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.
Thanks! Good clarification.
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.
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".
[A] Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions. [...]
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy. [...]
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.
This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.
Example:
"You say aircraft are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said aircraft fly because of magic."
-edit-
And how could I forget one of my all-time favorites:
14. No true Scotsman
Or, moving the goalposts.
No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument. [...]
When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.
A universal claim is of the form "All x are y" or "No x are y." In the example above, the universal claim is "No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists." (No S are BMR.) The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of "Scotsman" to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.
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.
Here's the thing though with these fallacies, some of them are just absolutely essential in discussion or debate to get things going ... Take appeals to authority, very important in all kinds of matters.
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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by Sigurd
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 is a clever guy, but his field of expertise was physics not politics or religion.
But even so, it's absolutely silly to call "logical fallacy" on a post like:
We should keep the 2nd amendment like we always have, after all, thomas jefferson said that we had the right to self defense
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!"
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.
It's not really something worth arguing. Romans didn't "appear" like aproximately 300 years later. For the sake of internet it's Ok I guess.
Spartans, in their prime (sometime before the battle of Leuctra) would have massacred the Romans - the training and skill of the Spartans would have proved too much for any opponent, even the Romans.
Jumped to conclusion too soon. The person not taking into account the diversity of Rome's enemies and other stuff like multiple fronts. So he/she believes Romans were just bunch of Aventine Hill mobs. The person also believes hoplite army conquers the world! Also of course the person had to ignore the fact that Sparta got owned by Thebans out of all superpowers.
the legion formation, although effective against a traditional phalanx, was virtually worthless against Cavalry (Thessalonians, Companions, etc).
Clearly the person is talking about Macedonia which is not Sparta. Not validating the argument that Sparta is better than Rome.
When is the "prime" of the Roman army? If you knew anything about its history you would know that it fluctuated more on the ability of its commanders than any certain point in history. Macedonians under Alexander > any Romans.
Had the person said "Sparta under Leonidas" he/she would've have refuted himself. Blunt point nonetheless.
The Spartan was better just on the basis that they went virtually undefeated in a fixed, open-pitch battle until Leuctra where they were defeated by the Thebans (approx 300+ years). Individually the Spartans outclassed most of the best Roman soldiers.
If we were to grab another example of his/her conclusion it would look like this:
Aztecs were just better on the basis that they went virtually undefeated in battle until the Spaniards came around. Individually, Aztecs outclassed most of the best Napoleon troops.
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 would hardly call them essential.
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.
Take appeals to authority, very important in all kinds of matters. Appeals to popularity and tradition also can sway my opinion a lot.
Well that's the very nature of fallacy; it's a good thought/method that is slightly warped somewhere along the line.
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.
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").
Most of them are informal fallacies, yes. The point is that people, in an attempt to employ "logical" arguments, commit fallacies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, in summary, you are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
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.
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.
Agreed. And really, I'd also agree that fallacious statements aren't the end of the world in a relaxed discussion.
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
"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.
But you didn't follow the rules of logical debate in this response
You threw them out the window completely.
His statement boils down to "starting an argument with a fallacy is a good way to spark discussion". To measure how true this is in an objective way you would have to have a large sample size of threads, criteria for determining whether the thread was started with a fallacy or not, and criteria for measuring how good the discussion was that resulted. This would have to be judged by a set of unbiased judges.
That's unfeasible, so you have to argue against it in a subjective, casual way. Which is what you did--you pointed out an example of a thread that you thought wouldn't go well and left it at that. Logically, you can't disprove a claim that fallacies are essential to starting good arguments by posting an imaginary anecdote where a fallacy leads to a bad argument. You would instead have to show that non fallacies could lead to good threads.
Which I would be fine with if the whole thread wasn't going on and on about how important logic is to debate.
And yes, the flip side of the coin is that you can't just scream "FALLACY!" and leave it at that, either.
FALSE DICHOTOMY
Last edited by Banquo's Ghost; 10-31-2009 at 08:52.
Reason: Edited quote
Ironically, you are making the strong implication that the notion of fallacy is false because it has not been proven true.
wtf? No I'm not.
And we are discussing the validity, not the truth, of arguments.
Discussing validity: that's something that may have use in a beginners (non-mathematical) logic class. However, in debates, your reasoning really doesn't matter as much as your assumptions, assertions, conclusions, etc. Statements are the thing that should matter, not the argument itself. At least that's what I think.
I could care less if you concluded that guns are evil/good through a disjunctive syllogism as compared to say affirming the consequent. What I would look at in that discussion is the background premises that led to that conclusion. That's far more interesting than the actual argument form (unless the guy said that he logically proved that guns are evil/good which people here basically never do). Obviously, if the error in the argument is so blatantly invalid, then it deserves to be pointed out. But the logical fallacies you have listed are really not used in such obvious ways at all, people generally avoid blatant offenses of them.
By the way, affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy (like it is actually a real 'logical' fallacy). And yet so much of how we reason is dependent on that argument form... Keep this in mind when I later discuss your point about trying to eliminate invalid arguments.
So, in summary, you are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Again, where did I say the "notion of fallacy is false"? I'm just making the point that it is somewhat irrelevant. Argument form is much less important to me than assertion substance in a discussion. The actual premises of the argument are what really matters, not the argument form itself. Take one of the many cosmological arguments for God. They are deductively valid - nice and logical. Does that matter at all when they are discussed? No. What matters is the discussion of the truth value of the assertions that make up the premises themselves. The Teleological argument is an invalid, inductive argument. Is it's invalid form the major point of critique? Of course not, it is the substance of the premises themselves.
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.
Why? Nobody is trying to legitimize invalid arguments either by the way, you have ascribed a position that I have not taken in this thread - this is a strawman, unintentional or intentional.
By the way, be VERY careful of advocating the elimination of invalid arguments. Do you realize the consequences of eliminating everything except non-ampliative reasoning, fallacious as ampliative reasoning may be?
However, if you try to avoid methods of argument that more often than not tend to false conclusions, you will be more productive.
No, no, no, no, this is where I must draw the line. You will indeed be hard pressed to actually show that fallacious arguments actually lead to false-conclusions considerably more than non-fallacious arguments.
Logic, or more specifically, the logical structure of an argument has absolutely no bearing on the truth/falsity of the conclusion (aside from tautologies and contradictions of course). What does matter is the truth/falsity of the premises themselves.
The only thing you could state is that valid deductive arguments do not lead to false conclusions when their premises are true so yes, you may be right in that sense. That statement is so incredibly impotent and irrelevant though... The reasons being that many arguments are inductive and thus do not get this benefit and determining the truth/falsity of the premises is still the prerequisite for the truth/falsity of the conclusion.
Last edited by Reenk Roink; 10-31-2009 at 04:20.
Reason: cause i can...
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.
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.
Re: Logical Fallacies: a Study
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
You forgot one:
And then check out my 
Reply With Quote
)
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.
*posts crappy source article* 
argumentum ad authority! My opinion is correct!
You will indeed be hard pressed to actually show that fallacious arguments actually lead to false-conclusions considerably more than non-fallacious arguments.
Bookmarks