Logical Fallacies

[Philemon]

Hey everyone,

Debate can get kind of sticky. Having read through numerous forums on diverse topics over the years, I've regularly seen people accused of engaging in various forms of logical fallacies. Around here, for instance, you'll regularly see people accuse others of engaging in ad hominems, for instance.

The various forms of logical fallacies are many - and I haven't personally been very educated as to what these logical fallacies are and why they are problematic. To correct this, I thought maybe I'd buy a good book on the subject and was browsing a number of books on critical thinking on Amazon, but since many of them are college textbooks costing over a hundred dollars, I decided to go to wikipedia for some free information: List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought it might be interesting to start a thread on the subject to and to collaborate in creating an exhaustive list of fallacies and relevant examples in order to heighten our sensitivity to fallacious reasoning - therefore sparing ourselves unneccesary anguish and lack of clarity as we delve the depths of the paranormal together.

Any thoughts?

[Pollux]

Holy crap, what a list.
Looking at that list I think no conversation ever can be made without referring to one or more fallacies in that list.
I think many times debates get side-tracked by endless discussion whether something said was a fallacy, with a fancy Latin name, or not.


Some fallacies there have some funny names though, like If-by-whiskey or Black swan blindness, Texas sharpshooter fallacy , Chronological snobbery.

[Arouet]

Just a point on ad hominem. I've seen it used wrongly quite a bit around here. An ad hominem fallacy is not just insulting someon. An insult is an insult. An ad hominem is where a personal characteristic is used as a response to someone's argument.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Just a point on ad hominem. I've seen it used wrongly quite a bit around here. An ad hominem fallacy is not just insulting someon. An insult is an insult. An ad hominem is where a personal characteristic is used as a response to someone's argument.

More importantly, its only a fallacy because it falls under the umbrella of a nonsequitur argument. Its only a fallacy if the characteristic you are pointing out in no way supports the premise. Personal characteristics can be pointed out out if it is relevant to the premise.

[sparky]

Here is a good example of an Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

[Bernardo]

I highly recommend this deeply erudit source: Dilbert's Logical Fallacies
Trust me, nothing beats it in clarity, reason, depth, and sheer amusement.

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

I highly recommend this deeply erudit source: Dilbert's Logical Fallacies
Trust me, nothing beats it in clarity, reason, depth, and sheer amusement.

That was hilarious, thank you.

[Johann]

I personally like to steer away from accusing fallacies. It just stirs the pot, gets people defensive, and often misconstrues their arguments. The likelihood that the person you are debating with is making several basic errors of logic per each couple posts is very small, yet I have seen people claim such before. Too often, trying to show fallacial reasoning is simply an exercise in picking the worst part of you adversaries' arguments, inflating them, and creating a charicature of what he or she said - which you can then claim is wrong in basically any way you desire. This itself is a fallacy of sorts. You will quickly see that those who make great use of labeling their opponent's arguments as fallacial are just blowing steam.

Additionally, much that gets called a 'fallacy' around here is just another perspective in disguise. For example, it has always been a mystery to me why bringing another person's expert experience into a debate is "an appeal to authority"; what does that even mean? Such a claim is usually used by people who are being confronted with an expert's knowledge on a subject, and cannot explain why that expert should hold the opinion he/she does. It then becomes an easy out to dismiss his/her expertise as totally invalid by simply accusing the fallacy that everyone has learned to parrot.

Instead of making such a trivially unjustifiable assertion, people faced with the so-called "appeal to authority" should try to explain why the people referenced hold the opinions that they do. For example, why does Murray Gell Mann not beleive in psi? Because he has never, to my knowledge, done any significant research on the subject! There is the counter-argument.

If someone makes a list of high profile scientists who were mystics, well then maybe there is something to mysticism! Further exploration of these scientist's lives would then be necessary to ascertain why they held the beliefs that they did.

That a life's worth of experience can be dismissed with a single word is one of the greatest intellectual fallacies in our world today.

- Johann

[Philemon]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

I highly recommend this deeply erudit source: Dilbert's Logical Fallacies
Trust me, nothing beats it in clarity, reason, depth, and sheer amusement.

Maybe it's because it's a Monday, but I'm really enjoying this one from your link:

8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

That's the sort of mood I'm in today!

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Johann

I personally like to steer away from accusing fallacies. It just stirs the pot, gets people defensive, and often misconstrues their arguments. The likelihood that the person you are debating with is making several basic errors of logic per each couple posts is very small, yet I have seen people claim such before. Too often, trying to show fallacial reasoning is simply an exercise in picking the worst part of you adversaries' arguments, inflating them, and creating a charicature of what he or she said - which you can then claim is wrong in basically any way you desire. This itself is a fallacy of sorts. You will quickly see that those who make great use of labeling their opponent's arguments as fallacial are just blowing steam.

Additionally, much that gets called a 'fallacy' around here is just another perspective in disguise. For example, it has always been a mystery to me why bringing another person's expert experience into a debate is "an appeal to authority"; what does that even mean? Such a claim is usually used by people who are being confronted with an expert's knowledge on a subject, and cannot explain why that expert should hold the opinion he/she does. It then becomes an easy out to dismiss his/her expertise as totally invalid by simply accusing the fallacy that everyone has learned to parrot.

Instead of making such a trivially unjustifiable assertion, people faced with the so-called "appeal to authority" should try to explain why the people referenced hold the opinions that they do. For example, why does Murray Gell Mann not beleive in psi? Because he has never, to my knowledge, done any significant research on the subject! There is the counter-argument.

If someone makes a list of high profile scientists who were mystics, well then maybe there is something to mysticism! Further exploration of these scientist's lives would then be necessary to ascertain why they held the beliefs that they did.

That a life's worth of experience can be dismissed with a single word is one of the greatest intellectual fallacies in our world today.

- Johann

+1 Hear, hear