You forgot one:
Argumentam ad Tribesman:
Bollox.![]()
You forgot one:
Argumentam ad Tribesman:
Bollox.![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
Do the esteemed Mods agree that this should be stikied? It might provide useful guidance/reference...
Last edited by al Roumi; 10-30-2009 at 12:42.
I for one will compliment your list of fallacies. Great job!!
But if I should add some constructive criticism I would want you to clarify the Non Sequitur section of your post. The randomness is less common. The more common fallacy of this type is the use of false conclusions to valid premises.
Also if you are going to expand your list I would have added these fallacies:
Red Herring
Petitio principii(Begging the question)
Ad hominem Tu quoque (you too)
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition)
Argumentum ad numerum (Appeal to numbers)
A while ago I tried to introduce formal debates to the orgahs. We had a few articles in the gahzette about this and we tried to organize a few real formal debates with referees, where the best one was published in the gahzette. Sadly it was only a brief spark before it died.
Link to the first gahzette article (It is the Backroom article).
Last edited by Sigurd; 10-30-2009 at 12:45.
Status Emeritus
![]()
Thanks everyone for the compliments!
You're right; he deserves special mention.
Thanks! Good clarification.I for one will compliment your list of fallacies. Great job!!
But if I should add some constructive criticism I would want you to clarify the Non Sequitur section of your post. The randomness is less common. The more common fallacy of this type is the use of false conclusions to valid premises.
Also, yes there are an ABUNDANCE of fallacies, and still a good many that are commonly used in internet debate! I will probably start in on some more (and some fixes) later this afternoon.
You know, I've had a similar idea myself. To have a sort of courtroom-style debate. There is little to no closure in debate as it is, and as I'm sure you know, people just come away irritated at their opponent and don't even CONSIDER the possibility that their opponent is right, even if they "won" the argument.
So people continue to post the same old thing because they don't feel that they've been disproven.
If it were feasible, it would be cool to have a couple of members who act as a panel of judges, and then at the end of the debate, they could rule as to which case was best presented.
Of course, there are many flaws with that idea, and I'm told that it's not feasible. It is asking quite a lot.
OF DESTINY AND DUTY: A GALATIAN AAR
Preview of the Week:
And then check out my ANCIENT WEAPONS STUDY
![]()
My balloons:x 8
:wave: Hello Evil Men from Mars.Argumentum ad antiquitatem
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Now we just need an "argumentum ad pretending to have a phd in economics when they don't really"
Normally, the backroom is made of informal arguments and discussion. And it's easy to point out the logical fallacies in someone elses casual argument while leaving your own statement as "In my opinion this is a bad idea".
You missed one of the most common:
13. Tu quoque
Or, you too, nanny-nanny-boo-boo!
-edit-
And how could I forget one of my all-time favorites:
14. No true Scotsman
Or, moving the goalposts.
Last edited by Lemur; 10-31-2009 at 04:44.
Here's the thing though with these fallacies, some of them are just absolutely essential in discussion or debate to get things going (and others like ad Tribesman and ad hominem at times are just entertaining). Take appeals to authority, very important in all kinds of matters. Appeals to popularity and tradition also can sway my opinion a lot.
These so called logical fallacies (most of the ones listed) actually have very little to do with logic formally (they should actually be called "what some consider to be bad forms of reasoning"). For example, Sigurd brought up begging the question as an example of a fallacy. Actually, in purely logical terms (again logic is concerned with syntactical form of statements), circular reasoning is deductively valid - the epitome of "logic"). The only reason we don't like that type of argument is because:
1) it seems cheap (it probably is cheap - but it's logical)
2) Aristotle was playing some game and didn't want people to beg the question and so we use one of his crappy game rules to this day as one of the no-no's for discussion/debate (why does this guy have so much continued influence?)
And nothing makes me facepalm more when some guy comes in and says "OH argumentum ad ............... you're wrong lol!"Because (and I believe this also gets included in those lists of logical fallacies) just because someone makes a fallacious argument does not mean his point or his conclusion is false or wrong. On the flip side, anyone can support a false/wrong point or conclusion using an argument with a perfectly logical form. Already too much emphasis is put on the argument and not on the conclusion/point being made.
I like (some of) the org debates because aside from calling out strawmen (which should be done definitely kills discussion) these debates aren't usually flooded with people making laundry lists of the above mentioned fallacies. Which is good.![]()
It only becomes a fallacy when used wrong.
Argumentum ad verecundiam only becomes a fallacy when using authority figures that aren't really authority figures, or using radical authority figures which is removed from the mainstream i.e goes against other qualified authority figures.
A great example is quoting Albert Einstein in matters of politics or religion. Now Einstein was a clever guy, but his field of expertise was physics not politics or religion.
Last edited by Sigurd; 10-30-2009 at 19:04.
Status Emeritus
![]()
I agree. And even with the strawman fallacy, there's strawmanning someone and then there's reading between the lines and following things to a possible conclusion (which might not be what the person intended).
Also, sometimes people only talk about two option because they don't feel like exploring every option. False dichotomy
But even so, it's absolutely silly to call "logical fallacy" on a post like:
since the gun control argument boils down to "under what circumstances do individual rights trump collective well being". You can't use really logic to decide that. Additionally, the evidence used (crime statistics etc) always has confounding variables and can be argued to be biased one way or the other. An actual argument against gun control would take into account the trade off between individualism vs collectivism, use empirical data involving many different studies, and in short would require many hours of work and extensive resources--not "argumentum ad tradition and argumentum ad authority!"We should keep the 2nd amendment like we always have, after all, thomas jefferson said that we had the right to self defense
What we generally do in the backroom is chip away at it. Logically valid arguments and cited sources are nice and all, but it's kind of like having an umpire for a backyard baseball game.
But then again the:
*posts crappy source article*
argumentum ad authority! My opinion is correct!
Citation, Please!
*posts crappy source article*
exchange is part of the backroom charm
I don't know, some threads I feel like people should put more effort into thinking their arguments through, others I feel like doing so is an exercise is naivety given the scope of the argument.
Last edited by Sasaki Kojiro; 10-30-2009 at 19:26.
I would hardly call them essential.Here's the thing though with these fallacies, some of them are just absolutely essential in discussion or debate to get things going (and others like ad Tribesman and ad hominem at times are just entertaining).
I could start a debate entitled:
"Banquo's Ghost is an evil, amoral censor," and that would definitely get discussion going.
But that hardly means that would be productive, relevant, or helpful. And it seems to me that this sort of thing occurs often enough to warrant greater attention to the intricacies of logic in debate.
Well that's the very nature of fallacy; it's a good thought/method that is slightly warped somewhere along the line.Take appeals to authority, very important in all kinds of matters. Appeals to popularity and tradition also can sway my opinion a lot.
Thus, there is indeed a fine line in many cases between a fallacy and a valid argument.
For instance, in court, you could say that a witness' testimony is an 'appeal to authority' of sorts, if for instance that individual was the sole witness. But it isn't considered fallacious for obvious reasons.
Most of them are informal fallacies, yes. The point is that people, in an attempt to employ "logical" arguments, commit fallacies.These so called logical fallacies (most of the ones listed) actually have very little to do with logic formally (they should actually be called "what some consider to be bad forms of reasoning").
Of course not. Ironically, you are making the strong implication that the notion of fallacy is false because it has not been proven true. This is, of course, a fallacy. However, I will not simply call out the fallacy, but explain why I think it is so.Because (and I believe this also gets included in those lists of logical fallacies) just because someone makes a fallacious argument does not mean his point or his conclusion is false or wrong.
Are you familiar with truth tables?
When is the only time that a statement is considered valid in a truth table? When it is a tautology.
For instance, the fallacy of the converse.
If I am human, I can speak.
Therefore, if I can speak, I am human.
Well, of course not. Parrots can speak. (And of course handicapped humans cannot sometimes speak due to the handicap, but for sake of example.)
So, I could use that argument, and most of the time I would be correct. Usually, if I pointed to a thing that could speak, it would be human.
But occasionally I would point at a parrot or parakeet.
Thus, an argument may be TRUE, but that does NOT necessarily make it VALID.
And we are discussing the validity, not the truth, of arguments.
So, in summary, you are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.On the flip side, anyone can support a false/wrong point or conclusion using an argument with a perfectly logical form. Already too much emphasis is put on the argument and not on the conclusion/point being made.
Yes, debate is still not cut and dried. Discretion is required.
But it's still a good idea to avoid invalid arguments, and there's certainly no reason to legitimize invalid arguments just because they are correct upon occasion.
The truth of an argument is different from case to case; obviously you can't come up with a set of rules.
However, if you try to avoid methods of argument that more often than not tend to false conclusions, you will be more productive.
Agreed. And really, I'd also agree that fallacious statements aren't the end of the world in a relaxed discussion.I like (some of) the org debates because aside from calling out strawmen (which should be done definitely kills discussion) these debates aren't usually flooded with people making laundry lists of the above mentioned fallacies.
As I said, if you've read the essay, this was written for the TWC. The D&D there is structured differently than the backroom here at the .Org.
The D&D is more toned for debate, and the backroom has a little more of a friendly discussion atmosphere IMO.
So, it may not be as applicable, but I would say that it's a good thing to keep in mind.
And yes, the flip side of the coin is that you can't just scream "FALLACY!" and leave it at that, either.
Last edited by Banquo's Ghost; 10-31-2009 at 08:51. Reason: Original example would have definitely got the thread locked
OF DESTINY AND DUTY: A GALATIAN AAR
Preview of the Week:
And then check out my ANCIENT WEAPONS STUDY
![]()
My balloons:x 8
Just to let you get an idea of how we did it back then.
This is the only debate we finished : Crazed Rabbit vs. Waldinger (now woad&fangs)
The ruling was not posted in the thread, but in the December number of the gahzette also in the Backroom section.
You can find other debates by clicking on the Debate prefix to the thread names (Backroom). It was originally meant for formal debates, but have later been used indiscriminately to any whim of the thread starter. You will find the oldest threads with the prefix: Debate to be the true debate threads.
Status Emeritus
![]()
Bookmarks