What do you think is the most common logical fallacy used in this subforum?

[Amused]

To me, I think it's Tu quoque (whataboutism/appeal to hypocrisy). This one derails virtually every discussion here and if I were to offer any advice, it would be to call out the logical fallacy and not respond to the bait.

What are your thoughts? And which others do you find commonly used? How many do you find you yourself make?

 

[shortylickens]

Straw Man, by far.

2nd highest is shotgun or Preponderance of Garbage.

 

[Paratus]

To me, I think it's Tu quoque (whataboutism/appeal to hypocrisy). This one derails virtually every discussion here and if I were to offer any advice, it would be to call out the logical fallacy and not respond to the bait.

What are your thoughts? And which others do you find commonly used? How many do you find you yourself make?

I see a lot of strawmen in this forum.

 

[NAC4EV]

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. ]Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

 

[Amused]

Straw Man, by far.

2nd highest is shotgun or Preponderance of Garbage.

Is shotgunning only questions or discussion points? Or am I guilty when I overwhelm when responding with examples, facts and evidence?

 

[sandorski]

That one is popular right now. Seen plenty of Strawman arguments, Goalpost moving, Subject Changing/Ignoring Evidence to the contrary, and Ad Hominems.

 

[Amused]

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

There is also Tu quoque by proxy. Which is the most commonly used variant in political discussions.

 

[Commodus]

On top of that, I'd say equivocation is a serious problem on the forum. See: the Trump apologists who think Antifa is as bad as or worse than neo-Nazis.

My own fault? It's difficult to be completely accurate with self-criticism, but I do think I'm all too often tempted to respond with emotional outbursts rather than evidence and logic. There are some people who are genuinely hateful, ignorant human beings, and it's hard not to get mad at them.

 

[woolfe9998]

Whataboutism for is for sure one of the most common these days. It's also what I'd call a red herring. I find it interesting that this fallacy has traditionally been used by the Russians going all the way back to the Soviet era and continuing with Putin. Every time they are criticized for anything, it's "what about racism in the United States."

I would also mention something that I think plagues political discussion everywhere: the tendency to use anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove a wider point. The closest formal logical fallacy is the fallacy of composition, concluding that what is true of the part is true of the whole. This means over-generalizing from the behavior of individuals to that of the group, whether it is Muslims, police, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, you name it.

Then there's classic straw mannery. Which aggravates me so much that I tend to disengage when I see people willfully or ignorantly mischaracterizing my arguments.

As to which ones I use, I'll be honest here, I don't use very many. I'm sure I'm guilty here and there. When I'm wrong, however, it's likely to be because I got a fact wrong, not because my logic doesn't track.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's got to be "argumentum ad verecundiam" Argument from authority.

All the great minds agree that this is so.

 

[Amused]

It's got to be "argumentum ad verecundiam" Argument from authority.

All the great minds agree that this is so.

There is a marked difference between an appeal to expertise or expert consensus (valid argument), and appeal to authority (logical fallacy).

Of course, certain ideologies love to conflate the two.

Do you know the difference?

 

[purbeast0]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

 

[Amused]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

Tu quoque. Appeal to Hypocrisy or "Whataboutism"

 

[vi edit]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

That would be classic "Whataboutism".

 

[Amused]

That would be classic "Whataboutism".

I like "Whataboutery" too.

Whataboutery males?

 

[woolfe9998]

There is a marked difference between an appeal to expertise or expert consensus (valid argument), and appeal to authority (logical fallacy).

Of course, certain ideologies love to conflate the two.

Do you know the difference?

Yes, and argumentum ad populum, the appeal to popular opinion. It's OK to appeal to those with special expertise, but not to the general population, or to someone who just happens to be prominent and well known.

 

[woolfe9998]

What is it called (for example) when in the gun rights threads and people talk about banning guns, then some idiot says "WELL SMOKING KILLS 30 BAJILLION PEOPLE A YEAR WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT BANNING CIGARETTES IN HERE?!?!?"

Because I see a lot of that on here.

It's tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), whataboutism, as the OP discussed.

 

[vi edit]

As for me, the worst is when two or three people just go pages into replies with paragraphs worth of responses and the original argument is completely lost. It's just a discussion that has devolved into nothing but people trying to talk over one another and hoping to catch the other in sort of slip up that they can point to and say "HAHA! YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!".

I guess that's just a combination of a number of fallacies.

 

[purbeast0]

Tu quoque. Appeal to Hypocrisy or "Whataboutism"

Okay than I agree with you.

 

[Amused]

As for me, the worst is when two or three people just go pages into replies with paragraphs worth of responses and the original argument is completely lost. It's just a discussion that has devolved into nothing but people trying to talk over one another and hoping to catch the other in sort of slip up that they can point to and say "HAHA! YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!".

Most of this can be avoided by not taking the bait of logical fallacies and throwing a flag on the play. Fsck I love those memes!

Or:

 

[pmv]

Straw Man, by far.

2nd highest is shotgun or Preponderance of Garbage.

Isn't that second one often called 'the Gish Gallop'?

But I agree with the OP. Except the word is 'Whataboutery' not 'Whataboutism', dammit!

I don't think ad hominems are really fallacies. Sometimes people just want to throw an insult because they are annoyed, I don't think in most cases anyone expects it to be taken as a valid argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

The greatest fallacy I see in posters here is the assumption they know something. I think the assumption that one knows what one does not is the single greatest obstacle to learning. This is the secret as to why the Oracle of Delphi identified Socrates when asked who the wisest man was. When told of this, Socrates was at first incredulous but came to agree. He questioned many people and discovered that while they all thought they knew things they in fact knew noting including the fact that they were ignorant. Socrates had already realized that one fact and by that knowledge was wiser than anyone else.

In all real religious and ancient philosophical paths to self realization, there is talk of a psychic death, the death of ego. This death involves the collapse of certainty, the realization that knowledge we believe in was conditioned by our experience, that everything we were taught to believe and worship as some kind of sacred truth is nothing but garbage. In Zen this is referred to as the possibility of having new tea poured only into a cup that is empty.

The question, of course, is how does one empty ones tea cup. It is the same question as how does the ego become ego free.

We all imagine that the ego can make us ego free. But the ego will never let go voluntarily. The result is our delusional state that we imagine is freedom, a prison for our minds, certainty instead of ignorance.

 

[Amused]

Isn't that second one often called 'the Gish Gallop'?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There is a marked difference between an appeal to expertise or expert consensus (valid argument), and appeal to authority (logical fallacy).

Of course, certain ideologies love to conflate the two.

Do you know the difference?

Of course.

 

[vi edit]

Yeah I can usually tell once a thread is heading into that death spiral and tap out. Or posters that aren't worth engaging because they argue for the sake of arguing.