a logical fallacies thread

[BBond]

Originally posted by: mribnik1
I hate it when people ask you to prove that something doesn't exist. What the heck is that?

The U.S. search for WMD in Iraq???

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford
My favorite on P&N and politics in general are the false dilemma arguments, and it seems to be the most common by far. I actually didn't know the name, but I've seen it quite a lot. In fact, a thread I started a little while ago was on that topic. The basic fallacy is that there are a limited number (usually two) of options to pick from, and if you don't pick one option, you must pick the other. This does actually work, as long as you first show that there are indeed only a limited number of options. This step is almost always implied, usually without any supporting evidence.

I don't have a direct quote (mostly because I'm too lazy to look for it), by my favorite recent example of this is "You don't support Bush's approach to the war in Iraq, you want us to pull out immediatly and let the terrorists win."

I've never really understood how people can do that, or how it becomes a Rupublican vs. Democrat War.

Whats the difference between false dilemma and false dichomoety(sp?)? Aren't they the same thing?

I think they mean the same thing, but a false dilemma can have more than two sides.

 

[Stunt]

Just got one!

Zendari in the Nascar thread.

Apparently cutting back on nascar with high oil prices is equivalent to cutting back on medicare because of high medical costs

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

How about this gem?:

How is it possible to be against the Iraq war and support American soldiers?

 

[1EZduzit]

Would this qualify as a logical fallacy?

You can't argue with people who believe their own lies.

LOL, you can argue with them, your just wasting your time if you do though. or not??

 

[cKGunslinger]

What about: "If he [Bush] thinks that it?s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war?"

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about: "If he [Bush] thinks that it?s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war?"

Hahah...that one is priceless :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Whats the difference between false dilemma and false dichomoety(sp?)? Aren't they the same thing?

False dilemma:

Beautitful woman: "If you don't make love to me, I'm going to have to make love to you." (This is a dilemma???)


False dichotomy:

Beautiful woman: "I didn't have an orgasm, that must mean you're a lousy lover." (It COULD mean the two of you just finished a meal at Burger King.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tab
Internet Infidels has a great resource on common fallacies used in religious debates - Here

Wikipedia, great reference much more in depth.

Are you an atheist, tab? this list can be cool, there are a few very smart people on it, altho there are also some very crazy people there too:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atheistempire/

Bolded above is the fallacy that because numerous smart people think one way makes their argument appealing. 9 out of ten dentists think this is a logical fallacy.

how is my comment a logical fallacy, there is no argument present, no claim. I have no idea what you are trying to say. some of the crazy people are interesting, have interesting viewpoints. I'm semi-crazy myself, I like crazy people, freaks, but I am aware that lots of people don't.

I didn't say it's a logical fallacy. I said 9 out 10 dentists think it is so that makes it one regardless of my opinion. And you did too make an argument. You claimed the list of atheists was cool because of the conditions you listed. You tried to say that a list of filthy godless atheists is cool when every religious person knows them what's on that list are going to hell. That, my dear man, is the uncool list because their asses are gonna be hot.

And isn't your defense of crazy people a red herring or a diversion since I never attacked them or are you just trying to expand on my general understanding?

 

[shira]

Here's an example of what I think is a typical, irrational argumentation strategy. I guess it can be referred to as "illogical", since the strategy involves an unstated invalid assumption:

AAAA: I think legalizing marijuana for adults would represent a huge net benefit to the United States.

BBBB: Legalization would be a disaster. More people would use marijuana if it were legal.

The illogic: BBBB identifies a potential major negative consequence associated with the advocated change, and dismisses the change because of it.

But BBBB is making the unstated assumption that for a change to be acceptable, it must have no significant negative consequences. This ignores AAAA's claim that there would be a NET benefit (presumably AAAA is taking into account both positive and negative consequences of the proposed change).

I see this strategy used all the time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
First example I found:

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I do wonder if you have a lack of outlets for expression of anger or aggression IRL, how else to explain your behavior on this forum?

Hey, that's you! It was your post right before you started this thread. Congrats!

How is that a logical fallacy? What argument am I trying to make? It's just a bit of speculation on my part, certainly not a formal argument

Also, be aware that insulting someone isn't necessarily a logical error. If I was to call you a dipsh1t, then it's 'just' an in insult. If I was to suggest your argument on subject X is worthless BECAUSE you are a dipsh1t, we are moving into ad hominem fallacy territory.

For one, the following from tab's link:

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that ? usually, anyway ? insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.

Actually, that is a perfect example of complex question, not ad hominem. The 2 can be confused because complex question frequently contains an implied insult. For example, when did you stop raping little boys? No matter how answered, fault must be admitted.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
My favorite on P&N and politics in general are the false dilemma arguments, and it seems to be the most common by far. I actually didn't know the name, but I've seen it quite a lot. In fact, a thread I started a little while ago was on that topic. The basic fallacy is that there are a limited number (usually two) of options to pick from, and if you don't pick one option, you must pick the other. This does actually work, as long as you first show that there are indeed only a limited number of options. This step is almost always implied, usually without any supporting evidence.

I don't have a direct quote (mostly because I'm too lazy to look for it), by my favorite recent example of this is "You don't support Bush's approach to the war in Iraq, you want us to pull out immediatly and let the terrorists win."

Very true.
In addition to False Dilemma and Complex Question, the other logical fallacies most commonly seen here are From Ignorance (very common in religion flame wars), Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, and Straw Man.
IMO, straw men are the most popular of all, and are typical of most any flame war. Instead of confronting an argument head-on, an individual will ascribe (often in conjunction with false dilemma, i.e. "you are of a certain political affiliation, therefore you must believe this) a particular argument to their opponent that is actually different and weaker than their real argument, solely for the purpose of having the presentation of defeating that weaker argument. One common frustration I have here on ATPN is that the individual will go back to their straw man time and time again, even long after I have unmasked it for what it is, and will never address or even acknowledge my real argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shira
Here's an example of what I think is a typical, irrational argumentation strategy. I guess it can be referred to as "illogical", since the strategy involves an unstated invalid assumption:

AAAA: I think legalizing marijuana for adults would represent a huge net benefit to the United States.

BBBB: Legalization would be a disaster. More people would use marijuana if it were legal.

The illogic: BBBB identifies a potential major negative consequence associated with the advocated change, and dismisses the change because of it.

But BBBB is making the unstated assumption that for a change to be acceptable, it must have no significant negative consequences. This ignores AAAA's claim that there would be a NET benefit (presumably AAAA is taking into account both positive and negative consequences of the proposed change).

I see this strategy used all the time.

BBBB is actually making more than one logical fallacy there, but the primary one is Appeal to Consequences or Appeal to Fear, which is a form of false dilemma. In that case, there is no evidence that marijuana use would increase if it were legal, and there are many logical and evidenced arguments that indicate the usage might actually decrease with legalization. Or usage may not change at all, which is where the false dilemma comes in.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shira
Here's an example of what I think is a typical, irrational argumentation strategy. I guess it can be referred to as "illogical", since the strategy involves an unstated invalid assumption:

AAAA: I think legalizing marijuana for adults would represent a huge net benefit to the United States.

BBBB: Legalization would be a disaster. More people would use marijuana if it were legal.

The illogic: BBBB identifies a potential major negative consequence associated with the advocated change, and dismisses the change because of it.

But BBBB is making the unstated assumption that for a change to be acceptable, it must have no significant negative consequences. This ignores AAAA's claim that there would be a NET benefit (presumably AAAA is taking into account both positive and negative consequences of the proposed change).

I see this strategy used all the time.

BBBB is actually making more than one logical fallacy there, but the primary one is Appeal to Consequences or Appeal to Fear, which is a form of false dilemma. In that case, there is no evidence that marijuana use would increase if it were legal, and there are many logical and evidenced arguments that indicate the usage might actually decrease with legalization. Or usage may not change at all, which is where the false dilemma comes in.

Lets hear them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
BBBB is actually making more than one logical fallacy there, but the primary one is Appeal to Consequences or Appeal to Fear, which is a form of false dilemma. In that case, there is no evidence that marijuana use would increase if it were legal, and there are many logical and evidenced arguments that indicate the usage might actually decrease with legalization. Or usage may not change at all, which is where the false dilemma comes in.

Lets hear them. [/quote]
OT to this thread but I'll take the bait. Alcohol usage actually increased during the Prohibition, particularly among women. After the Prohibition, alcohol usage actually declined somewhat, although (to be fair) it is not known if this was because Prohibition ended or because of the Great Depression. All of this is a much debate, but what is generally agreed upon is that: (1) Prohibition changed the way Americans consumed alcohol, and made it much more fashionable, especially among women (fyi: cocktails were invented during the Prohibition, men drank their whiskey straight up prior to) and; (2) Prohibition did nothing to curtail the actually usage of alcohol in America, while greatly increasing alcohol-related crimes.

edit: btw, on topic, the actual arguments themselves are not important logically to counter BBBB's statement insofar as the fact that they exist. BBBB's statement, "More people would use marijuana if it were legal," directly implies that he is making a statement of fact, when in actually he is not.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
First example I found:

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I do wonder if you have a lack of outlets for expression of anger or aggression IRL, how else to explain your behavior on this forum?

Hey, that's you! It was your post right before you started this thread. Congrats!

How is that a logical fallacy? What argument am I trying to make? It's just a bit of speculation on my part, certainly not a formal argument

Also, be aware that insulting someone isn't necessarily a logical error. If I was to call you a dipsh1t, then it's 'just' an in insult. If I was to suggest your argument on subject X is worthless BECAUSE you are a dipsh1t, we are moving into ad hominem fallacy territory.

For one, the following from tab's link:

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that ? usually, anyway ? insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.

Actually, that is a perfect example of complex question, not ad hominem. The 2 can be confused because complex question frequently contains an implied insult. For example, when did you stop raping little boys? No matter how answered, fault must be admitted.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
My favorite on P&N and politics in general are the false dilemma arguments, and it seems to be the most common by far. I actually didn't know the name, but I've seen it quite a lot. In fact, a thread I started a little while ago was on that topic. The basic fallacy is that there are a limited number (usually two) of options to pick from, and if you don't pick one option, you must pick the other. This does actually work, as long as you first show that there are indeed only a limited number of options. This step is almost always implied, usually without any supporting evidence.

I don't have a direct quote (mostly because I'm too lazy to look for it), by my favorite recent example of this is "You don't support Bush's approach to the war in Iraq, you want us to pull out immediatly and let the terrorists win."

Very true.
In addition to False Dilemma and Complex Question, the other logical fallacies most commonly seen here are From Ignorance (very common in religion flame wars), Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, and Straw Man.
IMO, straw men are the most popular of all, and are typical of most any flame war. Instead of confronting an argument head-on, an individual will ascribe (often in conjunction with false dilemma, i.e. "you are of a certain political affiliation, therefore you must believe this) a particular argument to their opponent that is actually different and weaker than their real argument, solely for the purpose of having the presentation of defeating that weaker argument. One common frustration I have here on ATPN is that the individual will go back to their straw man time and time again, even long after I have unmasked it for what it is, and will never address or even acknowledge my real argument.

I suppose that might be a better pick, but ad-hom abusive would work too since it was purposely insulting.:beer:

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is the fallacy of exaggeration of a truth to extremes:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Moonie. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

The claim is that everybody knows I'm an asshole but at least one or two of the noobs probably do not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here is the fallacy of exaggeration of a truth to extremes:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Moonie. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

The claim is that everybody knows I'm an asshole but at least one or two of the noobs probably do not.

Ah, but Moonie, it was obvious that that was not meant to be a logical argument. You make an exaggerated statement, I make one in return. I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but it does provide one with a level of satifisfaction, does it not? And it really was an apt analogy, in its own way. Death from old age is inevitable, and it usually hits most folks in and around 80 regardless of the level of health care that they receive. So your statement really was playing off tragedy for your own agenda, wasn't it?

I'm honestly sorry if it hurt your feelings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here is the fallacy of exaggeration of a truth to extremes:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Moonie. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

The claim is that everybody knows I'm an asshole but at least one or two of the noobs probably do not.

Ah, but Moonie, it was obvious that that was not meant to be a logical argument. You make an exaggerated statement, I make one in return. I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but it does provide one with a level of satifisfaction, does it not? And it really was an apt analogy, in its own way. Death from old age is inevitable, and it usually hits most folks in and around 80 regardless of the level of health care that they receive. So your statement really was playing off tragedy for your own agenda, wasn't it?

I'm honestly sorry if it hurt your feelings.

Actually I was saying that in many ways the 80 year old, despite the misfortune, was lucky, in one way to be alive at 80 since so many do not make it that far especially were the health care is poor. I thought your remark was out in left field and that you were fencing with some sore spot of your own fantasy, not with the reality of what I had said. Your comment, and thank you for the sincere though unneeded regret, did not bother me at all because I did not think it had any inner truth that applied to me. I thought the 'tragedy and agenda', whatever they may mean, belonged to you. I was talking about the general situation, not taking care of the man. I think I am a rather sympathetic person so I don't mind being told that I am not. We do all need to be mindful though that because we hate ourselves, we are not capable of real sympathy at all. So I have to keep an open mind.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Text:

Amazing how low people will go to support this bullsh*t lie of a war. I feel sorry for all families that say they honor the troops with false patriotism and hatred.

Stay right where you are, Cindy!

The OP is clearly no human being, so he can get off his high horse and quit ruining the gene pool.

NO EXCUSES! IF YOU LOVE TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, GET YOUR GOD DAMN ASS TO IRAQ NOW!

Yes, because all economic conservatives and Republican voters obviously "love to kill innocent people."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Yes, because all economic conservatives and Republican voters obviously "love to kill innocent people."

I'm not sure I understand what economic conservatism has to do with supporting President Bush - he's one of the most profligate Presidents in American history.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
NO EXCUSES! IF YOU LOVE TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, GET YOUR GOD DAMN ASS TO IRAQ NOW!

Yes, because all economic conservatives and Republican voters obviously "love to kill innocent people."[/quote]


I read this to mean that the only thing the United States military is doing in Iraq is killing "innocent people."

'If you love killing innocent people, join the Army, get your GOD DAMN ASS TO IRAQ NOW, and you, too, can kill the innocent freedom fighters.'

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: BroeBo
So with the increasing amount of homeless people our economy is creating, we now have an excuse to put them away...

Faulty cause and effect.

 

[BushBasha]

And, of course, the follow-up is laden with them

Originally posted by: BroeBo

You're and idiot. Just because you and your "friends" are not friends with any homeless doesn't mean they are not out there. Get off your high horse. :roll:

I was getting at the fact that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. Meaning more and more homeless people. What are we doing about it?Text Now we say that they could be terrorists....hmm.... ANYONE COULD BE A TERRORIST.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Yes, because all economic conservatives and Republican voters obviously "love to kill innocent people."

I'm not sure I understand what economic conservatism has to do with supporting President Bush - he's one of the most profligate Presidents in American history.

I didn't mean to lead anyone to that conclusion, just that many people here consider themsleves "conservatives" based on their theories and thoughts about the economy, yet they are often lumped to together into this mythical "ass-kissing Bush-God fanboi warmonger" persona that pissy little ankle-biters like the owner of that post seem to enjoy ranting about. The words Conservative, Republican, and even Moderate have been corrupted by a few here into meaning something completely different. (Admittedly, "Liberal" is used almost as much as an epithet, but usually with a bit less zealousness and foaming-at-the-mouth.)

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

You and the rest of your ilk have NO MORALS, NO DECENCY and quite frankly, I'm ashamed you're an American.

I'm going to have to tell them that people like you are a bunch of racist, sadistic, pigs and loved to kill more than cared about this country or its freedoms (all of them). You make me sick.

We should all spend some time dissecting that masterpiece.