Fallacious Arguments Discussion
Fallacious Arguments Discussionmost content moved from FallaciousArgument
The page is largely crap. It would be better to simply link to something halfway competent, like http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm and http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_index_alpha.htm
A concept is justified when it facilitates useful communication between human beings. What this means is that ArgumentumAdPopulum, ArgumentumAdNumerum?, and many others are perfectly valid (and very powerful) justifications for concepts. Also, AdHominem is a perfectly valid argument against a concept. For example, left-wingers pushing a definition of right-wing or vice versa. And insofar as a definition establishes a concept, these otherwise-fallacies are perfectly valid justifications for definitions. There are still fallacies in reasoning about definitions but they're not the same as reasoning about facts.
What is "useful"?
Ad Hominem might be useful or even correct in the context of some rhetorical argument, but you usually can't support a syllogism with it. Whether a fallacy is informal (and possibly not a fallacy) or formal depends on the context in which it is used.
When you are having a conversation with someone and spot a fallacy, don't accuse the other person of committing that fallacy. For example, don't say, "That's totally AdVerecundiam!" Instead, use your knowledge of the fallacy to point something out that will help the other person see the subject matter more clearly and thus correct his own mistake. The AdHominem page gives some examples of this.
Although there's a certain charm to responding to a paragraph with "AdHominem, AdHominem, AdVerecundiam, PostHocErgoPropterHoc, CircularReasoning, Lie, AdHominem...
No, there's no charm in it at all. Whenever someone attacks the form of the other side's arguments, it will sidetrack the discussion to a debate about form, rather than about whatever the original discussion was. It's best to keep discussions focused on the subject matter, rather than upon knowledge of high-school debating terminology and Latin words.
Also, it's not very respectful. Labeling an argument with one of these terms implies that the arguer is not competent to state his or her views. That may be what you think, but it's not going to advance the discussion or teach that person anything. It's better to point out the specific flaws with the argument, and let the other person retract or amend what has been written.
(I think there are times where that's your only recourse, when the fallacies get particularly egregious. I totally agree with trying for a Socratic dialog that allows the person to see how they've made the fallacy if at all possible, but when you see the moral equivalent of "C++ sucks because it doesn't taste like lemon!", there's just nothing much more to do except say "That argument has no basis in reality.", and you might as well tag that statement with the specific fallacy while you're at it. Unfortunately, you see this a lot when people try to argue with paranoid schizophrenic types (for a real-world example of this); there's just no logical counterarguments to bring to bear against a claim that "the CIA is beaming electromagnetic rays into my brain to control my actions" that won't sound even stupid (to the person) then the claim they just made, because they are so far out of the realm of logic they can't even see land. Yes, that's extreme; I picked it because it's a clear example, but this happens all the time in lesser scenarios, too.
As a sub-point, you will almost never convince the original arguer you are correct. You are almost always ''really' shooting for convincing the silent audience. Labelling a fallacy can be very helpful for them. Thus, not using fallacy labelling because it makes you less likely to convince the opposing side is almost a null concern; your odds of that are about zero anyhow. Those rare people you might actually be able to convince will either not be using such fallacies, or appreciate (on some level) having them pointed out.)
Gotta say, I'm tempted to go after some posters when they say rude things and then post fallacious arguments. Too bad you can't send a balled-up fist to a nose through the Internet. Well, maybe not so bad...
Those who don't like arguing might prefer this page to be called FallaciousReasoning.
Well, those who aren't familiar with the widespread use of the term "argument" in logic and rhetoric might want to do that, but it would be a bad idea. A fallacious argument is a specific form of fallacious reasoning.
Why would someone prefer to reason fallaciously than argue fallaciously?
I believe the following is a clarification that makes your question moot:
This page appears not to be about arguing, but about reasoning, fallacious or otherwise. In consequence, people who may want to discuss reasoning may not visit it, especially if they are uninterested in arguments.
What's the proper name for the form of argument that goes "There are borderline examples that defy clear categorization, therefore the category itself doesn't exist". Sometimes seen in politically motivated arguments against a particular generalization (eg. "middle eastern appearance").
Can I propose a name? How about the Blurred Boundary Fallacy? -- SteveHowell (I would prefer a less political example than the one mentioned, though. I have no problem with people making imperfect generalizations; it's acting on those imperfect generalizations to deny individual liberties that I have a problem with.)
How about "Italian Food". Cookbooks love to say there are so many varieties of Italian Food that there really isn't such a thing as Italian Food. I just used that fallacy a couple of days ago, actually. It's a variant of ExcludedMiddle, which is to claim that either there's a single category or there isn't one at all.
I think this can be generalized as the "If something can't be clearly defined to my satisfaction, it doesn't exist" fallacy. This is similar to the ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof fallacy - it's up to you to "prove" that this concept exists. -- KrisJohnson
Is there a name for this logical fallacy: It happened quickly, therefore it must be easy to do.?
For example: walking on 2 legs happens quickly; people building robots assumed it would be simple to build a robot that walks on 2 feet; they soon discover that it is far more difficult than they expected.
Another example: early ArtificialIntelligence hype. When you present a photograph of a German Shepherd to even a small child, he yells out "Doggie!" within milliseconds, so surely it will be easy to get a computer to do the same thing.
-- DavidCary
NonSequitur, correlation not causation.
Ah, it's only a theory anyway. (Scientific use of the word differs from mainstream usage, and mathematics gives it a different meaning again. What fun we can have when we get them confused. Ditto of course for "proof" and "law".)
[Moved from AdVerecundiam]
A thing to remember about fallacies is that the use of one does not prove the falsity of the conclusion. A fallacious argument is not logically correct but it might well have the right conclusion nonetheless. For example: "The sun is the nearest star. Joe-Bob Briggs told me so."
What is a good way to reply in the following type of situations, and what is the name of the fallacy?
Example 1 Man, I can't stand how so many television shows are putting giant promos over the actual show and increasing the number of commercial breaks. Books don't have commercial breaks. (vote with your wallet)
Example 2 I hate the HMOs, America really should have universal health care. Then move to Canada. (vote with your feet)
Such a response makes it impossible to discuss failings in systems that may otherwise be acceptable.
Such responses aren't fallacies, they're just suggestions on how to avoid what it is you're complaining about. Just because you don't like the suggestion doesn't mean it's fallacious.
Of course they're fallacies - ignoratio elenchi, red herring, etc. That one can move to Canada is completely irrelevant to whether or not America should have universal health care.
I now see why they're not fallacies. However, they're still usually about as useful as saying, "Don't breathe, then." in response to "I get a sharp pain when I inhale." That is, they avoid truly constructive dialog on how to improve the situation. When people say vote with your wallet/feet, they forget that such a strategy only works under specific market conditions, and not even then not always very well. I wish I had a name for this.
What's the goal? Is it to force the market to behave according to your preferences? Or is it just to remove yourself from a market that doesn't behave according to your preferences? If it's the latter, then the strategy works perfectly. But the strategy also works in the former case since your one vote shouldn't be able to change a large market anyway.
Exactly. The context is that of "I would like to work towards a change in this market." Since voting with one's wallet shouldn't be able to change a large market, it's a pretty useless suggestion.
True. The problem is the listener is not making the same assumptions about the way the problem is stated, i.e. when the speaker says I don't like X, they really mean How can I change X. No doubt many people see this as a shortcoming of the listener, rather than the speaker either not being clear enough, or not considering the possibility of simply abandoning X as a feasible solution. Which one of these is really the case depends on the specific context (how well the listener knows the speaker and therefore should know what the intended question is, or how feasible abandoning X really is).
Not breathing in is not feasible. Abandoning TV and moving to Canada generally is. (Although we do have TV up here too!)
However if the context is clearly "I would like to work (i.e. do something active, not passive like abandonment) towards a change in this market" and someone gives an answer which effectively means "then abandon the market" I would say the fallacy is NonSequitur - "it does not follow" (which is not listed above for some reason).
I often vaguely associate this sort of response with the claim that one oughtn't complain about some flaw X without a complete solution prepared to replace or repair X. I tend to describe all of these as an extension of TuQuoque?, in the "Well let's see you do any better!" strain.
The examples above jsut reminded me of how some people avoid answering questions or admitting that they don't know the answer:
Q: How can I do foo with application bar? It has to be possible, but the manual doesn't say how.
A: Don't use bar! Use baz! Bar is buggy and evil!
See
This page considered stupid
Are FallaciousArgument or FallaciousArgumentsDiscussion of any value whatsoever? Above, someone points out that when someone commits a fallacy in a discussion, you shouldn't accuse them of it. And they're right. But in that case, what's the point of these pages?!
To recognize fallacious reasoning and to help people avoid engaging in it themselves.
Enormous amounts of time and effort were sunk into FallaciousArgument in order to duplicate preexisting fallacious arguments lists. Was this time and effort just wasted? If so then why would people do such a thing?
NotInventedHere syndrome. Yes, it's wasted effort - there are existing lists available on the web that are much better - more complete, more accurate, more reliable. Much of the writing on this page illustrates the severe lack of competence in the subject.
Why not create a list of behaviours or argument types that doesn't already exist? Why not create something that's actually insightful and useful? I think it's the same reason why some people like reimplementing basic data structures, because it's already been done to death and so it doesn't require any thought. That's really pathetic though.
FallaciousArgument is an index to pages describing specific fallacies people make in arguments on this Wiki. It did not require enormous amounts of time or effort. Of course the individual pages like AdHominem and FalseDichotomy duplicate pre-existing write-ups on fallacious arguments. The effort that went into this duplication was not wasted, as these pages serve a purpose. Every time you want to provide someone with a hint that he might have accidentally stumbled over a, say, EquivocationFallacy, and go through the trouble of explaining what this means exactly, you can just insert the WikiWord EquivocationFallacy and you're done. This actually saves time and effort.
Which type of fallacy fits "I have a lot of experience with A. Therefore, B is bad"? Is this merely a special case of AdVerecundiam?
Do you mean, "My experience tells me A is superior to B, even though my familiarity with B is somewhat limited"?
Sort of, though more the case "My experience tells me that acting like A gets me results. B is a different way of getting the same results. Since A works, B must be inferior. (usually with no experience with B)". I'm thinking that it's AdVerecundiam with a dash of FalseDichotomy. Is there a name for arguing from experience as the special case of arguing from authority?
Not sure, but see InAllMyYearsIveNever
Q: What is the name of the argument that, by "labeling" the style of argument, attempts to discredit the original argument? --SusanRoy
A: Is that a serious question, or a critique of the list of FallaciousArguments?
"Labeling" without showing how the argument fits the fallacy would seem to be an AdVerecundiam argument (ArgumentFromAuthority) - i.e. it's false because I say so. Of course, accurately labeling and explaining how the label fits is no fallacy at all.
It was a serious question (but an interesting point you make ;). I have a friend who is very good arguer (and occasionally not a good friend...), generally ArgumentumAdInfinitum or simply because they have more facts, even if they don't support those facts (I'm sure he makes them up!), but when I finally do get him in a tight spot, he labels my argument and discounts what I'm trying to suggest because the structure of the argument doesn't meet his standard. So I guess AdVerecundiam suits well. I guess I could just call him arrogant as well. :)
I went ahead and refactored this page into three categories. The first two being commonly "accepted" logical fallacies (not necessarily known by their "proper" names though), and a third being the "catch-all". Please don't promote anything from the third list to either of the first two unless you've either taken introductory logic and remember it or have a textbook handy to cite. If you do have a textbook handy, it'd be nice to get the full list of formal fallacies. Maybe beat me to putting up a SquareOfOpposition? on a PropositionalLogic? page? (c'mon, turn those links blue. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/ is a good place to start, though I wouldn't cram so much info into an introductory page here)
I have now changed all the backlinks from FallaciousArguments to FallaciousArgument, a few at a time. I have found that to be a surprisingly interesting and educational task, given the wide range of places where the links are found. Also, the exposure given to the topics in RecentChanges has resulted in some discussion and an increase in the total number of mentions of FallaciousArgument. -- JohnFletcher
I would like to suggest a new form of false argument to be called The O'Reilly. Which is basically, if you refuse to accept my logical fallacies, you must be a fascist.
Do you mean BillOreilly? (of 24 hour news channels) or TimOreilly? (of OreillyAndAssociates)?
Pretty sure the OP meant Bill O'Liely of Faux News.
GrandConspiracy - Asserting that the world is being manipulated by a cabal of some sort.
In some cases, this may be true, so arguing that this is not true simply because such powerful groups are involved is not necessarily true.
EditText of this page
(last edited November 13, 2014)
or FindPage with title or text search