Bijo
02-26-2007, 21:07
Guide To Fallacy
Many a time have I seen people, in many places, discuss with each other violently, wrongly, and so forth. This guide intends to show you fallacies that are used in discussions and debates, how to recognize them. I intend to make this guide as short as possible, with as much necessary information as possible. If you spot any errors, point them out so they can be changed.
Fallacies are basically arguments, used in discussion, that have no validity. If we critically regard everyday talks we might even notice them in the most trite-like settings. It has to do with logic one might say, but also a lot with ways to prevent good accurate valid logical argumentation and discussions, etc.
I will try to address things shortly and effectively, though the list is quite long still. I've used what I know myself and what I've read about the subject unrelated to my own knowledge used especially regarding terminology (I don't like terminology). I might change it to make it even shorter and more effective.
I made this thing because LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix had a section in the fine-looking Logics Handbook (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79975) mainly dealing with hard logic. My topic deals with these other fallacies, and they will still contain fallacies regarding "logic" in a sense, reasoning, etc., but less emphasized, its effort more directed at other common fallacies in reason and language.
If you happen to see errors herein, don't hesitate to correct. In fact, if you think this "guide" could be better in some way(s), I mean, ****... I don't mind if you want to take part in it - it's for everybody on this forum who had useful contribution, so when you do, I will credit you where due.
Let's to the list of fallacies, pell-mell!
Fallacies
Accent: this is when words are being emphasized, which can lead to misleading wording or understandings.
Q: are you for or against his choice to exclude newcoming immigrants to our country?
A: I favor a choice that will effectively deal with our country's overpopulation, crime, and poverty.
Notice how the answer doesn't quite answer the question. For instance, one could perceive the answer says the speaker is against influx of immigrants, or for.
Ad Hoc Rescue: when you are trying to save yourself from being wrong, even if you are wrong.
Person 1: If you use the medicine of this brand, you'll get well very fast.
Person 2: I did that back then, but it didn't work at all.
Person 1: Then probably the date was overdue, or they were just plain bad ones you had.
Person 1 is being dogmatic, refusing to accept the possibility the particular brand of medicine is possibly not good.
Ad Hominem: when you attack the person to undermine the person's argument. This also includes name-calling, besmirching, and so forth, including Poisoning the Well, whereby you discredit a speaker before he's even spoken.
The man is no scientist, and has no college diploma whatsoever: do you really think he knows what he's talking about?
Here, it doesn't matter at all who the person is. The only thing that matters is the argument this person made; the words.
Amphiboly: grammatical or linguistic error.
BEARS
CAUTION
Obviously this would mean humans would have to watch out for bears around, but it could very well mean the following:
Bears, look out which would direct the beings, bears, to use caution.
Anecdotal Evidence: when you rely on and emphasize heard stories and dismiss other information that must be considered as much as any other evidence.
Appeal to Authority: when you try to support your argument by saying an authority has had a say in it. This is a fallacy because one must be suspicious anyway, authority or not, about people making claims. Because a person is an authority doesn't mean he's always right.
Appeal to Consequence: when you dismiss an argument or fact based on your unwillingness to accept it as truth, because you think it's impossible.
Appeal to Emotion: when you influence the person's emotions to prove your claim. You use emotions as premises to come to false conclusion. This includes Scapegoating and Scare Tactics.
Appeal to Ignorance: (1) when you don't know a statement is true you think it´s false; (2) when you don´t know a statement is false you think it´s true.
It hasn't been proven to me that it is, therefore it is not.
Appeal to Money: when you think something is better because it costs more, or when you think a person is better or good because he has lots of money. Also, when somebody has little money it doesn't mean this person has certain qualities, as this counts too for objects.
Appeal to People: when you claim an argument is correct because many believe in it or support it. Or when you claim an argument incorrect when only few support or believe it.
Avoiding the Issue: when you miss the point, stray off course, when you just avoid the issue or question.
Avoiding the Question: when you inappropriately answer a question. You might stray off course (intendedly) in a discussion when your debating opponent falls for it.
Begging the Question: when the type of reasoning, discussing, is applied that keeps circulating, not leading to progress, valid conclusions and so forth.
Black and White options: when you conclude there are two extremes, even if more reasonable possibilities are there.
Person 1: Will you give money to our charity that tries to help poor children in Africa?
Person 2: No, I will not.
Person 1: So you don't care about these poor children?
Person 1 errs, for he makes a wrong assumption (disguised as a question) saying Person 2 doesn't care about these children.
Common Cause and Ignoring thereof: when two separate events are said to be causally related when they're not, for another event is the common cause of both.
Complex Question: when you ask a question that sneakily has an assumption therein.
Composition: when you assume traits of a certain object or person are also traits of a whole group of objects or persons.
This guy is a bastard, so his friends are probably bastards too.
Confirmation Bias: when you look for proof in favor of your standpoints, and you selectively don't look for evidence that might discredit your statements.
Converse Accident: when you place too much confidence in exceptions and then generalize them to a conclusion.
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: when you claim a certain factor is the cause of an effect, because this factor is in the presence of the effect.
The man was standing near the body when we saw him, so he must've been the killer.
Fact that the man was standing near the body doesn't mean he was the killer; it means he was just standing near the body.
Definism: when you make persuasive definitions that will help you defend a standpoint much more easily.
Denying the Antecedent: an "if-then" case where you deny the "if" to conclude your "then".
Division: the converse of Composition, only here you assume an individual has a certain quality because a whole group this person belongs to has a certain quality.
Gibson guitars are very well known and are among the best, therefore this Gibson guitar right here is among the best.
Truth is, that one Gibson guitar is an old POS about to break down when wind hits it.
Double Standard: when you must judge two factors by the same standards, but you don't.
Exaggeration: when you exaggerate to emphasize points that will help you get to your conclusion.
Far-fetched Hypothesis: to reach afar with argumentation without first checking more direct reasonable approaches and ruling them out.
Faulty Comparison (or Questionable Analogy): when you compare something with another thing not to be compared due to its total different nature.
I compared Half-Life 2, a nice FPS, with Medieval 2: Total War, one of the best strategy games available, and I think HL2 is a lot better :P
They are of two very different genres and aren't to be compared. However, in a general viewpoint they might be, for instance if you're trying to ascertain which is the better game overall.
Gambler's Fallacy: you think a certain outcome will be because of previous outcomes you know.
Group Fallacy: when you support a group's agenda for pride. You might call it unquestionable loyalty to a group, illogically, even if the claims are wrong.
Guilt by Association: when you claim a person is guilty of something because he can be associated with the guilty.
Hasty Generalization: obvious.
Intensional: to apply equivalents of words even if the equivalent is invalid in another situation regarding what a person has said.
He wants to meet him, but I know he's a bastard. He told me he wants to meet this bastard.
The man in question never said he wanted to meet the bastard, but he wanted to meet "him". If the equivalent is applied illegally, it can be intentional word-twisting.
Irrelevant Conclusion: when your conclusion has nothing to do with the reasoning before it.
Irrelevant Reasoning: when your premises are irrelevant to your conclusion.
Jumping to Conclusions: to not consider all factors, arguments, etc., to come to a conclusion.
Line-Drawing: to dismiss an argument due to vagueness. Even if an argument is vague and is not how you'd like it, it's not nothing.
Loaded Language: when irrelevant emotive words are added to influence a listener/reader.
Lying: intentionally providing false information, usually in the premises, then leading to a false conclusion.
Non Sequitur: if a conclusion is supported by irrelevant premises or weak ones.
Quibbling: when a minor point not so important is seen as something that might undermine the main point, even if it doesn't.
Quoting out of Context
Rationalization: when you give a reason that you know sounds better than the actual true reason.
Red Herring: when you raise a point to distract from the actual point. Simply seen, you set a person off-track by discussing irrelevant things.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: when you conclude something will occur in the future, and prophesy to make it happen.
Slippery Slope: an exaggerated conclusion whereby you claim that one thing will lead to another, to another, to another, and so forth; extreme thoughts of Cause and Effect. So to prevent the conclusion from happening, one should not take the first step that leads to the far-fetched conclusion.
Stereotyping
Straw Man: when you twist words and give the opponent "another position" than his actual position, which you will then attack more easily.
Subjectivism: to think or claim that truth is only relative to a person or persons. Truth is truth, and nothing else.
Tokenism
We are not racist: we have a black man in our team.
The fact that they have a black man in their team doesn't mean they're not racist.
Traditional Wisdom: to accept something because it's been like it in the past, or because it's common.
Unfalsifiability: when it's impossible to verify a claim or explanation. Untestatibility it's also called.
Wishful Thinking: when you claim something is true, because you want it to be.
Many a time have I seen people, in many places, discuss with each other violently, wrongly, and so forth. This guide intends to show you fallacies that are used in discussions and debates, how to recognize them. I intend to make this guide as short as possible, with as much necessary information as possible. If you spot any errors, point them out so they can be changed.
Fallacies are basically arguments, used in discussion, that have no validity. If we critically regard everyday talks we might even notice them in the most trite-like settings. It has to do with logic one might say, but also a lot with ways to prevent good accurate valid logical argumentation and discussions, etc.
I will try to address things shortly and effectively, though the list is quite long still. I've used what I know myself and what I've read about the subject unrelated to my own knowledge used especially regarding terminology (I don't like terminology). I might change it to make it even shorter and more effective.
I made this thing because LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix had a section in the fine-looking Logics Handbook (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79975) mainly dealing with hard logic. My topic deals with these other fallacies, and they will still contain fallacies regarding "logic" in a sense, reasoning, etc., but less emphasized, its effort more directed at other common fallacies in reason and language.
If you happen to see errors herein, don't hesitate to correct. In fact, if you think this "guide" could be better in some way(s), I mean, ****... I don't mind if you want to take part in it - it's for everybody on this forum who had useful contribution, so when you do, I will credit you where due.
Let's to the list of fallacies, pell-mell!
Fallacies
Accent: this is when words are being emphasized, which can lead to misleading wording or understandings.
Q: are you for or against his choice to exclude newcoming immigrants to our country?
A: I favor a choice that will effectively deal with our country's overpopulation, crime, and poverty.
Notice how the answer doesn't quite answer the question. For instance, one could perceive the answer says the speaker is against influx of immigrants, or for.
Ad Hoc Rescue: when you are trying to save yourself from being wrong, even if you are wrong.
Person 1: If you use the medicine of this brand, you'll get well very fast.
Person 2: I did that back then, but it didn't work at all.
Person 1: Then probably the date was overdue, or they were just plain bad ones you had.
Person 1 is being dogmatic, refusing to accept the possibility the particular brand of medicine is possibly not good.
Ad Hominem: when you attack the person to undermine the person's argument. This also includes name-calling, besmirching, and so forth, including Poisoning the Well, whereby you discredit a speaker before he's even spoken.
The man is no scientist, and has no college diploma whatsoever: do you really think he knows what he's talking about?
Here, it doesn't matter at all who the person is. The only thing that matters is the argument this person made; the words.
Amphiboly: grammatical or linguistic error.
BEARS
CAUTION
Obviously this would mean humans would have to watch out for bears around, but it could very well mean the following:
Bears, look out which would direct the beings, bears, to use caution.
Anecdotal Evidence: when you rely on and emphasize heard stories and dismiss other information that must be considered as much as any other evidence.
Appeal to Authority: when you try to support your argument by saying an authority has had a say in it. This is a fallacy because one must be suspicious anyway, authority or not, about people making claims. Because a person is an authority doesn't mean he's always right.
Appeal to Consequence: when you dismiss an argument or fact based on your unwillingness to accept it as truth, because you think it's impossible.
Appeal to Emotion: when you influence the person's emotions to prove your claim. You use emotions as premises to come to false conclusion. This includes Scapegoating and Scare Tactics.
Appeal to Ignorance: (1) when you don't know a statement is true you think it´s false; (2) when you don´t know a statement is false you think it´s true.
It hasn't been proven to me that it is, therefore it is not.
Appeal to Money: when you think something is better because it costs more, or when you think a person is better or good because he has lots of money. Also, when somebody has little money it doesn't mean this person has certain qualities, as this counts too for objects.
Appeal to People: when you claim an argument is correct because many believe in it or support it. Or when you claim an argument incorrect when only few support or believe it.
Avoiding the Issue: when you miss the point, stray off course, when you just avoid the issue or question.
Avoiding the Question: when you inappropriately answer a question. You might stray off course (intendedly) in a discussion when your debating opponent falls for it.
Begging the Question: when the type of reasoning, discussing, is applied that keeps circulating, not leading to progress, valid conclusions and so forth.
Black and White options: when you conclude there are two extremes, even if more reasonable possibilities are there.
Person 1: Will you give money to our charity that tries to help poor children in Africa?
Person 2: No, I will not.
Person 1: So you don't care about these poor children?
Person 1 errs, for he makes a wrong assumption (disguised as a question) saying Person 2 doesn't care about these children.
Common Cause and Ignoring thereof: when two separate events are said to be causally related when they're not, for another event is the common cause of both.
Complex Question: when you ask a question that sneakily has an assumption therein.
Composition: when you assume traits of a certain object or person are also traits of a whole group of objects or persons.
This guy is a bastard, so his friends are probably bastards too.
Confirmation Bias: when you look for proof in favor of your standpoints, and you selectively don't look for evidence that might discredit your statements.
Converse Accident: when you place too much confidence in exceptions and then generalize them to a conclusion.
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: when you claim a certain factor is the cause of an effect, because this factor is in the presence of the effect.
The man was standing near the body when we saw him, so he must've been the killer.
Fact that the man was standing near the body doesn't mean he was the killer; it means he was just standing near the body.
Definism: when you make persuasive definitions that will help you defend a standpoint much more easily.
Denying the Antecedent: an "if-then" case where you deny the "if" to conclude your "then".
Division: the converse of Composition, only here you assume an individual has a certain quality because a whole group this person belongs to has a certain quality.
Gibson guitars are very well known and are among the best, therefore this Gibson guitar right here is among the best.
Truth is, that one Gibson guitar is an old POS about to break down when wind hits it.
Double Standard: when you must judge two factors by the same standards, but you don't.
Exaggeration: when you exaggerate to emphasize points that will help you get to your conclusion.
Far-fetched Hypothesis: to reach afar with argumentation without first checking more direct reasonable approaches and ruling them out.
Faulty Comparison (or Questionable Analogy): when you compare something with another thing not to be compared due to its total different nature.
I compared Half-Life 2, a nice FPS, with Medieval 2: Total War, one of the best strategy games available, and I think HL2 is a lot better :P
They are of two very different genres and aren't to be compared. However, in a general viewpoint they might be, for instance if you're trying to ascertain which is the better game overall.
Gambler's Fallacy: you think a certain outcome will be because of previous outcomes you know.
Group Fallacy: when you support a group's agenda for pride. You might call it unquestionable loyalty to a group, illogically, even if the claims are wrong.
Guilt by Association: when you claim a person is guilty of something because he can be associated with the guilty.
Hasty Generalization: obvious.
Intensional: to apply equivalents of words even if the equivalent is invalid in another situation regarding what a person has said.
He wants to meet him, but I know he's a bastard. He told me he wants to meet this bastard.
The man in question never said he wanted to meet the bastard, but he wanted to meet "him". If the equivalent is applied illegally, it can be intentional word-twisting.
Irrelevant Conclusion: when your conclusion has nothing to do with the reasoning before it.
Irrelevant Reasoning: when your premises are irrelevant to your conclusion.
Jumping to Conclusions: to not consider all factors, arguments, etc., to come to a conclusion.
Line-Drawing: to dismiss an argument due to vagueness. Even if an argument is vague and is not how you'd like it, it's not nothing.
Loaded Language: when irrelevant emotive words are added to influence a listener/reader.
Lying: intentionally providing false information, usually in the premises, then leading to a false conclusion.
Non Sequitur: if a conclusion is supported by irrelevant premises or weak ones.
Quibbling: when a minor point not so important is seen as something that might undermine the main point, even if it doesn't.
Quoting out of Context
Rationalization: when you give a reason that you know sounds better than the actual true reason.
Red Herring: when you raise a point to distract from the actual point. Simply seen, you set a person off-track by discussing irrelevant things.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: when you conclude something will occur in the future, and prophesy to make it happen.
Slippery Slope: an exaggerated conclusion whereby you claim that one thing will lead to another, to another, to another, and so forth; extreme thoughts of Cause and Effect. So to prevent the conclusion from happening, one should not take the first step that leads to the far-fetched conclusion.
Stereotyping
Straw Man: when you twist words and give the opponent "another position" than his actual position, which you will then attack more easily.
Subjectivism: to think or claim that truth is only relative to a person or persons. Truth is truth, and nothing else.
Tokenism
We are not racist: we have a black man in our team.
The fact that they have a black man in their team doesn't mean they're not racist.
Traditional Wisdom: to accept something because it's been like it in the past, or because it's common.
Unfalsifiability: when it's impossible to verify a claim or explanation. Untestatibility it's also called.
Wishful Thinking: when you claim something is true, because you want it to be.