Logical Fallacies: a Study

[Ariovistus Maximus]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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

[Reenk Roink]

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.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I knew I was just asking for it by writing that essay.

I'll never escape the constant criticism every time I say something wrong!!! AAAAAA!!!

Lol j/k of course, but the thought has crossed my mind.

That's something that may have use in a beginners (non mathematical) logic class. 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.

Point taken.

The essence of my thoughts there is simply that, although you are correct in saying that logical continuity and validity is not the sum-total of debate, it generally tends toward better debate.

That's aaaalllll I'm saying. Simply pointing out that there is a balance.

You don't have to be a validity-Nazi, but you shouldn't ignore the notion of validity either.

OK? OK.

You will indeed be hard pressed to actually show that fallacious arguments lead to false conclusions more than non fallacious arguments.

Possibly.

However, if you take a gander at the average online debate forum...

By the way, be VERY careful of advocating the elimination of invalid arguments.

Fish.

Oh... right.

At any rate, I'm not saying that they should be eradicated any more than you are saying that they should be the only means of discussion. I'm just suggesting that you might not want to intentionally employ them on a regular basis to make your point.

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.

Simply providing a counterexample to demonstrate what I have mentioned above: that balance is important.

[Reenk Roink]

I knew I was just asking for it by writing that essay.

I'll never escape the constant criticism every time I say something wrong!!! AAAAAA!!!

Lol j/k of course, but the thought has crossed my mind.

At any rate, I'm not saying that they should be eradicated any more than you are saying that they should be the only means of discussion. I'm just suggesting that you might not want to intentionally employ them on a regular basis to make your point.

Oh don't get me wrong, your thread is one of the few interesting ones for me (I rarely post or even venture in the Backroom anymore - and when I do I just look for the Tribesman threads for his wit and barbs.

It might be better served at a different audience than the Orgah one though, as here, not many people go "This is my argument and it is completely logical so the conclusion must follow" rather they usually have these background assertions that they hold which are incompatible with some other people and then they .

[Ariovistus Maximus]

It might be better served at a different audience than the Orgah one though, as here, not many people go "This is my argument and it is completely logical so the conclusion must follow" rather they usually have these background assertions that they hold which are incompatible with some other people and then they .

Definitely.

The .Org has an atmosphere more of discussion than formal debate, so this is not as relevant.

Interesting they take on different forms like that.

[Azathoth]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ is a great site.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Also try www.nizkor.org

I was directed there from the TWC. Excellent resource. Covers everything I did and more, not to mention it is of course of higher quality.

[LittleGrizzly]

6. Argumentum ad nauseum

Latin: “argument to the point of nausea”


This would have been by biggest fault when I first came to the backroom.. that and the proud...

I still have a bit of both but I think I have improved a little bit

Argumentum ad Joycamtouringum
Trying to outwit your opponent by confusing him.

I swear Frunculus uses the words Demos and Kratos in every other EU post to deliberately confuse me...

[Major Robert Dump]

Ad Loviticus

I love this thread so much I don't know where to start. Kisses!

[Banquo's Ghost]

I love this thread so much I don't know where to start. Kisses!

You need to take a class.

I'd recommend Reenk Roink but he's a little bit conciliatory.

[Sigurd]

I'd recommend Reenk Roink but he's a little bit conciliatory.

No, he isn't.

[Fragony]

instant classic

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ad Loviticus

I love this thread so much I don't know where to start. Kisses!

Dreadful pun, but it raises a valid point I was going to make,

Argumentum ad Creditum

That is, an argument that appeals ultimately to a belief system in the face of evidence and against reason. Equally, "Christianity teaches" or "Marxism demonstrates".

[Cronos Impera]

6. Argumentum ad nauseum

Latin: “argument to the point of nausea”


This would have been by biggest fault when I first came to the backroom.. that and the proud...

I still have a bit of both but I think I have improved a little bit

Argumentum ad Joycamptouringum
Trying to outwit your opponent by confusing him.

I swear Frunculus uses the words Demos and Kratos in every other EU post to deliberately confuse me...

Beware of Argumentum ad Joycamptouringum, it can stop a train, it can freeze your coffee, it can boil your ice cream and it can turn Banquo into a Bartixian camel.