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

[MomentsofSanity]

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.

Ad hominem would be a fallacy of irrelevance more so than logical. Straw man, false equivalency. There's so many that are used so damn often.

 

[Zorba]

Whataboutism is the worst at the moment, ad hominems are also very common here, even from otherwise good posters.

There are a lot of strawmen too, but I think a lot of people call out strawmen that aren't actually strawmen too.

 

[Zorba]

Ad hominem would be a fallacy of irrelevance more so than logical. Straw man, false equivalency. There's so many that are used so damn often.

Yeah, false equivalency I think would be the second favorite. Usually used with a whataboutism.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Another popular one is Appeal to emotion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion


"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]"

"The end of the world as we know it" , "is that the kind of country you want to live in?" ,I'm a member of the fan club , "would you send those children back to their countries?" , "You're a Russian" etc.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

While I generally agree about the importance of tamping down our own hubris and acknowledging our limitations, the danger of your argument is that it can lead to the conclusion that we're all equally ignorant. In fact, there is such a thing as objective reality, and in fact, some people seem to have a better handle on it than others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's like pornography. Perhaps I don't know all the named types, but I know them when I see them. I tend to call bullshit, but the test is a deconstruction of an argument. If it fails then the basis for the claim warrants further checking.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Ad hominem is most definitely a formalistic logical fallacy. While negative observations about the arguer may have value in some cases, what's important is to also address the argument, instead of ignoring the argument entirely and attacking the arguer instead.

 

[interchange]

Many of these fallacies overlap in execution. Hard to pick between strawman and ad hominem.

Personally, I often appeal to emotion and use analogy to question an argument. I'm not sure that that's fallacy. If the appeal to emotion is because I believe their emotion is clouding objectivity, is that a fallacy? If the analogy fits the original argument instead of a distortion of it but is made to make reasoning more clear or remove emotional charge, is that a straw man?

 

[Amused]

While I generally agree about the importance of tamping down our own hubris and acknowledging our limitations, the danger of your argument is that it can lead to the conclusion that we're all equally ignorant. In fact, there is such a thing as objective reality, and in fact, some people seem to have a better handle on it than others.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Issac Asimov

 

[pmv]

Another popular one is Appeal to emotion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion


"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]"

"The end of the world as we know it" , "is that the kind of country you want to live in?" ,I'm a member of the fan club , "would you send those children back to their countries?" , "You're a Russian" etc.

Surely the last of those is more an ad-hom, or a poisoned-well argument, than an appeal to emotion?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The fallacy that's unique to forums where the last poster must be right.

 

[Svnla]

And of course, ad hom attack. Whine and bitch about my sig and my multiple different backgrounds (old white, young white, other races/ethics/backgrounds/ <fill in the blank> --- allegedly)..

One more thing, the "know it all"..just from wiki and cite only wiki as source. LOL.

 

[MajinCry]

I'd say it's the whataboutism fallacy. "You can't say our country did X because your country did Y". Classic argument from an insecure blowhard.

And of course, ad hom attack. Whine and bitch about my sig and my multiple different background (old white, young white, other races/ethics --- allegelly)..

One more thing, the "know it all"..just from wiki and cite only wiki as source. LOL.

How old are you?

 

[Jhhnn]

And of course, ad hom attack. Whine and bitch about my sig and my multiple different background (old white, young white, other races/ethics --- allegelly)..

One more thing, the "know it all"..just from wiki and cite only wiki as source. LOL.

Or just scream HOLOCAUST!

Works every time.

 

[interchange]

I think sometimes a person attacking the logical fallacy of another's argument is a kind of ad hominem itself. The argument, despite the fallacy, may have been perfectly understood and valid but imperfectly expressed. So if it is not desired, the expression is attacked instead of the argument itself. Forgive me if this is a named logical fallacy; I've never taken a formal course on logic.

 

[dank69]

Ad hom isn't a fallacy if you also address the argument. Unfortunately we have plenty of people that just aren't worth the effort to do the second part.

Most people have no idea what a straw man is, even after reading the definition and seeing examples. I can't count the number of times I've seen people use a straw man while accusing someone else of using a straw man that was never a straw man.

Whataboutery has always been common but is completely out of control these days.

Non sequiturs are not uncommon.

 

[dank69]

I think sometimes a person attacking the logical fallacy of another's argument is a kind of ad hominem itself. The argument, despite the fallacy, may have been perfectly understood and valid but imperfectly expressed. So if it is not desired, the expression is attacked instead of the argument itself. Forgive me if this is a named logical fallacy; I've never taken a formal course on logic.

I think that is called a fallacy fallacy.

 

[interchange]

I think that is called a fallacy fallacy.

Thanks. I looked it up. It is, and also called other things as well. I also wondered if you were just trying to be funny.

 

[dank69]

Thanks. I looked it up. It is, and also called other things as well. I also wondered if you were just trying to be funny.

Haha, nope, that's what I've heard it called.

 

[Zaap]

Circlejerkism.

Just because 5 or so cowards all lick each other's.. oops I mean like each other's posts doesn't mean they're actually right about anything. So many threads are just total sewer echo chambers of nonsense. Pretty much every fallacy in the book is taken in place of any actual argument as long as some people that seem to need it think they are scoring enough circle jerk points.

 

[Homerboy]

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.

I think that's called "stupidity"

 

[interchange]

Circlejerkism.

Just because 5 or so cowards all lick each other's.. oops I mean like each other's posts doesn't mean they're actually right about anything. So many threads are just total sewer echo chambers of nonsense. Pretty much every fallacy in the book is taken in place of any actual argument as long as some people that seem to need it think they are scoring enough circle jerk points.

A lot of time people are looking for faults in order to keep their own beliefs from being threatened. The more support they get for that, the stronger the protection. That's a shame. Being faulty doesn't mean that there isn't something of value in what we have to say.

 

[bshole]

Circlejerkism.

Just because 5 or so cowards all lick each other's.. oops I mean like each other's posts doesn't mean they're actually right about anything. So many threads are just total sewer echo chambers of nonsense. Pretty much every fallacy in the book is taken in place of any actual argument as long as some people that seem to need it think they are scoring enough circle jerk points.

One man's nonsense is another man's wisdom.

 

[woolfe9998]

Circlejerkism.

Just because 5 or so cowards all lick each other's.. oops I mean like each other's posts doesn't mean they're actually right about anything. So many threads are just total sewer echo chambers of nonsense. Pretty much every fallacy in the book is taken in place of any actual argument as long as some people that seem to need it think they are scoring enough circle jerk points.

"Circlejerkism" is not a logical fallacy because it isn't illogical for a bunch of people to agree on something. There may be fallacies contained in those threads you call circle jerks but you'd have to be more specific than that.

 

[shortylickens]

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.

False equivalency.