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

Good idea.

Does anyone know where I can get the list in Latin?

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

Not that there are many fallacy names which actually have a Latin name anymore.

Good find!

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

Simply hilarious.

Including yourself, right? heheh.

What is WAY funnier is how the guy himself uses such arguments, specifically the straw man

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 : ) .

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.

Sir Buckethead: That falls under the Fallacy of Extension (strawman), which is a fairly broad fallacy which describes several more specific ones.

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?

Moving the goalpost?

Actually, I think it's Equivocation, according to infidels.org. That or the "No True Scotsman..." fallacy.

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.

Depends on how its done. If you use ad hominem ("Well your source groped women") then its fallacious.

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.

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.



So keep that in mind:



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.

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.

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.

Added:

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

Ad Hominem/Argument by Generalization.

It's a pretty accurate generalization if you look at the sum total of their posts

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

Added: Byronization

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.