Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> A List of Fallacious Arguments
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
libvertaruan
post Mar 20 2004, 11:38 PM
Post #1


H.N.I.C.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,879
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



I think this might be good if it were stickied. Its far too long to be posted here in its entirety, however.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
mhallex
post Mar 21 2004, 02:45 AM
Post #2


Meh.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,147
Joined: 17-July 02
From: NY, NY
Member No.: 81



Good idea.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Bryan
post Mar 25 2004, 06:40 PM
Post #3


go back to sleep


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Gold Coast, Australia
Member No.: 16



Does anyone know where I can get the list in Latin?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Mar 26 2004, 09:52 AM
Post #4


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,338
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/carranza/study6.htm

Not that there are many fallacy names which actually have a Latin name anymore.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
The Children
post Apr 18 2004, 02:06 PM
Post #5


U-P Regular
***

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 18-February 03
Member No.: 265



Good find!

:shades:

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
The Children
post Apr 18 2004, 02:22 PM
Post #6


U-P Regular
***

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 18-February 03
Member No.: 265



tssk tssks tsskk. Ive been reading on some and it is hilarious how many posters in here makes these mistakes.

Simply hilarious.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Gengari
post Apr 18 2004, 04:05 PM
Post #7


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



Including yourself, right? heheh.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Mai
post Jun 1 2004, 03:49 PM
Post #8


Vaenu Verest Värvitud
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,395
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 107



What is WAY funnier is how the guy himself uses such arguments, specifically the straw man
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Stimulant
post Oct 7 2004, 05:20 AM
Post #9


QUALITY ENTERTAINMENT
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,161
Joined: 10-December 02
From: in your base killing your dudes
Member No.: 210



http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html for the latin versions of a lot of em.

And it really pisses off communists if you use em : ) .
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Feb 24 2005, 01:07 AM
Post #10


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,023
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



I had no idea discrediting your opponents sources was a fallacy.

NoR, the site you linked to misstated the conclusion of Lewis' Lord Lunatic or Liar argument.

Extending your opponents argument beyond its conclusions so as to make it easier to discount. Prehaps that is one.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Gengari
post Feb 24 2005, 03:32 AM
Post #11


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



Sir Buckethead: That falls under the Fallacy of Extension (strawman), which is a fairly broad fallacy which describes several more specific ones.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Molimo
post Mar 28 2005, 11:48 PM
Post #12


THE SKYLIGHT OF THE SITE
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,932
Joined: 11-December 03
Member No.: 580



I seem to remember that there was a fallacy about changing definitions halfway through an argument, but I forget what it was called. Could someone remind me?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Mar 28 2005, 11:56 PM
Post #13


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,924
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



Moving the goalpost?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Molimo
post Mar 28 2005, 11:59 PM
Post #14


THE SKYLIGHT OF THE SITE
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,932
Joined: 11-December 03
Member No.: 580



Actually, I think it's Equivocation, according to infidels.org. That or the "No True Scotsman..." fallacy.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Apr 4 2005, 12:46 PM
Post #15


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,338
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



Yeah, it's equivocation.

1. All factories are plants.
2. All plants are chlorophill producers.
------
3. All factories are chlorophill produceers.

Note that it's an informal fallacy, rather than a formal one.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Sep 21 2005, 04:54 AM
Post #16


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE
I had no idea discrediting your opponents sources was a fallacy.


Depends on how its done. If you use ad hominem ("Well your source groped women") then its fallacious.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Mai
post Sep 21 2005, 05:46 AM
Post #17


Vaenu Verest Värvitud
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,395
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 107



Even then it's not necessairly 100% fallacious, when talking about certain topics.

But yes, saying that discrediting your opponent is fallacious is quite incorrect. Either that, or one should be able to argue it's way through the Senate using National Enquirer and Jack Chick as sources.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Nov 26 2005, 11:47 PM
Post #18


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Norway
Member No.: 895



What's the difference of fallacious arguments and rethorical tricks?

BTW that's a rhetorical question, which I think was in the list itself.

Does fallacious mean "misleading"? If so that can't always be true as not all rethorical questions are false or an attempt to mislead people.

Same applies to other such "fallacious arguments"
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Gengari
post Dec 3 2005, 03:12 PM
Post #19


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



QUOTE(FriendoftheDork @ Nov 26 2005, 05:47 PM)
What's the difference of fallacious arguments and rethorical tricks?

BTW that's a rhetorical question, which I think was in the list itself.

Does fallacious mean "misleading"? If so that can't always be true as not all rethorical questions are false or an attempt to mislead people.

Same applies to other such "fallacious arguments"
*



These aren't just fallacies-- but logical fallacies.

QUOTE("Dictionary.com")
1 entry found for logical fallacy.

logical fallacy

n : a fallacy in logical argumentation


So keep that in mind:

QUOTE("Dictionary.com")
2 entries found for fallacy.

fal·la·cy
A false notion.
A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
The quality of being deceptive.

fallacy
n : a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning [syn: false belief]


Rhetorical tricks can be used as logical fallacies, as they attempt to sway the audience not through logic and reasoning, but through emotive language, fast-talking, etc.

This post has been edited by Gengari: Dec 3 2005, 03:15 PM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Dec 3 2005, 09:11 PM
Post #20


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



There are some logical fallacies that simply make errors in logic. Others jsut centre around irrelevant information, emotion, etc. But I guess if you think they are good arguments you are making an error in logic as well. So I guess the incorect reasoning definition works for me.

If you are using tricks knowingly, then I guess you are just trying to be deceptive and dishonest. If you acknowledge something is a fallacy and try to sneak it by on someone you are still guilty of using bad logic even if you are aware of that fact.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Dec 4 2005, 11:45 AM
Post #21


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Norway
Member No.: 895



QUOTE(JLord @ Dec 3 2005, 11:11 PM)
There are some logical fallacies that simply make errors in logic.  Others jsut centre around irrelevant information, emotion, etc.  But I guess if you think they are good arguments you are making an error in logic as well.  So I guess the incorect reasoning definition works for me. 

If you are using tricks knowingly, then I guess you are just trying to be deceptive and dishonest.  If you acknowledge something is a fallacy and try to sneak it by on someone you are still guilty of using bad logic even if you are aware of that fact.
*



But honestly what politician doesen't employ rhetorical means in their arguments? Logic may be all well and good in the scientific communities, but most people are not that high level.

If you're trying to make a lie sound like truth, then yes I agree it's a fallacy but just because you're using a rhetorical question or emplying emotion in your arguments doesen't make them false.

In fact without any emotion in your arguments why should people care? Politics is not about discussing if an apple is green or red, it's discussing the way we want to live an important decisions affecting the welfare of many.

Now if we talk against racism we tend to use words intended to inflame emotions in people... oppression, injustice, abuse.. even the word itself has become emotionally laden.

Most of the fallacies in the list I can agree are not something that should be employed in an argument, such as attacking the opponent, his friends etc.

But think of this, if a politician presents a series of valid and good argument to his audience, and ends it with "Do you want blah blah blah?", does that render his whole argument false? I think not.

BTW I don't tend to use tricks knowingly, but I often get enthusiastic during discussions. If there is no emmotion then there is only death. A computer cannot feel the difference between cruel brutality and a free, just system.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Gengari
post Dec 7 2005, 02:43 AM
Post #22


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



The "logical fallacies" fallacy.

Just because an argument contains a fallacy, does not mean that the conclusion is false, improbable, or inaccurate.

Pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't disprove a conclusion. It merely attacks the method of their argument.

Logic is merely the method by which you come to your conclusion.

This post has been edited by Gengari: Dec 7 2005, 02:44 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Dec 7 2005, 10:19 AM
Post #23


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Added:

Dragonspirit or Edward: Any argument made my Dragonspirit or Edward.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Gengari
post Dec 7 2005, 01:42 PM
Post #24


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



QUOTE(necrolyte @ Dec 7 2005, 04:19 AM)
Added:

Dragonspirit or Edward: Any argument made my Dragonspirit or Edward.
*



Ad Hominem/Argument by Generalization.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Dec 7 2005, 03:33 PM
Post #25


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Gengari @ Dec 7 2005, 01:42 PM)
Ad Hominem/Argument by Generalization.
*



It's a pretty accurate generalization if you look at the sum total of their posts :D
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Gengari
post Dec 7 2005, 08:00 PM
Post #26


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



QUOTE(necrolyte @ Dec 7 2005, 09:33 AM)
It's a pretty accurate generalization if you look at the sum total of their posts :D
*



Added:

Necrolyte: Any argument made by Necrolyte.


After all, it's a pretty accurate generalization if you look at the sum total of his posts :D
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Dec 8 2005, 01:55 AM
Post #27


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Gengari @ Dec 7 2005, 08:00 PM)
Added:

Necrolyte: Any argument made by Necrolyte.
After all, it's a pretty accurate generalization if you look at the sum total of his posts :D
*



Added: Byronization
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Gengari
post Dec 8 2005, 02:49 AM
Post #28


I love everyone.
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,970
Joined: 23-June 02
From: Somewhere, Texas.
Member No.: 61



Byronization isn't in itself a fallacy. It could easily be a form of Reductio Ad Absurdum (using the same logic, but applying it to a different case to show that the argument is absurd), but that isn't necisarilly a logical fallacy.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 6th March 2006 - 08:48 AM