FA+
Shop
How To Make An Argument Part 2: Logical Fallacies Part 2
16 years ago
General
NaNo Novel: Here Falls The Thunder
Alright everyone, thank you for being so patient. I've had a busy week, getting paperwork out of the way so I can apply for a 30-day credential to be a substitute teacher, English, to be precise. Hopefully, I'll actually be able to teach the kids in Junior High and High School a thing or two. Anyway, here's the rest of my informative piece about logical fallacies, and at the end, I'll give you a little glimpse at the kind of people you'll likely have to deal with if you choose to take your newfound knowledge and put it to good use.
Without further delay, onto the fallicies!
Edit: The official list is 24, but one of them directly invovles a specific field of argument, one that likely would NEVER come up in casual conversation, unless you're a scientist, and your opponent is a creationist. Thus, the actual list will be 23.
14) Begging the Question
Also known as Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question is a fallacy where your conclusion is explicitly or implicitly assumed in your premise. Therefore, while the illusion of logic is presented in your argument, no proof has been made at all. Begging the Question can be done very subtly, so you MUST be careful.
15) Tautology
A specialized form of Begging the Question, a tautology when the premise and conclusion of the argument are the same. While a tautology (A = A) is true, and the repeated statement may also be true, a tautology proves nothing outside of itself. A very good example is if you notice that someone's argument is "If things were different, then things would be different."
16) False Premise
In a false premise fallacy, the conclusion of an argument is invalidated by an incorrect assumption in one of it's premises. You can't build a house on a poor foundation. Foundational bias and ad hoc reasoning usually have a false premise at their base. Which brings us to the next one...
17) Ad Hoc Reasoning (Told ya!)
Ad hoc reasoning (which means 'for this purpose') is done to salvage an argument that rests on a shaky foundation. Ad hoc reasoning attempts to address unstable or invalid portions of a failed argument. It is often used to avoid reevaluation of an arguments validity. Note that, when someone tries really hard to use ad hoc reasoning, often they use more ad hoc reasoning to explain the previous ad hock reasoning, but that's the beauty of it.
cigarskunk once again proves what an unreliable narrator he is with this one. Note how, in any of his journals, when his claims are refutted with logic and evidence, he resorts to ad hominem and ad hoc reasoning to try and refute the counter-arguments.
18) Slippery Slope
This is one which should be at least remotely familiar to all of you. A slippery slope argument states that accepting a certain argument will lead to a chain of events that will culminate in an often fantastic, and negative outcome. The validity of the argument in question isn't addressed, merely the imagined outcome.
Moral guardians like to think that, if left to their own devices, kids will do all kinds of horrible things, engaging in ever increasingly bad behavior, culminating in criminal activity.
19) Correlation Implies Causation
Another commonly used fallacy, the example I'll present is one you should probably have all heard. In this fallacy, because two events are correlated, there MUST exist a cause and effect relationship. Usually, there is a third variable in question that is overlooked, or the two events aren't even remotely related.
Remember those studies that claim violent video games lead to a rise in criminal behavior? A shining, perfect example of this particular fallacy. Because this fallacy relies on statistics, it's easy to assume a correlation between two events. While correlations exist, yes, do NOT assume to events are related unless you have substantial evidence.
20) Creative Math
A rarely used fallacy, this occurs when someone attempts to use statistics and big numbers to make the possibility of an event occuring purely by chance to be remote, often where something like 'chance' has no place. This fallacy tends to occur in scientific arguments, but can be applied anywhere when someone tries to tell you how remote a possibility an event is.
21) Moving The Goalposts
When the rules to obtain satisfactory completion of a goal are changed just as they are about to be attained, it is referred to as 'moving the goalposts'. The trick to this fallacy, is that no matter how much you try to reach the goal, it will never happen because the goalposts are constantly being moved.
Cigarskunk once again shows his true colors. Note whenever someone disagrees with him, and appears to have solved the issue, he moves the goalposts, rendering it impossible to prove his point. No matter how often you disagree and prove him wrong, the posts will always be moved. Still, it's amusing to watch him scurry ;3
22) Just Plain Nonsense
Sometimes, the failure in logic defies easy explaination. Examples in this category require massive disconnects from reality, and the result in just plain nonsense. Simple as could be, these are also some of the easiest the point out.
23) Outright Lie
While not so much a logical fallacy by definition, the outright lie is simply deception in its purest form. Truth is simply discarded as superfluous and unnecessary in this form of argument.
While many, MANY examples exist of this, I'll refrain from giving the example right this moment, to tell you that, now that you have this new knowledge, that you shouldn't be afraid to use it. I will warn you, pointing out the fallacies people make often makes them defensive and angry.
Afterall, no one likes having their mistakes pointed out. But the purpose of this isn't so that you can attack people. It's to inform them, or better yet, to inform others. If a person is unknowingly engaging in a logical fallacy, you can help them take a better stance by making their argument valid. But if the person is KNOWINGLY engaging in the fallacy, you can inform others around them so they don't fall into the web of misinformation and lies.
I've used him so many times, that cigarskunk doesn't need a formal introduction. He knowingly makes up stories, skews information in his favor, and makes blatant, insulting attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with his position. The perfect politican, hm?
To exemplify this, please take note of this journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/949984/ Now, towards the bottom, you'll find my lengthy critique of his argument. Now, I do make a few mistakes. I forgot that the 'Don't Tread On Me' was an American Flag design, but that aside, notice that I calmly and logically point out his errors. Now, take note of his following response.
THIS is the kind of behavior you'll find from people who willfully engage in logical fallacies. No logic, no politeness, no objectiveness. Defensive, hostile action. Now, this is perhaps an extreme example. But, the sense of satisfaction comes from the fact that someone will likely read it, and realize what a load of bull his arguments are. Or, that'll they see someone like him for the kind of person he is.
Note on his front page he says that: "You will find a large quantity of alternate lifestyle material in the journal section (pro-Republican, conservative, pro-America, smoker's rights) so if you aren't open minded enough to tollerate those with other beliefs and life choices, this probably isn't the area for you." Of course, note what happens when people attempt to logically engage him concerning those beliefs, and how his tolerance flies right out the window.
So then, my readers, now that I have given you the tools and weapons necessary to dissect the lies and disinformation, go forth and give it to others, and use it! Amen for rational thought! <3
Without further delay, onto the fallicies!
Edit: The official list is 24, but one of them directly invovles a specific field of argument, one that likely would NEVER come up in casual conversation, unless you're a scientist, and your opponent is a creationist. Thus, the actual list will be 23.
14) Begging the Question
Also known as Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question is a fallacy where your conclusion is explicitly or implicitly assumed in your premise. Therefore, while the illusion of logic is presented in your argument, no proof has been made at all. Begging the Question can be done very subtly, so you MUST be careful.
15) Tautology
A specialized form of Begging the Question, a tautology when the premise and conclusion of the argument are the same. While a tautology (A = A) is true, and the repeated statement may also be true, a tautology proves nothing outside of itself. A very good example is if you notice that someone's argument is "If things were different, then things would be different."
16) False Premise
In a false premise fallacy, the conclusion of an argument is invalidated by an incorrect assumption in one of it's premises. You can't build a house on a poor foundation. Foundational bias and ad hoc reasoning usually have a false premise at their base. Which brings us to the next one...
17) Ad Hoc Reasoning (Told ya!)
Ad hoc reasoning (which means 'for this purpose') is done to salvage an argument that rests on a shaky foundation. Ad hoc reasoning attempts to address unstable or invalid portions of a failed argument. It is often used to avoid reevaluation of an arguments validity. Note that, when someone tries really hard to use ad hoc reasoning, often they use more ad hoc reasoning to explain the previous ad hock reasoning, but that's the beauty of it.
cigarskunk once again proves what an unreliable narrator he is with this one. Note how, in any of his journals, when his claims are refutted with logic and evidence, he resorts to ad hominem and ad hoc reasoning to try and refute the counter-arguments.18) Slippery Slope
This is one which should be at least remotely familiar to all of you. A slippery slope argument states that accepting a certain argument will lead to a chain of events that will culminate in an often fantastic, and negative outcome. The validity of the argument in question isn't addressed, merely the imagined outcome.
Moral guardians like to think that, if left to their own devices, kids will do all kinds of horrible things, engaging in ever increasingly bad behavior, culminating in criminal activity.
19) Correlation Implies Causation
Another commonly used fallacy, the example I'll present is one you should probably have all heard. In this fallacy, because two events are correlated, there MUST exist a cause and effect relationship. Usually, there is a third variable in question that is overlooked, or the two events aren't even remotely related.
Remember those studies that claim violent video games lead to a rise in criminal behavior? A shining, perfect example of this particular fallacy. Because this fallacy relies on statistics, it's easy to assume a correlation between two events. While correlations exist, yes, do NOT assume to events are related unless you have substantial evidence.
20) Creative Math
A rarely used fallacy, this occurs when someone attempts to use statistics and big numbers to make the possibility of an event occuring purely by chance to be remote, often where something like 'chance' has no place. This fallacy tends to occur in scientific arguments, but can be applied anywhere when someone tries to tell you how remote a possibility an event is.
21) Moving The Goalposts
When the rules to obtain satisfactory completion of a goal are changed just as they are about to be attained, it is referred to as 'moving the goalposts'. The trick to this fallacy, is that no matter how much you try to reach the goal, it will never happen because the goalposts are constantly being moved.
Cigarskunk once again shows his true colors. Note whenever someone disagrees with him, and appears to have solved the issue, he moves the goalposts, rendering it impossible to prove his point. No matter how often you disagree and prove him wrong, the posts will always be moved. Still, it's amusing to watch him scurry ;3
22) Just Plain Nonsense
Sometimes, the failure in logic defies easy explaination. Examples in this category require massive disconnects from reality, and the result in just plain nonsense. Simple as could be, these are also some of the easiest the point out.
23) Outright Lie
While not so much a logical fallacy by definition, the outright lie is simply deception in its purest form. Truth is simply discarded as superfluous and unnecessary in this form of argument.
While many, MANY examples exist of this, I'll refrain from giving the example right this moment, to tell you that, now that you have this new knowledge, that you shouldn't be afraid to use it. I will warn you, pointing out the fallacies people make often makes them defensive and angry.
Afterall, no one likes having their mistakes pointed out. But the purpose of this isn't so that you can attack people. It's to inform them, or better yet, to inform others. If a person is unknowingly engaging in a logical fallacy, you can help them take a better stance by making their argument valid. But if the person is KNOWINGLY engaging in the fallacy, you can inform others around them so they don't fall into the web of misinformation and lies.
I've used him so many times, that
cigarskunk doesn't need a formal introduction. He knowingly makes up stories, skews information in his favor, and makes blatant, insulting attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with his position. The perfect politican, hm?To exemplify this, please take note of this journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/949984/ Now, towards the bottom, you'll find my lengthy critique of his argument. Now, I do make a few mistakes. I forgot that the 'Don't Tread On Me' was an American Flag design, but that aside, notice that I calmly and logically point out his errors. Now, take note of his following response.
THIS is the kind of behavior you'll find from people who willfully engage in logical fallacies. No logic, no politeness, no objectiveness. Defensive, hostile action. Now, this is perhaps an extreme example. But, the sense of satisfaction comes from the fact that someone will likely read it, and realize what a load of bull his arguments are. Or, that'll they see someone like him for the kind of person he is.
Note on his front page he says that: "You will find a large quantity of alternate lifestyle material in the journal section (pro-Republican, conservative, pro-America, smoker's rights) so if you aren't open minded enough to tollerate those with other beliefs and life choices, this probably isn't the area for you." Of course, note what happens when people attempt to logically engage him concerning those beliefs, and how his tolerance flies right out the window.
So then, my readers, now that I have given you the tools and weapons necessary to dissect the lies and disinformation, go forth and give it to others, and use it! Amen for rational thought! <3
There's a joke about statistics: "Studies have shown that 98% of all statistics are made up"