You see, we discuss a lot of things and spend a lot of time contradicting each other's arguments. But we do it lengthily. It would be so much quicker if we could simply use a list of fallacies, so instead of explaining why a line of reasoning is faulty, step by step, we could just say "ad ignoratium" and have it be explained for us by the definition of that particular fallacy. It would considerably simplify matters.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wow, I misread that title!
(do you mean like "Oh, that is #12. You should know better!" )
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(snort) It sure would be easy, but then this board would be nearly incomprehensible to anyone...
(snort again at the use of ad ignoratium)
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Well, give us the list! I'll add it to the rantlist and the lecturelist on my computer. The fallacylist! Go for it! Start us off!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There's a lot of such lists, with examples, available. They've been posted here before. They really don't do much to improve the level of argument or civility, though.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
I don't actually think it would work. I just wish it would, since I keep finding myself just typing out a fallacy, then having to go back and rewrite to explain why something's wrong without the fallacy
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think it WOULD work. Especially since the fact that the fallacy has a name just underscores how easily avoided it is, and how the person should have known better. We can maintain the fallacy list on my computer and post it in a thread every so often for ease of reference. Hatrack would be the perfect place for such a thing to come into being, I think.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
ak, there's a lot of them already in being. Do a google search for "logical fallacies." You'll find plenty.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
also, it would make us difficult to understand for newbies, making them less likely to post and stuff. Using them would be rather elistist, much as I would enjoy the convenience of it, I don't think we actually should. I just wish it was a viable option
[ September 10, 2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sorry Toretha, but a list of fallacies would constitute a category error, specifically Ipsa dicta, and is typical of Western phallocentric culture. Logic is relative to society and culture! One society's fallacy is another's raison d'etre.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC :a common Western phallacy, that purports that a simultaneous orgasm happens just because a man is a skillful lover! Not true! Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I got this at Governor's School last year. Credit goes to John Walchak at UT-Austin, but I don't think it's copyrighted.
**Logic--Fallacies-**
An argument is a connected series of statements (premises) meant to establish some other statement (the conclusion). Two obvious questions which arise concerning arguments are Do the premises actually support the conclusion? and Are the premises actually true? An argument is valid if and only if it has a form such that, if its premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. An argument is sound if and only if it is both valid and has true premises. It is quite possible for an argument to be valid without being sound.
Formal Logic involves the study of arguments purely in terms of their validity or form--of the purely formal relations between premises and conclusions. For example, "if all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are warm-blooded, than all dogs are warm-blooded." and "If all pigs are fish and all fish have wings, then all pigs have wings" are both valid arguments having the same form: if all P's are Q's and all Q's are R's, than all P's are R's. While both are valid, however, only the first is sound--as the second has both false premises and a false conclusion.
Informal Logic involves the study of "ordinary language" arguments and reasoning and is concerned with both validity and soundness. Among the major concerns of informal logic are fallacies--characteristic ways in which arguments and resoning may go astry or be misleading. Fallacies are often classified by whether they involve a problem of relevance (the premises do not really support--are not really relevant to--the conclusion) or a problem of ambiguity (e.g. some confusion regarding the meanings of words).
Fallacies of Relevance <sm note: Walchack gives examples that mostly only make sense to those familiar with AGS, therefore, I will put Hatrack-worthy examples in their place, using carats>
Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to the stick")--relying on the threat of force rather than on the power of reasons to force acceptance of a conclusion. <"If you don't agree that The Princess Bride is the best movie ever made, Trogdor will burninate you severely"> Argumentum ad hominem --attacking a person, their character, appearance, etc, rather than addressing their reasoning. "That may be true, but don't you wear polyester?" Argumentum ad ignorantiam --arguing that a conclusion must be true simply because it hasn't been shown to be false. "Nobody's proved that John Edward doesn't talk to the dead; therefore, it's reasonable to believe he does." Remember Occam's Razor! Argumentum ad misericordiam --appeal to pity, emotion, sentiment. "Think of the children!" Argumentum ad populum --appeal to popularity, to the crowd. <"More people like Haley Joel Osment than that Starwars kid, therefore, he should be in the Ender's Game movie."> Argumentum ad verecundiam --appeal to authority or tradition. <"We've always had discussions on onanism, therefore we should continue to have them."> False Dichotomy --improperly reducing a complex issue to two alternatives, one of which you favor and the other of which is absurd or clearly unacceptable, thus forcing your opponent to accept your conclusion. "You're always criticizing consumerism; what are you, a communist?" Straw man --misrepresenting an opponent's position in such a way as to make it an easy target (a "staw man," easy to knock down). Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therfore because of it")--confusing correlation with causation. Clearly an issue for Jack Thompson: does exposure to violent video games cause, or is it merely correlated with, violent behavior? Petitio Principii/Begging the Question --covertly smuggling the conclusion into the premises; circular reasoning. "God wrote the Bible, and it says in the Bible that God exists; therefore, God exists." Leading Question/Complex Question --framing a question in such a way that any answer is incriminating. <"Have you stopped calling sarcasticmuppet a boy?"> Accident --improperly applying a generalization to particulars it does not cover. "Mammals bear live young; the platupus lays eggs, so it must not be a mammal." Converse Accident/Hastly Generalization --improperly generalizing on the basis of an unrepresentative sample. <"All the smilies I've seen move, therefore, all smilies move.> Ignoratio Elenchi/Irrelevant Conclusion/Non Sequitur --use of premises to support a different conclusion than they warrant. "<Hatrack> is devoted to fostering independent, critical thinking, and <free speech> is an aspect of that; therefore, <KathrynHJanitor should censor all posts.>" Affirming the Consequent --affirming the second part (the consequent) of a hypothetical or "if-then" proposition rather than the first part (the antecedent). "if it rained overnight, then the ground it wet in the morning; the ground is wet this morning, thereofore it rained overnight." Denying the Antecedent --denying the first part of a hypothetical proposition. <"If the townies beat the mafia than the townies are really good players; the townies did not beat the mafia, therefore they're not very good players.">
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation --confusion of two or more meanings of a word. "He must be really smooth with the ladies, 'cause the other members of the Chess Club say he's quite the player." Amphiboly --confusion via grammatical ambiguity. "Patient has pain when lying on side fore over a year." "Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I dunno." Accent --confusion produced by change of stress or emphasis. "I cannot say enough good things about <Jon Boy>." Composition --reasoning incorrectly from the attributes of a pare to the attributes of a whole. <"ScottR and Slash always disagree, this is the most argumentative group of Jatraqueros ever."> Division --reasoning incorrectly from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of a part. <"Everyone at Hatrack reads Orson Scott Card's books, so we shouldn't worry about anyone bashing Card's politics.">
Any mistakes belong to this poor scribe with carpal tunnel.
[ September 11, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Rasputin (Member # 5409) on :
This reminds me of an old prison joke. A new prisoner was walking around in the prison yard when he over heard a prisoner say "17!" All the other prisoners immeadiately started chuckling. "Good one!" said the new guys cellmate. So he asked him what the deal was.
"We've all heard the same old jokes over and over again, so we made a list, which we refer to instead of repeating them," explained his cellmate. When they got back to their cell, his cellmate gave him the list. He studied it and picked out his favorite. At lunch he waited till there was a lull at his table, then said "89!" Everyone just shrugged and looked bored.
"What happened? Why can't I get a laugh?" he asked his cellmate. "Some guys just can't tell a joke," his cellmate replied. Morbo Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Morbo,
for what it's worth, *I* really thought that was funny...
Posted by Rasputin (Member # 5409) on :
Thanks, TaK. Too bad I have to demolish your materialism equals determinism argument in the Christian/Reason thread, nothing personal. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Thanks muppet.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
At best you would have half the forum speaking in jibberish and the other half not understanding the jibberish. I would fit somewhere in between.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh, but I am so attatched to my fallacies!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
I bumped this to add that although the forum wouldn't work with fallacies....it's SURE nice to room with someone who not only understands them, but screams "APPEAL TO FALSE AUTHORITY! APPEAL TO FALSE AUTHORITY" at commercials
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And here I thought you bumped it up to be next to the nudist colony thread. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> What was the authority and what commercial?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)