Logical Fallacy
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 7:22pm |
 Coolness: 53275 | Logical fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A fallacy is a way that a logical argument can go wrong and thereby fail to be valid or sound, or otherwise fail to properly support its claim. Arguments intended to persuade may be convincing to many listeners despite containing such fallacies, but they are nonetheless flawed. Recognizing these fallacies is sometimes difficult. This page should eventually list various types of fallacy -- a popular sport of debaters and logic text authors -- but just to introduce the notion of a logical fallacy, a few examples should suffice. There are many other fallacies than those listed here. Whole books have been written cataloguing fallacies, and traditional logic texts typically list a few dozen. Here is an example of a bad argument. Suppose James wanted to argue for the claim that all killing is wrong. Suppose he was giving this argument to a group of people who supported the death penalty: they think that some killing is fine, as punishment of the worst murderers. So James argues as follows: If one should never do X, all X is wrong. (X can be any action.) One should absolutely never kill. Therefore, all killing is wrong. The supporters of the death penalty would not be impressed by this argument. It commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. In the argument, James says that one should absolutely never kill. But to prove that, he would have to prove that all killing is wrong -- which is what he is trying to argue for. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusion will disagree with the premise that one should absolutely never kill. One might maintain to the contrary that, indeed, in some cases one actually should kill: it is our grim duty, an unfortunate yet necessary part of justice. The argument presupposes its conclusion: one of the premises assumes that the conclusion is true. This is an error in arguing. The kind of error has a name: begging the question. If James' argument begs the question, then in his argument he assumes the very thing that he is trying to argue for. Of course an argument that begs the question will not, or should not, convince anyone. Here is another example of a fallacy. Suppose Barbara argues like this: Andre is a good tennis player. Therefore, Andre is good -- a morally good person. Here the problem is that the word "good" has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Barbara says that Andre is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, she says that Andre is a morally good person. Those are clearly two different senses of the word "good." So, of course, the premise might be true while the conclusion would still be false: Andre might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally speaking. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the Fallacy of Equivocation. Some fallacies are used freely in the media and politics. For example, the argumentum ad hominem, or personal attack, is used when instead of refuting an statement, the person who made that statement is attacked. Every time a politician says to another politician, "You don't have moral authority to say that" is using that fallacy, not attacking the argument, but the person who uses it. Strictly speaking, this is a fallacy; but, arguably, the politician is not even making an argument, but is instead offering a moral rebuke. This is an example of the difficulty of helpfully and respectfully identifying fallacies as such; it is more difficult than it might at first appear, e.g. to a student armed with a list of fallacies. In the opposite direction is the fallacy of argument from authority. A classic example of this is the Ipse dixit -- "He himself (the master) said it" -- used through the Middle Ages in reference to Aristotle. A modern use of this is "celebrity spokepersons" in advertisements: that product is good because your favorite celebrity endorses it. Sometimes, however, an appeal to an authority is best construed not as a fallacy but as an appeal to expert testimony -- a type of inductive argument. This is another example of the difficulty of identifying fallacies as such. Typically, logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be written or rewritten so that they follow a valid argument form; and in that case, the challenge is to discover the false premise, which makes the argument unsound. There are some argument forms that are themselves invalid, however. One of the best-known examples is affirming the consequent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A list of fallacies: Ad hominem tu quoque Affirming the consequent Appeal to authority Appeal to belief Appeal to common practice (also Appeal to tradition) Appeal to consequences of a belief Appeal to emotion Appeal to fear Appeal to flattery Appeal to novelty Appeal to pity Appeal to ridicule Appeal to spite Bandwagon fallacy (also called Appeal to popularity) Begging the question (Circular argument) Biased sample Burden of proof Circumstantial ad hominem Composition Confusing cause and effect Correlation implies causation Division Equivocation False dilemma Gambler's fallacy Genetic fallacy Guilt by association Hasty generalization Ignoratio elenchi (aka Irrelevant conclusion) Lack of imagination Fallacy of many questions Middle ground Misleading vividness Naturalistic_fallacy non sequitur No true Scotsman Personal attack, or argumentum ad hominem Poisoning the well Prosecutor's fallacy Post hoc Questionable cause Red herring Reification (Hypostatization) Relativist fallacy Slippery slope Special pleading Spotlight Straw man Suppressed correlative Two wrongs make a right See also: fallacies of definition, good argument, validity, soundness, cogency, college logic, informal logic |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 7:37pm |
 Coolness: 340395 | this thread has been bened |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Unknown User replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 7:50pm |
| Coolness: 220 | take the time to look at it.
it`s pretty interesting |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 8:07pm |
 Coolness: 686320 | No, it's been Bened. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» El_Presidente replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 10:01pm |
 Coolness: 300055 | It is interesting.
In french we call them sophismes |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 10:13pm |
 Coolness: 201955 | Does punching someone over an argument count as "personal attack" ? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Tue Feb 4, 2003 @ 10:46pm |
| Coolness: 686320 | Isn't that an Ad Benonym attack? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 12:53am |
| Coolness: 53275 | wow, every time i post i get hate from spooky neoform n scotty p.
u guys should ban together into some kind of voltron-like social dysfunction accelarator. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 12:57am |
| Coolness: 340395 | yeah, WE'RE the social rejects... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 12:59am |
| Coolness: 686320 | By our powers combined, we form...
CAPTAIN AD-BENONYM! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 2:23am |
| Coolness: 53275 | yeah, WE'RE the social rejects...
no no no, i'm obviously the social reject. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 4:48pm |
 Coolness: 472535 | And i'm captain Galaksy ..
Interesting thoughts Ben, for real !! I'm so gothic i'm dead |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 6:29pm |
| Coolness: 149545 | and your point is?
what does this have to do with anything? are you saying that someone's arguments are unsound or invalid? also, how are you supposed to make a hypothesis without presuming a consequence? If I don't know anything about Sodium, but I make the hypothesis that Sodium does not burst into flame when it comes into contact with water, then my arguing so would inherently be wrong because I'm presupposing the conclusion? I don't see how that would make sense. How has science advanced itself in any way if all their arguments and hypotheses were inherently wrong on the basis that they made a statement on the conclusion? Logical Fallacy? OK. It makes sense though, I'm not saying it doesnt, but I'm not sure why you're posting it. Are you saying that all our arguments are wrong because we're presupposing that you're a junkie who can't be neared because you're unstable and just might attack us? dude, listen, don't take this as an ad hominem, because i had absolutely nothing against you until you hit my friend... now if you choose to form an opinion about me based on my textual attacks on you thats fine... but dont think this is unfounded |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:21pm |
| Coolness: 53275 | also, how are you supposed to make a hypothesis without presuming a consequence? If I don't know anything about Sodium, but I make the hypothesis that Sodium does not burst into flame when it comes into contact with water, then my arguing so would inherently be wrong because I'm presupposing the conclusion? I don't see how that would make sense. How has science advanced itself in any way if all their arguments and hypotheses were inherently wrong on the basis that they made a statement on the conclusion?
you are correct, logic does not make something right. it is simply a tool that is used to ensure that the method of achieving a conclusion was not invalid. you can have a valid argument with a false conclusion. valid argument: if it's raining, the streets are wet. if it werent raining and i said "well it's raining therefore the streets are wet" i would be making a logical argument with a false conclusion - because my premises were false. so you are right, logic is just a tool, nothing more. Logical Fallacy? OK. It makes sense though, I'm not saying it doesnt, but I'm not sure why you're posting it. Are you saying that all our arguments are wrong because we're presupposing that you're a junkie who can't be neared because you're unstable and just might attack us?
nope, i will only attack someone has made it abundantly CLEAR that he will antagonize me NO MATTER WHAT I DO. and that is actually the M.O. of most men. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:22pm |
| Coolness: 53275 | indeed afroka, i seem to remember sitting down and explaining to you my reasons immediately prior to punching neoform. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:31pm |
| Coolness: 149545 | yeah you did, but i still dont like the fact that you went and broke the physical barrier... words are one thing, but violence was uncalled for...
in my books, that makes me not like you too much... sorry man |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:35pm |
| Coolness: 53275 | hey man, that is understandable.
i dont want you to like me either, just understand me. and i'd like to think you did. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:39pm |
| Coolness: 149545 | i understood your reasoning for disliking ian and all that, i cannot, nor will not accept the decisions you made about it afterwaRDS...
violence does not solve any verbal disputes |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:53pm |
| Coolness: 53275 | ok, that is also understandable.
but understand this: i tried to solve the verbal dispute. i realllllllllllllllly did. i did it on a number of occassions, sometimes with several witnesses. i mean, i would be trying to solve it, and he would would respond by escalating shit. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Wed Feb 5, 2003 @ 10:55pm |
| Coolness: 201955 | So logically, you decided to punch him and make the whole situation much worse and more personal. |
Logical Fallacy
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
