language)

Can be an ugly tactic as can "Poof by Popularity" as in when the arguer takes on the mantle of speaking for "the masses" or more generically "everyone" in an attempt to make the propent of the argument a "lone voice" or "only one."

The problem is bad enough when the concepts are broken with good intentions. They allow discussions to drag out forever as one side or the other builds in "trapdoors" by using the fallacy and then deny that the proof against them.

I can certainly be guilty of that myself.

Its worse when these kind of things are used on purpose as deliberate rhetorical stradegies, usually by people who realize they're loosing an debate. Then it becomes childish and occassional ugly.

I would hope SFReader remains such an "ugly" free zone by intent, if not always practice.

I'm civic minded that way /emoticons/tongue.gif

VIEW IMAGE (http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/bloodstone2.jpg)
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) interview with Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."