Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: Guide to Logical Fallacies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    702
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    I came across this guide to logical fallacies, and I thought that it would be useful for assisting both debunkers and potential HBs.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    475
    Lovely! Thank you. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    Yup. I had a short topic about this earlier:
    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...c=2329&forum=1

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    It is interesting to go down the list and check off what they use.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    I'm preparing a catalogue of them for Clavius as well, with examples taken from conspiracist literature and statements.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    203
    Very nice! I've occasionally reference the Stephan's Guide to Logical Fallacies index but I think I like your link better.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    571
    Under which category would we place the two words which seemed to finish many debates in pubs back in the seventies: "Wanna fight?" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    226
    That would be an Appeal to Fisticuffs (argumentum ad biff'em), methinks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    702
    I'm glad you all enjoyed it.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    571
    Thanks aporetic_r. I've only recently learnt about such things -- mainly since joining the BABB -- at the age of 52 (hangs head in shame). Certainly was never taught anything about logic at school and can now see that I've been guilty of committing transgressions, or been a victim of them, many times in the past.

    When I went to school, independent and intelligent thought was frowned apon. The only thing that was tolerated was conformity.

    Any suggestions for a site where I could download a .txt or .rtf file on the subject?

    Karamoon: Aha! Thank you. "Argumentum ad biff'em" sounds like an excellent category. It always seemed to me that those words, "Wanna foight?" were spoken by the thickest (both physically and mentally) of the participants in any debate.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,285
    On 2003-03-11 07:14, Kiwi wrote:
    Thanks aporetic_r. I've only recently learnt about such things -- mainly since joining the BABB -- at the age of 52 (hangs head in shame). Certainly was never taught anything about logic at school and can now see that I've been guilty of committing transgressions, or been a victim of them, many times in the past.

    When I went to school, independent and intelligent thought was frowned apon. The only thing that was tolerated was conformity.

    Any suggestions for a site where I could download a .txt or .rtf file on the subject?

    Karamoon: Aha! Thank you. "Argumentum ad biff'em" sounds like an excellent category. It always seemed to me that those words, "Wanna foight?" were spoken by the thickest (both physically and mentally) of the participants in any debate.
    kiwi, I'm also of the advanced age of 52, and I don't think us old fogies should ever hang our heads in shame because we're just now learning something new. I intend to try to keep learning new stuff for as long as the brain is operational. What else is there?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    I've adapted the categorization of the Stephens guide to apply to the Clavius page I'm preparing. The problem with such a rigid classification, however, is that the same abstract fallacies appear in different categorizations under different names.

    The Nizkor list is a little more straightforward, although lacking in structure. I believe the structure is important to some extent.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,677
    I like the Stephen's guide organization as well. It's nice to see all forms of non-sequitur or ad hominem, for example, in one place.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Some are strictly algebraic and discuss the logical operators. It's nice to talk about all of those together. Others deal with induction and empiricism, and it's convenient to talk about all of those together too.

  14. #14
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,289
    So how's that list going?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    It's almost done. I'm working right now on responding to Aulis' latest article. And, of course, my day job. :-)

  16. #16
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,289
    It's always day job, day job, day job with you, isn't it?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Yes, my bosses are unreasonable. They demand they get a day's work for a day's pay. :-)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    Quote Originally Posted by aporetic_r
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    I came across this guide to logical fallacies, and I thought that it would be useful for assisting both debunkers and potential HBs.
    Look here as well

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4
    I while the desriptions of various logical fallacies on the site are nice, the examples are just completely retarded. Let me show you what I mean.

    Here is one of the examples of a tu quoque fallacy:
    Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
    Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"
    As you can see Bill is not really making a logical fallacy here at all. He is more or less calling Peter a hypocrite WHICH HE IS. He is not saying, well, your arguments are wrong because you still do it. He never even denies Peters arguments. He just asks how he can much such arguments with a beef sandwich in his hands and leather jacket on his back. That is a perfectly logical thing to do and shame on anyone who would let Peter get away with such bull****.

    Examples of this type abound. The author really doesn't have the knack for writing dialogues and I would really suggest he have someone else do it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4
    After further reading I take back any of the good things I said about the site. The author clearly fails to recognize the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacy. A logical fallacy does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that the logic used to prove it is unsatisfactory.

    An example would be my little brother, who has a tendancy to lie. He owed me some money, I called him to see if he had sent it and he said he had put the check in the mail yesterday. Now, I say to myself "My brother is known for lying. He says he put the check in the mail. He must not have because he is liar." That is a logical fallacy, but I'll be damned if when the check showed up it wasn't postmarked for the day after the phone call! The argument was a fallacy, but the outcome was the same. The reasoning didn't prove the check was late, the postmark did.

    As I said, the author of the site is unable to differentiate between the two ideas.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,023
    Quote Originally Posted by spoilsport
    As you can see Bill is not really making a logical fallacy here at all. He is more or less calling Peter a hypocrite WHICH HE IS. He is not saying, well, your arguments are wrong because you still do it. He never even denies Peters arguments. He just asks how he can much such arguments with a beef sandwich in his hands and leather jacket on his back. That is a perfectly logical thing to do and shame on anyone who would let Peter get away with such bull****.
    While in this situation Bill may rightly regard Peter as a hypocrite and quite reasonably call him one, his comments do not form a logical rebuttal to the proposition posed.

    This is because the proposition is that it is morally wrong to wear clothes/eat food made from animals. Bill's statements do not address this proposition, but merely point out the inconsistency of the leather-wearing, carnivourous Peter making the argument. If this is the extent of Bill's rebuttal and an observer to the exchange is swayed by Bill's comments to believe that eating animals is therefore morally OK, then they would have fallen foul of a tu quoque fallacy.

    The author clearly fails to recognize the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacy. A logical fallacy does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that the logic used to prove it is unsatisfactory.
    In terms of logic, a 'fallacy' is a form of technical error in the argument process. It does not refer to the conclusion of the argument, which may or may not be correct. Bill may well prove to be correct that eating meat is morally OK, but he has not made a sound argument to demonstrate this from a logical perspective because his argument contains a fallacy.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    The author clearly fails to recognize the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacy. A logical fallacy does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that the logic used to prove it is unsatisfactory.
    It appears your distinction is the confused one. Not the premise, the terminology.

    A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
    He knows the difference. It may not be clear to you as the focus of the site is not factual error or burden of proof, and due to this does not get discussed at length.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,023
    Quote Originally Posted by spoilsport
    As you can see Bill is not really making a logical fallacy here at all. He is more or less calling Peter a hypocrite WHICH HE IS. He is not saying, well, your arguments are wrong because you still do it. He never even denies Peters arguments. He just asks how he can much such arguments with a beef sandwich in his hands and leather jacket on his back. That is a perfectly logical thing to do and shame on anyone who would let Peter get away with such bull****.
    Just had a look at the Nizkor Project regarding this definition and the author specifically makes the point that:

    "The fact a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false."

    This is the key point.

    By the way Freddo, congratulations on clocking up the Grand! =D>

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    By the way Freddo, congratulations on clocking up the Grand!
    Hey! Well would ya look at that!!

    I didn't even notice! And I was all counting down last week....

    =D> =D> =D>

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Hypocrisy falls under rhetoric. Logic does not require a conclusion to be acted upon in order to validate it, nor does it allow the invalidation of a conclusion that is not acted upon. Logic considers only that the question is properly reasoned. To attempt to refute a conclusion based on the behavior of his proponent to follow or not follow it is an ad hominem argument.

    Lexicologically, a "fallacy" is any incorrect or deceptive statement regardles of the mode of deception or the root cause of the error. But to qualify a "logical fallacy" suggests an examination of the root cause according to inference -- a sort of "structural" fallacy that reasons incorrectly from possibly correct premises. This tends toward being distinct from fallacies in which the mechanism of inference is correct, but the underlying premise is unsupported. But practically the line between these modes of error is blurry enough that we can properly consider as "logical" fallacies those merely with defective premises.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    497
    Oh look, our old friend.

  27. #27
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,289
    Lexicologically? Now you made that up! Such a word is useless in this language as no-one can say it right.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    97
    What does anyone think of this logic site?


    edited a few times, to get the ulr ref right and fix grammar. Duh

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    310
    I really hate to sound ignoramus.........but the 'HB' acronym.......


    I could never put a definition on it....

    what is a HB.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    97
    HB=hoax believer, referring to the moon landing hoax

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 168
    Last Post: 2010-Jul-18, 07:22 PM
  2. A note on Fallacies
    By RalofTyr in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-25, 05:20 AM
  3. Logical Fallacies, I Need One Identified
    By BigDon in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2008-May-18, 02:51 PM
  4. Logical Fallacies
    By aurora in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-12, 03:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •