List of logical fallacies

[Byron]

List of logical fallacies - with examples

List of logical fallacies - wikipedia


Everyone should read this, and avoid using any of those faulty arguments in discussions here.

Maybe there can be a simplified sticky list for what false arguments to avoid.

That will save us all time, and help discussions go to the truth of a subject more quickly.


Highlights include:

• Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument
• Argumentum ad baculum "appeal to force": where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
• Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
• Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
• Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
• Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
• Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
• Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason

So, let's all avoid these, and go directly to the truth of each subject discussed instead!

[WordKeeper]

I studied rhetoric briefly during college but your knowledge surpasses anything I have encountered. Thank you for sharing this information. Care to be a watch dog?

I can see it now. "HALT. You have committed fallacy #3."

"Oh, geez. I didn't realize. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll retract my statement. Carry on."

Wouldn't it be nice? Wish it were more than fantasy. Well, at least I have learned the names of several fallacious arguments. Thanks.

Just for fun - why not post illustrations of these various types when you encounter them on the forums. That would be interesting and informative. Think about it.

[lifetimelearner]

"There are many who think they are made righteous by following the rules"-
William Young

[Angela]

Don't forget -- not all discussions are arguments.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

Don't forget -- not all discussions are arguments.

Why DO people post here Angela?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

Why DO people post here Angela?

Lots of reasons. Probably as many reasons as there are members.

Not all of them are here for argument, and logic is not always required or beneficial. I recognize that it's hard for people with very logical, left-brain minds to grok that. It's also sometimes difficult for the extreme right-brainers to understand why some folks are always insisting on order, rules, and logic; or why someone has to be "right" and the other person has to be "wrong."

Some people get really, really upset when others won't operate in the realm of logic -- they feel strongly that everyone *should*. And they might be missing out on some great connection with people who don't think that way.

I happen to be a Swinger -- I go both ways.

[lifetimelearner]

everyone has something to say
and
as long as we respect each other I do not see the problem

[zoner7]

Originally Posted by Angela

Lots of reasons. Probably as many reasons as there are members.

Not all of them are here for argument, and logic is not always required or beneficial. I recognize that it's hard for people with very logical, left-brain minds to grok that. It's also sometimes difficult for the extreme right-brainers to understand why some folks are always insisting on order, rules, and logic; or why someone has to be "right" and the other person has to be "wrong."

Some people get really, really upset when others won't operate in the realm of logic -- they feel strongly that everyone *should*. And they might be missing out on some great connection with people who don't think that way.

I happen to be a Swinger -- I go both ways.

wow... that was probably one of the most obvious yet insightful comments I had ever read on a forum. Thank you

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

Lots of reasons. Probably as many reasons as there are members.

Not all of them are here for argument, and logic is not always required or beneficial. I recognize that it's hard for people with very logical, left-brain minds to grok that. It's also sometimes difficult for the extreme right-brainers to understand why some folks are always insisting on order, rules, and logic; or why someone has to be "right" and the other person has to be "wrong."

Some people get really, really upset when others won't operate in the realm of logic -- they feel strongly that everyone *should*. And they might be missing out on some great connection with people who don't think that way.

I happen to be a Swinger -- I go both ways.

It's funny.. in a social situation nobody cares about logic and order. Here there isn't the same kind of "consensus" about what's going on.

I operate in two modes: party and debate. When the two mix it darkens my world, though I haven't been explicitly aware til now. Gracias.

[Brutha]

If you learn all those fallacies you might very well be a dumber than before.
People put a greater amount of attention into proving for themselves that their arguments against which they are predisposed are wrong than they put attention to the task of questioning their own arguments.

If you suddenly find that everyone else is wrong and you are right (because you don't question yourself) you will be come to worse conclusions.

It's also sometimes difficult for the extreme right-brainers to understand why some folks are always insisting on order, rules, and logic; or why someone has to be "right" and the other person has to be "wrong."

It's really difficult when you argue with someone who is extremely emotional about whether mobile phone cause cancer and that position only sees the emotional appeal of the argument but doesn't really care about the logical argument.

[chineerat]

Thanks Byron.
Been looking for something like this for quite a while now.

[edith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you learn all those fallacies you might very well be a dumber than before.
People put a greater amount of attention into proving for themselves that their arguments against which they are predisposed are wrong than they put attention to the task of questioning their own arguments.

If you suddenly find that everyone else is wrong and you are right (because you don't question yourself) you will be come to worse conclusions.
It's really difficult when you argue with someone who is extremely emotional about whether mobile phone cause cancer and that position only sees the emotional appeal of the argument but doesn't really care about the logical argument.

It seemed like you contradicted yourself there....a little bit. On the one hand you say it's bad to learn about those fallacies; on the other, you speak of the difficulty when people argue from emotion.

I'm not trying to be picayune about this just for fun - I just wanted to point out that if we are trying to gain more insight through these conversations, it is a good thing to see where we might get tripped up in our reasoning. And I agree with you - yep, certainly the best thing is to go after our own faulty reasoning first and foremost (and a 75% of those survey said so ).

[Brutha]

It seemed like you contradicted yourself there....a little bit. On the one hand you say it's bad to learn about those fallacies;

It depends how you learn. When you learn them like philosophy or in a rhetoric class (rhetorics is the art of showing others that you are right) there happen to be a few problems.

on the other, you speak of the difficulty when people argue from emotion.

You seem to think that the aristotelian and the emotional way are the only ways to see the world. They aren't.

A third way is to see the word as a bayesian.
Zen is a forth way.
I personally happen to favor an approach of thinking in terms of decision making or strategy.

[RT Wolf]

I, as much as anyone else, enjoys reasoned arguments and good evidence. One thing to keep in mind, IMHO, is that a good argument doesn't make you right, and that while it's cool to see someone perform the "technical" movements of an argument correctly, that does not mean they've got a good argument.

Guess which fallacy I just performed in the above statement.

[bluedragon]

I think it's very useful to know these things and maybe they should be studied in school. That, and memory techniques
It would be interesting to have a forum where, whenever someone made a really stupid argument, manipulating words and phrases in such a way that nobody understands anything anymore, the moderators would pin a sticky note on the sidebar stating - "illogical argument" or something like that, and then members could vote on the sticky to decide whether it's really illogical.
Maybe this could be used only for very delicate topics such as religious, Law of Attraction and "reasons not to have a job" ones

[SimonaRich]

Why to argue in the first place?

And why to learn more about arguments???

[Brutha]

It would be interesting to have a forum where, whenever someone made a really stupid argument, manipulating words and phrases in such a way that nobody understands anything anymore, the moderators would pin a sticky note on the sidebar stating - "illogical argument" or something like that, and then members could vote on the sticky to decide whether it's really illogical.

Forbidding arguments that a majority doesn't like reduces the amount of different arguments that get made.

Traditional logic has only true states: True and False.
In reality we seldom reach a level of certainty about something to prove that something is 100% true or 100% false.
But logic is only really valid if you deal with things that are 100% true or 100% false.

If you don't you can get wrong with or without logic and there is no reason to assume that following logic will lead you to a better result than other methods.

[MisterEThoughts]

What an amazing thread! Thank you very much.

[nick666]

Thanks a lot-you've just exposed all my arguing techniques!

[Savage]

Don't forget this fairly common logical fallacy:

• Treating unprovable assumptions as fact: Building one's argument(s) upon an unprovable assumption, such as the supposed objective nature of the universe.

Have you ever had a debate with a character in one of your lucid dreams? It's quite an experience to figure out the right way to reason under such circumstances. How do you build a proper foundation for knowledge in a world of thought and imagination?