Argue with style. Avoid these logical fallacies.

[Rudolf Miller]

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

I admit in advance that I am not sure if thread-worthy. However, it is a useful tool for keeping potentially under qualified arguments at bay.

[Frug]

I wonder how it would work out if we got emoticons for each of those so that we could put the icons in our responses to arguments.

[Evelgrivion]

I wonder how it would work out if we got emoticons for each of those so that we could put the icons in our responses to arguments.

I like this idea.

I'm not sure this deserves it's own thread either, but it could be the foundation for a very solid "reference materials for serious discussions" sticky.

[Tarminic]

I wonder how it would work out if we got emoticons for each of those so that we could put the icons in our responses to arguments.

This sounds amazing, actually.


I would like to make a point about the Argument from Authority fallacy - this does not apply when the authority you're referencing is actually an expert in the relevant field. Contrast between:
1. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on The Big Bang theory." - The big bang theory is part of his field of expertise, so his expert opinion can be considered relatively trustworthy
2. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on Climate Change." - Climate change is not an part of his field of expertise, so he cannot by definition have an expert opinion.

[AmaNutin]

As this is so handy, I am going to make it a wallpaper for my home computer and work computer, in the hopes that I'll eventually commit these to memory.

[SAI Peregrinus]

A point about slippery slope:
It's only a fallacy if Z does not logically follow from A.
eg: "If I shoot myself in the head, I will die. Me dying is bad. Therefore I shouldn't shoot myself in the head." is not a fallacy.
"If I eat this sandwich, bananas will fall from the sky and cover the earth. Civilization will be ended due to banana flooding, which is bad. Therefore, I shouldn't eat this sandwich." is a fallacy, because the effect of falling bananas does not follow from the cause of me eating a sandwich.. It's also very silly.

[Nordstern]

I don't agree that slippery slope is a logical fallacy. "Unreasonable extrapolation" might be, though.

[Sofia Roseburn]

I wonder how it would work out if we got emoticons for each of those so that we could put the icons in our responses to arguments.

I like this idea.

I'm not sure this deserves it's own thread either, but it could be the foundation for a very solid "reference materials for serious discussions" sticky.

I like the sound of this, brb.

[Jason Marshall]

I would pay to have a copy of this poster to be put up in every American Classroom (6th grade+).

[MortyM]

I would like to make a point about the Argument from Authority fallacy - this does not apply when the authority you're referencing is actually an expert in the relevant field. Contrast between:
1. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on The Big Bang theory." - The big bang theory is part of his field of expertise, so his expert opinion can be considered relatively trustworthy
2. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on Climate Change." - Climate change is not an part of his field of expertise, so he cannot by definition have an expert opinion.

You miss the point. You should trust somebodies opinion because it is well argumented, not because he's a famous anything. If you are going to trust somebodies opinion based soley on his expertise then you are just admitting you are too lazy to investigate the argumentation yourself. While that might be somewhat ok for an internet discussion, for any substantive discussion it isn't.

[Lallante]

I would like to make a point about the Argument from Authority fallacy - this does not apply when the authority you're referencing is actually an expert in the relevant field. Contrast between:
1. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on The Big Bang theory." - The big bang theory is part of his field of expertise, so his expert opinion can be considered relatively trustworthy
2. "He's a famous astrophysicist, so I trust his expert opinion on Climate Change." - Climate change is not an part of his field of expertise, so he cannot by definition have an expert opinion.

You miss the point. You should trust somebodies opinion because it is well argumented, not because he's a famous anything. If you are going to trust somebodies opinion based soley on his expertise then you are just admitting you are too lazy to investigate the argumentation yourself. While that might be somewhat ok for an internet discussion, for any substantive discussion it isn't.

Exactly. The fallacy is saying "X believes Y, X is an authority, therefore Y is true". Its not however a fallacy if X is a recognised expert in Y, has sufficiently supported their belief in Y, X is not biased and there is an adequate amount of agreement between X and other authorities on Y on the subject.

[Me]

However, it is a useful tool for keeping potentially under qualified arguments at bay.

You broke one of them in your own post. The fallacy fallacy. Even if someone uses any of those it doesn't make them wrong or an "under-qualified argument".

[Rudolf Miller]

However, it is a useful tool for keeping potentially under qualified arguments at bay.

You broke one of them in your own post. The fallacy fallacy. Even if someone uses any of those it doesn't make them wrong or an "under-qualified argument".

I think the fallacy fallacy more refers to an argument not being backed up with appropriate facts and figures, as in, it may be true, but he didn't provide enough data to conclusively make that argument (thus making the other side engage in the fallacy fallacy logical fallacy *brain breaks*) My reference was more in the direction of, identify when someone is using logical fallacies to make their point more valid than it is.

[NoirAvlaa]

We should get some logical fallacy bingo on the go. Hit a full line, get banned from sub-forum until you've learnt your lesson.

[Lallante]

However, it is a useful tool for keeping potentially under qualified arguments at bay.

You broke one of them in your own post. The fallacy fallacy. Even if someone uses any of those it doesn't make them wrong or an "under-qualified argument".

I think the fallacy fallacy more refers to an argument not being backed up with appropriate facts and figures, as in, it may be true, but he didn't provide enough data to conclusively make that argument (thus making the other side engage in the fallacy fallacy logical fallacy *brain breaks*) My reference was more in the direction of, identify when someone is using logical fallacies to make their point more valid than it is.

"That arguement is not sufficient (because, for example, it utilises fallacies) to prove its conclusion, therefore the conclusion is false" is the fallacy fallacy.

[Lallante]

There are also several other fallacies often falliciously conflated with the fallacy fallacy (i.e. through the use of a fallacy fallacy fallacy):

The Phallusy Fallacy of course is to wrongly explain a non-sexual act with sexual reasoning or language. Freud fucked this one pretty hard in the ass.

The Malusy Fallacy is the incorrect use of "Malus" to describe a negative bonus in the English Language. Malus is the latin word for bad, i.e. the opposite of the latin, Bonus meaning good, but has not been adopted into English.

The Lassie Fallacy describes the people concluding, falsely, that dogs can follow complex sequential instructions and then communicate back their findings to their owners through the use of pitch in their barks. "Little Jimmy is trapped down the old well, and has broken his left, no, right foot and has only 2.25 days worth of water left? GOOD WORK BOY!"

The Lassi Fallacy, conversely, is the arguement that drinking a Mango Lassi is sensible at an indian restaurant. It will give you the shits, EVERY TIME.

Finally the Dalasi Phallusy was a Gambian tribe whose elders operated an order of precedence solely based on penis length.


Hope this clears everything up.

[Hel OWeen]

Here's another site listing rhetological fallacies: http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...cal-fallacies/. It's easier to use, IMHO, because it also gives a short example for each case.

[Frug]

A point about slippery slope:
It's only a fallacy if Z does not logically follow from A.
eg: "If I shoot myself in the head, I will die. Me dying is bad. Therefore I shouldn't shoot myself in the head." is not a fallacy.
"If I eat this sandwich, bananas will fall from the sky and cover the earth. Civilization will be ended due to banana flooding, which is bad. Therefore, I shouldn't eat this sandwich." is a fallacy, because the effect of falling bananas does not follow from the cause of me eating a sandwich.. It's also very silly.

... Neither of your examples are the slippery slope fallacy. I thought that one was easy to understand because people use it all the time. If we make gay marriage legal, we'll end up making it legal to marry a dog. If we make pot legal, we'll end up making all drugs legal. It's when the asserted consequences are an extension of the cause. Any old illogical conclusion isn't a slippery slope, though.

I got more plus reps on my suggestion here for the icons than anything I posted in this fourm but I'm weary that the icons will get wrongly applied if they're not clarified.

[definatelynotKKassandra]

The main thing people on the internet could learn from this is what an ad hominem is, and more importantly what it is not.

You are a retard, therefore your argument is false - fallacy
Your argument is wrong, therefore you are a retard - not a fallacy.

[F*** My Aunt Rita]

http://publiusonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.png

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

I admit in advance that I am not sure if thread-worthy. However, it is a useful tool for keeping potentially under qualified arguments at bay.

I commend your desire for rational discussion, slapping up a list of informal fallacies with very brief descriptions is frankly shit. It looks and smells like an intro phil. student project. Good reasoning is just a bit more complicated and may require more than just linking a jpeg.