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.