Forums → WEPR → Guide | Fallacies in Arguments

34	20881

offline

SirLegendary

16,585 posts

Duke

Posted February 14, '15 4:59pm UTC

What is a fallacy? The Introductions

These are the wrongs in an argument. They are often referred to as fake or deceptive types of arguments. Though sometimes arguments can be fallacious unintentionally, they are still arguably (to a certain extent) wrong. By pointing out fallacious statements, you can win whole arguments, or just avoid losing all together. This is actually very important in debating, and seeing as to how debating is a pretty big thing here, I decided to show everyone a piece of Critical Thinking and how you can seem like an expert debater (or just how to win arguments in swift words).

There is a long list of types of fallacies ahead, but even skimming through most of them grants you a lot of knowledge. Let's get started. These are mainly based on Logical fallacies. I left some of the fallacies that fall under other fallacies out because going into detail would be much more confusing than it should be for people to understand. After all, this isn't a a whole lesson on it, and I'm not a professor.

A lot of this came from my textbook knowledge from a course I took on critical thinking, but I had also done some further research on it. Covering the areas I know, and areas I had forgotten or did not know. Nevertheless, I tried to keep it as simple yet, helpful as possible.

Types of Fallacies

-- Ad Hominem Argument: This is the fallacy that can also be known as "personal attack." This is an attempt in arguing against someone through character or reputation. An example is "Mr. Tommas is greedy, of course he's the robber!"

-- Appeal to Closure: A tricky one to understand, this fallacy is where an argument is forced to be concluded, no matter how questionable it may seem, just to satisfy or give "closure" to those who are affected by it.

-- Appeal to Heaven: This fallacy is when it is stated in an argument that (a) God supports, approves, or ordered the actions or statements in ones standpoint. Example: "We are taking your land because God has given it to us". You can already see why it is not logical at all. (remember, this is all logically speaking.)

-- Appeal to Pity: A fallacy where the audience is urged to support the underdog. "My cute, little kitten was eaten by his large German Shepherd!"

-- Appeal to Tradition: The fallacy also commonly known as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is an argument that supports that something is right just because it has always been that way. "The word irregardless should be in the dictionary because people always use it."

-- Argument From Consequences: Arguing that something is false because of its consequences. Example: "Docter, I can't have cancer! I won't be able to live until I'm a hundred years old!"

-- Argument From Ignorance: Arguing that something is false because we don't or will never know if it is either true or false. Example: "The evolution theory is not true because we weren't there to see it."

-- Argument From Motives: Stating that an argument is invalid because of the questionable motives of the person stating these arguments. Example: Even though what Hitler did was morally wrong, the Jews did control a big portion of Germany's economy, he wasn't wrong about that just because his motives were to exterminate them.

-- Bandwagon: Arguing that something is right just because majority supports it. "Nike is better than Adidas because more people use their shoes."

-- Begging the Question: Also known as "Circular Reasoning." Arguing that something is correct be repeating the same thing in different words. Example: "God exists because the bible said so." Example 2: "I am the leader because I have the gun. I have the gun because I am the leader."

-- The Complex Question: Asking for a conclusion to something that first needs to be analyzed properly. Example: "Just answer me: Yes or No."

-- False Dilemma: Also known as Either-Or Reasoning, it is falsely offering only two possible outcomes even though there are more options to choose from. Example: "You're either with me, or against me."

-- Equivocation: Purposely failing to define one's terms. Or deliberately using words in a different sense from what the audience would understand. Example: "This fiend has committed acts of inhuman brutality. Human rights don't apply to inhuman fiends."

-- Essentializing: Arguing that what something is will always be that, and that's all it will ever be. Example: "All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100."

-- False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. Example: "Just like how my phone needs to charge, I need you to be with me."

-- The Half Truth: Deliberately missing out on important parts of an argument. "Example: This is very great country to live in because everything is so cheap." The statement misses out on the quality of everything in that certain country.

-- Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand. Example: "I'm bad at guitar because the government is not funding good musical education."

-- Overgeneralization: Incorrectly applying certain cases to all. Example: "These two students puked all over my front lawn last night, it just goes to show how irresponsible college students are."

-- Political Correctness: Assuming that the nature of something can be changed by changing its name. Example: Calling "Victims", "Survivors" instead.

-- Post Hoc Argument: Arguing that one thing is the cause of another because it came before or at the same time. Example: "Chuck Norris was born a day before WWII ended, therefore he was the cause of its end."

-- Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. Example: "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes!"

-- Reductionism: Oversimplifying something to make it seem what it isn't. Also known as sloaganism because many slogans have been used to appeal to the less educated. Example: "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit."

-- Scare Tactic: Using fear in particular to solidify or support your argument. Example: "If you don't take these medications you will die."

-- Slippery Slope: The fallacy of assuming that one thing always leads to another. Example: "If you both go out for coffee, you will end up getting married someday."

-- Snow Job: The action of proving a claim by giving the audience an immense amount of irrelevant facts.

-- Testimonial: Using a respected/well-known figure to support your claim even if he/she is not an expert in what you are talking about. Example: Using Cristiano Ronaldo's statement; "Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player." to support your claim that Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player.

-- Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: Assuming or jumping to conclusion that one thing exists if the other does. Example: "My brother now wears something on his headnand grew out his beard. He is definitely a Muslim."

-- Strawman: A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is. The rebuttal for the argument never actually touches the real target of the argument. Example:
"1. Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
2. Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
3. Trinitarianism is false."

-- Moving the goalposts: Dismissing the evidence for a claim because it does not meet a progressively greater demand for evidence. Example: "Sorry, but your 'missing link' is just one small piece of the puzzle. You haven't proven that this relates to either of the two groups. Why haven't you found those missing links?" (repeated for each subsequent piece of evidence).

Conclusions and Applying Knowledge into Arguments

By knowing what fallacies are, and bringing them into your intellectual arsenal, you can see through fake or wrong arguments and attack on that. there are many ways to look at an argument, and if counter reasoning isn't one at the moment, you can analyze it's structure and see if there is anything wrong with it. Think of it like adding an additional spell to your shortcuts. Or having a new weapon specialized in doing what your usual weapon cannot do.

You can even analyze your own arguments before posting and see the angles in which people can counter them. You can create near flawless, if not perfect, arguments which are hard to rebuttal. Fallacies play a big role in debating, and most of the time, people overlook the structure of their opponents arguments.

Hope I was some sort of help. Have a nice day!

[size=150]What is a fallacy? The Introductions [/size]

[size=150]Types of Fallacies[/size]

-- [b]Ad Hominem Argument:[/b] This is the fallacy that can also be known as "personal attack." This is an attempt in arguing against someone through character or reputation. An example is "Mr. Tommas is greedy, of course he's the robber!"

-- [b]Appeal to Closure:[/b] A tricky one to understand, this fallacy is where an argument is forced to be concluded, no matter how questionable it may seem, just to satisfy or give "closure" to those who are affected by it.

-- [b]Appeal to Heaven:[/b] This fallacy is when it is stated in an argument that (a) God supports, approves, or ordered the actions or statements in ones standpoint. Example: "We are taking your land because God has given it to us". You can already see why it is not logical at all. (remember, this is all logically speaking.)

-- [b]Appeal to Pity:[/b] A fallacy where the audience is urged to support the underdog. "My cute, little kitten was eaten by his large German Shepherd!"

-- [b]Appeal to Tradition:[/b] The fallacy also commonly known as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is an argument that supports that something is right just because it has always been that way. "The word irregardless should be in the dictionary because people always use it."

-- [b]Argument From Consequences:[/b] Arguing that something is false because of its consequences. Example: "Docter, I can't have cancer! I won't be able to live until I'm a hundred years old!"

-- [b]Argument From Ignorance:[/b] Arguing that something is false because we don't or will never know if it is either true or false. Example: "The evolution theory is not true because we weren't there to see it."

-- [b]Argument From Motives:[/b] Stating that an argument is invalid because of the questionable motives of the person stating these arguments. Example: Even though what Hitler did was morally wrong, the Jews did control a big portion of Germany's economy, he wasn't wrong about that just because his motives were to exterminate them.

-- [b]Bandwagon:[/b] Arguing that something is right just because majority supports it. "Nike is better than Adidas because more people use their shoes."

-- [b]Begging the Question:[/b] Also known as "Circular Reasoning." Arguing that something is correct be repeating the same thing in different words. Example: "God exists because the bible said so." Example 2: "I am the leader because I have the gun. I have the gun because I am the leader."

-- [b]The Complex Question:[/b] Asking for a conclusion to something that first needs to be analyzed properly. Example: "Just answer me: Yes or No."

-- [b]False  Dilemma:[/b] Also known as [b]Either-Or Reasoning[/b], it is falsely offering only two possible outcomes even though there are more options to choose from. Example: "You're either with me, or against me."

-- [b]Equivocation:[/b] Purposely failing to define one's terms. Or deliberately using words in a different sense from what the audience would understand. Example: "This fiend has committed acts of inhuman brutality. Human rights don't apply to inhuman fiends."

-- [b]Essentializing:[/b] Arguing that what something is will always be that, and that's all it will ever be. Example: "All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100."

-- [b]False Analogy:[/b] The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. Example: "Just like how my phone needs to charge, I need you to be with me."

-- [b]The Half Truth:[/b] Deliberately missing out on important parts of an argument. "Example: This is very great country to live in because everything is so cheap." The statement misses out on the quality of everything in that certain country.

-- [b]Non Sequitur:[/b] The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand. Example: "I'm bad at guitar because the government is not funding good musical education."

-- [b]Overgeneralization:[/b] Incorrectly applying certain cases to all. Example: "These two students puked all over my front lawn last night, it just goes to show how irresponsible college students are."

-- [b]Political Correctness:[/b] Assuming that the nature of something can be changed by changing its name. Example: Calling "Victims", "Survivors" instead.

-- [b]Post Hoc Argument:[/b] Arguing that one thing is the cause of another because it came before or at the same time. Example: "Chuck Norris was born a day before WWII ended, therefore he was the cause of its end."

-- [b]Red Herring:[/b] An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. Example: "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes!"

-- [b]Reductionism:[/b] Oversimplifying something to make it seem what it isn't. Also known as sloaganism because many slogans have been used to appeal to the less educated. Example: "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit."

-- [b]Scare Tactic:[/b] Using fear in particular to solidify or support your argument. Example: "If you don't take these medications you will die."

-- [b]Slippery Slope:[/b] The fallacy of assuming that one thing always leads to another. Example: "If you both go out for coffee, you will end up getting married someday."

-- [b]Snow Job:[/b] The action of proving a claim by giving the audience an immense amount of irrelevant facts.

-- [b]Testimonial:[/b] Using a respected/well-known figure to support your claim even if he/she is not an expert in what you are talking about. Example: Using Cristiano Ronaldo's statement; "Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player." to support your claim that Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player.

-- [b]Where there’s smoke, there’s fire:[/b] Assuming or jumping to conclusion that one thing exists if the other does. Example: "My brother now wears something on his headnand grew out his beard. He is definitely a Muslim."

-- [b]Strawman:[/b] A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is. The rebuttal for the argument never actually touches the real target of the argument. Example:
"1. Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
2. Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
3. Trinitarianism is false."

-- [b]Moving the goalposts:[/b] Dismissing the evidence for a claim because it does not meet a progressively greater demand for evidence. Example: "Sorry, but your 'missing link' is just one small piece of the puzzle. You haven't proven that this relates to either of the two groups. Why haven't you found those missing links?" (repeated for each subsequent piece of evidence).

[size=150]Conclusions and Applying Knowledge into Arguments[/size]

Hope I was some sort of help. Have a nice day!

34 Replies

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted February 19, '15 11:21am UTC

I wholeheartedly agree with Moving the goalposts being added - that one comes up quite a bit. I also agree with Matt's suggestion of changing the 'dichotomy' in false dichotomy to 'dilemma'. I genuinely just forgot the word dilemma existed when I made the original name-change suggestion.

I'm not sure about the overwhelming exception fallacy. That one seems like one where we would need context to determine where it is, in fact, a fallacy. So, in the example given, if something important hinged on the truth of the statement that all dogs have four legs, then I could see this fallacy coming into play. But notice the dialectic here, between Sue and Jane:

Sue: Here's an argument for (whatever)
Premise 1: All dogs have 4 legs
Premise 2: If all dogs have legs, then blah blah.
And so forth

Jane: But Sue - your first premise is false. Not all dogs have four legs!

At this point, Sue could revise premise 1, but then we could charge her with a number of fallacies or none at all (again, depending on the kind of argument on offer). The key thing I'm trying to point out is that that dialectic here is now about the falsity of a particular premise. The argument will have to be revised, or else it would be an unsound argument. And then we can just charge it with being ad hoc or something else.

The poisoning the well fallacy is weird one. I don't really see this as a fallacy in argumentation, but I also don't know the Gantic incident you guys are referring to. The way I'm reading it, though, makes it sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something like that.

One last thing - I think the begging the question example is okay. There certainly doesn't need to be a second question (or even a first question, for that matter). Of course, the problem with this fallacy is that it comes in many different forms. In philosophy, this is probably the most common fallacy we deal with (not that we make the fallacy - just that we work to avoid making it). So even drawing a conclusion or interpreting another philosopher in a certain way might beg the question against your opponent. I actually just finished up a paper that I was really happy with until I realised that I begged the question against the main thing I was arguing against. It can be subtle and difficult to detect sometimes.

Sue: Here's an argument for (whatever)
Premise 1: All dogs have 4 legs
Premise 2: If all dogs have legs, then blah blah.
And so forth

Jane: But Sue - your first premise is false. Not all dogs have four legs!

offline

SirLegendary

16,585 posts

Duke

Posted February 19, '15 11:29am UTC Edited February 19, '15 11:29am UTC by SirLegendary

Taking in all of the suggestions again!

Changes going to be made after I post this:
- Changing "False Dichotomy" to "False Dilemma"
- Adding "Moving the goalposts" Fallacy.

For the Overwhelming Exception, I think for now I'm going to leave it out and read up more on it, because it was actually in the original list but I decided to remove due to its difficulty to understand.

Thanks for the feedback!

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted February 19, '15 2:48pm UTC

The poisoning the well fallacy is weird one. I don't really see this as a fallacy in argumentation, but I also don't know the Gantic incident you guys are referring to. The way I'm reading it, though, makes it sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something like that.

It was all over this thread; even in the title.

offline

Doombreed

7,022 posts

Templar

Posted February 19, '15 3:06pm UTC Edited February 19, '15 3:06pm UTC by Doombreed

In my highschool years, we were separating good from bad "cause and effect" type of reasoning this way: Checking if the cause provided is both necessary for the effect and adequate.

So, with this in mind, here is a fallacy that comes up sometimes:

Sophistry or Quibble: When someone makes a "cause & effect" argument but the condition (cause) is not adequate to cause the result, or not necessary (or neither).

Example: Smokers get cancer.

Smoking may be an adequate (it is doubtful though) condition for getting cancer but it is not necessary. Another way to say this: "But not all smokers get cancer" (which puts the condition's sufficience to the test) or "Also, non-smokers can have cancer as well" ( which shows that the condition is not necessary for the result.)

This type of argument is often used in propaganda. Changing a sentence and providing "cause and effect" arguments without sufficient or requisite conditions.

offline

Doombreed

7,022 posts

Templar

Posted February 19, '15 9:08pm UTC

@MattEmAngel there are 3 main types of reasoning:

1) Productive which is the most common and which involves going from a general statement or truth to a specific conclusion roughly like:

1: Our solar system's planets orbit the sun
2: Earth is one of our solar system planets
Therefore:
Earth orbits the sun

2) Inductive which is exactly the opposite (and often not correct). Going from a specific case to a general inference

1: Jean is French
2: Jean is a racist
Therefore:
All French people are racists (not like that but you get the point.)

3) (Don't know if I am using the right word) Analogue. Using one or more cases to reach a conclusion (again difficult to use right) roughly like:

1) John's school has an advanced chemistry lab
2) Mary's school has an advanced chemistry lab
3) Jane's school has an advanced chemistry lab

...(and so on)...

Therefore:
My school will probably have an advanced chemistry lab as well.

Overgeneralization can only happen on the last 2 cases (inductive and analogue) as these are the kinds of reasoning that use specific cases to reach a wider conjecture. Specifically it is more common in the case of inductive reasoning as this involves using a specific event to make a wider deduction (which obviously may be very easily overgeneralized)

However, sophistry is any of the above type of reasoning that is only Logically wrong. Which means that you may very well use a general statement as a "cause" ( using productive reasoning) to make a conclusion but the condition can still be inadequate or unnecessary.

[url=http://armorgames.com/user/MattEmAngel]@MattEmAngel[/url] there are 3 main types of reasoning:

1) Productive which is the most common and which involves going from a general statement or truth to a specific conclusion roughly like:

1: Our solar system's planets orbit the sun
2: Earth is one of our solar system planets
Therefore:
Earth orbits the sun

2) Inductive which is exactly the opposite (and often not correct). Going from a specific case to a general inference

1: Jean is French
2: Jean is a racist
Therefore:
All French people are racists (not like that but you get the point.)

3) (Don't know if I am using the right word) Analogue. Using one or more cases to reach a conclusion (again difficult to use right) roughly like:

1) John's school has an advanced chemistry lab
2) Mary's school has an advanced chemistry lab
3) Jane's school has an advanced chemistry lab

...(and so on)...

Therefore:
My school will probably have an advanced chemistry lab as well.

However, sophistry is any of the above type of reasoning that is only [b]Logically[/b] wrong. Which means that you may very well use a general statement as a "cause" ( using productive reasoning) to make a conclusion but the condition can still be inadequate or unnecessary.

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted February 19, '15 10:01pm UTC

There's a wiki on this

Also don't forget the Fallacy Fallacy

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted February 19, '15 10:55pm UTC

@FishPreferred Oh man...the "'Cats have five legs is a fact' is a fact because my teacher said it was" debate...*shudder* That went on for what felt like decades.

I know; it was hilarious. I hope he comes back to do another one.

Can you post a few links to it showing up? Sorry, haven't been in WEPR for a while and I haven't heard of the goalpost fallacy.

I don't recall seeing any recent examples. The "missing link" example is a YEC argument against paleontological samples used as evidence of human evolution. This discussion relates to it, although it is probably not the best example.
Another one has been used in discussions of personhood and non-human intellect. From what I recall reading in a high school philosophy textbook, the qualifications placed on personhood by animal-right critics have been changed several times in order to ensure the inclusion of all humans and only humans. One example of this is the irrational standard placed upon what constitutes language by Herbert Terrace and colleagues (see here and here).

Example: Smokers get cancer.

But this is not a fallacy. It is a fact that smokers get cancer. No causality has been addressed.

[quote]@FishPreferred Oh man...the "'Cats have five legs is a fact' is a fact because my teacher said it was" debate...*shudder* That went on for what felt like decades.[/quote]
I know; it was hilarious. I hope he comes back to do another one.

[quote]Can you post a few links to it showing up? Sorry, haven't been in WEPR for a while and I haven't heard of the goalpost fallacy.[/quote]
I don't recall seeing any recent examples. The "missing link" example is a YEC argument against paleontological samples used as evidence of human evolution. [url=http://armorgames.com/community/thread/11270774/evolution/page/10#post-12254643]This discussion[/url] relates to it, although it is probably not the best example.
Another one has been used in discussions of personhood and non-human intellect. From what I recall reading in a high school philosophy textbook, the qualifications placed on personhood by animal-right critics have been changed several times in order to ensure the inclusion of all humans and only humans. One example of this is the irrational standard placed upon what constitutes language by Herbert Terrace and colleagues ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky#Project_Nim]see here[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)#Combinations_of_signs]and here[/url]).

[quote]Example: Smokers get cancer.[/quote]
But this is not a fallacy. It is a fact that smokers get cancer. No causality has been addressed.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted February 20, '15 3:38am UTC

Does mine qualify (last post on page 3)?

Yes, unless of course it's addressed to a specific person whose smoking is inevitably concurrent with that smoker (who may or not be the person being addressed) developing lung cancer.

(if this post shows up a dozen times, it's apparently because CSRF still hates me)

offline

Doombreed

7,022 posts

Templar

Posted February 20, '15 7:55am UTC

But this is not a fallacy. It is a fact that smokers get cancer. No causality has been addressed.

Not in the way it is said. A proper way to say this would be:

"Smoking is highly possible to get you lung cancer". Smokers get cancer is wrong because it is pretty much this:

"All Smokers Will Surely get cancer"

I did not mean it as a general statement but like this.

offline

SirLegendary

16,585 posts

Duke

Posted February 20, '15 8:16am UTC

"All Smokers Will Surely get cancer"

I think it's been previously mentioned (which I agree on), that this is fallacious because of Over-Generalization

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted February 20, '15 12:59pm UTC

Can you post a few links to [moving the goalposts] showing up? Sorry, haven't been in WEPR for a while and I haven't heard of the goalpost fallacy.

I'm terrible at remembering specific instances or where they occur. When I say that I comes up a lot, I just mean in general. The great thing about this thread is that it allows us to identify fallacies in the WEPR and in the real world. But I'll try looking through the Theism and Atheism thread, as I'm betting there's some goalpost moving there.

Either way, PTW is a fallacy. You can look it up, and it was discussed in a literature class I took on logical fallacies.

I think what threw me was the example itself. In poisoning the well (PTW) fallacies, the person tries to undermine his opponent's view by providing information about them as a means to discredit them. But in the example you gave, that use actually poisoned himself! That's why I called that instance closer to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So an example would be: "Bob is an atheist, so his arguments on this matter should be completely ignored."
But notice that this fallacy, as Legend pointed out early, can easily be captured by the ad hominem fallacy. And this isn't merely a matter of simplicity (though simplicity in the list is very, very important). The fact is that most people familiar with fallacies will likely identify this as an ad hominem.

Ad Hominem is a rebuttal in a discussion/argument. Poisoning the Well occurs before the discussion/argument.

There are only a handful of fallacies that fit within certain stages of a particular discourse (ad hoc and tu quoque for example). In this case, however, ad hominems can occur at any point. As for fallacies occurring before the argument takes place - I don't think this can happen. Fallacies, after all, are features/defects of an argument. So there's a tension in the idea that a fallacy can occur outside the bounds of an argument.

But, putting all this aside, there's an incredibly important point to notice:
A given flaw in an argument might be captured by several several label of fallaciousness. Unlike formal logic, fallacies are the sorts of things that admit of vagueness and have quite a bit of overlap. So one person could say 'That's an ad hominem' and another could say 'That's poisoning the well' and they could both be right.

In short, the point of the list is to charaterise the fallacies - not to provide strict analyses of them. (In fact, I don't think they're even the sorts of things that admit of analysis.)

[quote]Can you post a few links to [moving the goalposts] showing up? Sorry, haven't been in WEPR for a while and I haven't heard of the goalpost fallacy.[/quote]

[quote] Either way, PTW is a fallacy. You can look it up, and it was discussed in a literature class I took on logical fallacies.[/quote]

[quote]Ad Hominem is a rebuttal in a discussion/argument. Poisoning the Well occurs before the discussion/argument.[/quote]

In short, the point of the list is to charaterise the fallacies - not to provide strict analyses of them. (In fact, I don't think they're even the sorts of things that admit of analysis.)

offline

Doombreed

7,022 posts

Templar

Posted February 20, '15 8:08pm UTC Edited February 20, '15 8:09pm UTC by Doombreed

@SirLegendary the example is overgeneralization but the sophistry is different. Check my previous post. Overgeneralization can only happen when using inductive or analogue reasoning. On the contrary, a sophistry can also occur when using productive reasoning like:

1) Standing outside for many hours on a cold day can get you a cold
2) John stood outside for many hours on a cold day
Therefore:
John caught a cold

The first statement works as a condition and is adequate to cause the effect (catch a cold) but unnecessary (you can catch the cold by other ways like coming in contact with someone sick)

And this is a fallacy because the conclusion (that John caught a cold) is not absolutely correct. You wouldn't know unless you talk to John in this case.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted February 20, '15 10:26pm UTC

@Doombreed - I think it's best if we stick to informal fallacies on this thread. For formal fallacies, there' the Intro to Logic thread I posted some time ago.

On a side note, the example you give of John catching a cold doesn't quite work the way you want it to. The structure of the argument only requires a sufficient condition - not a necessary one. It's also not clear how we should read the notion of 'can get you a cold'.

If the first premise is just: If you stand outside in the cold, then you'll catch a cold - then the argument is valid and we're fine. If you're meaning this more like 'Standing outside makes it more likely that you'll catch a cold' then we have a different kind of reasoning going on here, which further complicates things.

But in general, the problem (as I read it) that you have with the John argument has more to do with validity. And this is a feature of the structure of an argument, rather than its content. But since we're dealing with informal fallacies in this thread, we might avoid formal logic to avoid confusing things.

[url=http://armorgames.com/user/Doombreed]@Doombreed[/url] - I think it's best if we stick to informal fallacies on this thread. For formal fallacies, there' the Intro to Logic thread I posted some time ago.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted February 21, '15 5:58am UTC

Nice work on this list. I will see if I can come up with a few for you to add.

offline

Doombreed

7,022 posts

Templar

Posted February 24, '15 8:13pm UTC Edited February 24, '15 8:14pm UTC by Doombreed

Is it just me, or is "The False Dilemma" fallacy a subcase of "The Complex Question"? Maybe it seems that way because of the similar examples in both fallacies, but even their definitions sound pretty alike.

Showing 16-30 of 34

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Guide | Fallacies in Arguments