Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Fallacies: Part One.

mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:07:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The 25 Most Common Logical Fallacies (Errors in Reasoning)

-A fallacy is an error in reasoning that leads, necessarily, to invalid logic. Using them does not necessarily make your claim false, but it will lead you there more often than not. The best way to find the truth, or at least to defend what you think is true, is to avoid using fallacies at all. These are the 25 most commonly used fallacies, out of hundreds of others. In alphabetical order:

1) Ad Hominem - argumentum ad hominem: (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
Exception: When the attack on the person is relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy. The exception usually only happens where there is a real conflict of interest.
Tip: When others verbally attack you, take it as a compliment to the quality of your argument. It is usually a sign of desperation on their part.

2) Appeal to Common Belief - argumentum ad populum: (also known as: groupthink, bandwagon fallacy, social conformance, mob appeal, etc.)
Description: When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person's belief, or many people's beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.
Logical Form:
A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X must be true.
Exception: Sometimes there is good reason to think that the common belief is held by people who do have good evidence for believing. For example, if 99.7% of all earth scientists believe that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, it is wise to believe them, because they will be able to present empirical evidence as to why they believe.
Tip: History has shown that those who break away from the common beliefs are the ones who change the course of history. Be a leader, not a follower.

3) Appeal to Faith:
Description: This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have (the right kind of) faith in order to understand the argument.
Logical Form:
X is true.
If you have faith, you will see that.
Exception: No exceptions - the appeal to faith is always a fallacy when used to justify a conclusion in absence of reason.

4) Ambiguity Fallacy: (also known as: semantic ambiguity, vagueness)
Description: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions are used within the argument, therefore, don't support the conclusion. Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation.
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Exception: Ambiguous phrases are extremely common in the English language and a necessary part of informal logic and reasoning. As long as these ambiguous phrases mean exactly the same thing in all uses of phrase in the argument, this fallacy is not committed.

5) Anonymous Authority:
Description: When an unspecified source is used as evidence for the claim. this is commonly indicated by phrases such as "They say that...", "It has been said...", "I heard that...", "Studies show...", or generalized groups such as, "scientists say..." When we fail to specify a source of the authority, we can't verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not, either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent "facts" in order to deceive others into accepting your claim. At times, this deception is done subconsciously - it might not always be deliberate.
Logical Form:
Person 1 once heard that X was true.
Therefore, X is true.
Exception: At times an accepted fact uses the same indicating phrases as the ones used for the fallacy, therefore, if the anonymous authority is actually just a statement of an accepted fact, it should be accepted as evidence.
Climate change is happening - and always has been. Scientists say the earth is certainly in a warming phase, but there is some debate on the exact causes and certainly more debate on what should be done about it politically.
Tip: Be very weary of "they."

6) Argument by Emotive Language: (also known as: loaded words, loaded language, euphemisms)
Description: Substituting facts and evidence with words that stir up emotion, with the attempt to manipulate others into accepting the truth of the argument.
Logical Form:
Person A claims that X is true.
Person A uses very powerful and emotive language in the claim.
Therefore, X is true.
Exception: Language is powerful and should be used to draw in emotions, but never at the expense of valid reasoning and evidence.

7) Argument from Ignorance - Ad Ignorantium: (also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument form Incredulity)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Logical Form:
X is true, because you cannot prove that X is false.
or
X is false, because you cannot prove that X is true.
Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence (as opposed to absence of evidence), is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.
Tip: Look at all of your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might actually be surprised as to how many actually are.

8) Begging the Question - petitio principii: (also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)
Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase "begging the question" incorrectly when they use it to mean, "prompts one to ask the question." That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of Circular Reasoning.
Logical Form:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Claim X is, therefore, true.
Exception: Some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.
People like to eat because we are biologically influenced to eat.

While most of us are apt at finding evidence that can support our cases, being children of the information age, fewer of us can avoid making mistakes when it comes to reasoning them out from that information. These are 8/25 such mistakes -- fallacies -- that I will post for everyone's benefit. Please, avoid them yourselves, and point them out to others, civilly of course.

P.S. These are mostly informal fallacies (inductive logic), as opposed to formal (deductive logic.)
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:21:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

The Fool: That is what a fallacy is. But what makes them called fallacies as appose to bad arguments is because they are common ones.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:35:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.

Your experience on this website doesn't necessarily imply that you know these. There's no specific forum topic that references them, for instance. And you can't just assume that every DDOer studies them in their spare time (which judging by the resistance to this, I doubt most actually do.) Asides from that, it seems like there's a tendency to sort of (for lack of a better word) hijack specific philosophies and then build a case from them, rather than using one's own reason as much. Not all philosophies were correct, and many of those philosophers even committed logical fallacies when building their own arguments. Some of these fallacies weren't known in their times, so it wasn't their fault per se, but we should be able to use our new and greater knowledge of logic and philosophy in general to point out the flaws in their reasoning, and our own.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:35:47 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.

Your experience on this website doesn't necessarily imply that you know these. There's no specific forum topic that references them, for instance. And you can't just assume that every DDOer studies them in their spare time (which judging by the resistance to this, I doubt most actually do.) Asides from that, it seems like there's a tendency to sort of (for lack of a better word) hijack specific philosophies and then build a case from them, rather than using one's own reason as much. Not all philosophies were correct, and many of those philosophers even committed logical fallacies when building their own arguments. Some of these fallacies weren't known in their times, so it wasn't their fault per se, but we should be able to use our new and greater knowledge of logic and philosophy in general to point out the flaws in their reasoning, and our own.

The Fool: You can just put the Reference. This will go down in the archive, you just need to point out what is good about it and give the reference in this case. I am just giving you a heads up. THat is how we have always been doing that. They are not discussions. There is nothing to discuss about.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 5:13:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:35:47 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.

Your experience on this website doesn't necessarily imply that you know these. There's no specific forum topic that references them, for instance. And you can't just assume that every DDOer studies them in their spare time (which judging by the resistance to this, I doubt most actually do.) Asides from that, it seems like there's a tendency to sort of (for lack of a better word) hijack specific philosophies and then build a case from them, rather than using one's own reason as much. Not all philosophies were correct, and many of those philosophers even committed logical fallacies when building their own arguments. Some of these fallacies weren't known in their times, so it wasn't their fault per se, but we should be able to use our new and greater knowledge of logic and philosophy in general to point out the flaws in their reasoning, and our own.

The Fool: You can just put the Reference. This will go down in the archive, you just need to point out what is good about it and give the reference in this case. I am just giving you a heads up. THat is how we have always been doing that. They are not discussions. There is nothing to discuss about.

What do you mean by "just put the reference" exactly? But thanks.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:58:50 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:13:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:35:47 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.

Your experience on this website doesn't necessarily imply that you know these. There's no specific forum topic that references them, for instance. And you can't just assume that every DDOer studies them in their spare time (which judging by the resistance to this, I doubt most actually do.) Asides from that, it seems like there's a tendency to sort of (for lack of a better word) hijack specific philosophies and then build a case from them, rather than using one's own reason as much. Not all philosophies were correct, and many of those philosophers even committed logical fallacies when building their own arguments. Some of these fallacies weren't known in their times, so it wasn't their fault per se, but we should be able to use our new and greater knowledge of logic and philosophy in general to point out the flaws in their reasoning, and our own.

The Fool: You can just put the Reference. This will go down in the archive, you just need to point out what is good about it and give the reference in this case. I am just giving you a heads up. THat is how we have always been doing that. They are not discussions. There is nothing to discuss about.

What do you mean by "just put the reference" exactly? But thanks.

The Fool: Just right about what you think is important and copy and past the address, on the page and people will check it out.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:12:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)

Yes, I admit that I don't know that his criteria was justified exactly in picking these exactly, but these do, along with the others, seem fairly common in general.

Any use of ambiguous language, especially ambiguous phrases, detract from reasoning, because you can always come back ad hoc and redefine what you meant to support your argument better. When it's done with a single word it's called equivocating, when it's done with whole phrases it's an ambiguity fallacy (i.e. amphiboly.) This one is really problematic, even in the definition of it, because there are so many vague ways to piece words together in English. That, to me, makes it especially important, along with equivocation (i.e. Doublespeak.)

An appeal to faith would be categorized in the very large group of irrelevant appeals. (e.g. Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, etc.) faith is irrelevant to the truth of a claim because your willingness to believe a proposition doesn't effect it's truth, logically. Spiritually is a different story, perhaps.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:00:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:58:50 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:13:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:35:47 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:19:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:00:18 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:35:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There are hundreds man. If you want to help like that. Get new or unusual onced.

Yes there are, however these are specifically the 25 most common, so they are naturally the most relevant. Also, I haven't even posted 2/3 of them yet, so please be patient.

And how's this:

The Five Most Common (General) Mistakes Made when Reasoning:

1) Making Faulty Comparisons. (i.e. "Apples with oranges")

2) Overgeneralizing on the Basis of Small Samples. (Hasty/Biased Induction)

3) Ignoring Relevant Evidence. (Confirmation Bias)

4) Confusing Cause and Effect (Probably the most in-depth in terms of detail, with the possible exception of #2)

5) Making Implementation Assumptions. (Assuming "can implies will")

?
The Fool: Yes but we have been here for a while. lol. Most of us know them all.
All fallacies boild down to a contradition in the end.

Your experience on this website doesn't necessarily imply that you know these. There's no specific forum topic that references them, for instance. And you can't just assume that every DDOer studies them in their spare time (which judging by the resistance to this, I doubt most actually do.) Asides from that, it seems like there's a tendency to sort of (for lack of a better word) hijack specific philosophies and then build a case from them, rather than using one's own reason as much. Not all philosophies were correct, and many of those philosophers even committed logical fallacies when building their own arguments. Some of these fallacies weren't known in their times, so it wasn't their fault per se, but we should be able to use our new and greater knowledge of logic and philosophy in general to point out the flaws in their reasoning, and our own.

The Fool: You can just put the Reference. This will go down in the archive, you just need to point out what is good about it and give the reference in this case. I am just giving you a heads up. THat is how we have always been doing that. They are not discussions. There is nothing to discuss about.

What do you mean by "just put the reference" exactly? But thanks.

The Fool: Just right about what you think is important and copy and past the address, on the page and people will check it out.

Yeah, that's why I did it this way, because as I've already said, these came from a book I bought on my Kindle, and not directly from a website. That being said, maybe he did list the top 25 on his website, which is also a debate site. I'm not sure.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:15:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:12:43 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)

Yes, I admit that I don't know that his criteria was justified exactly in picking these exactly, but these do, along with the others, seem fairly common in general.

Any use of ambiguous language, especially ambiguous phrases, detract from reasoning, because you can always come back ad hoc and redefine what you meant to support your argument better. When it's done with a single word it's called equivocating, when it's done with whole phrases it's an ambiguity fallacy (i.e. amphiboly.) This one is really problematic, even in the definition of it, because there are so many vague ways to piece words together in English. That, to me, makes it especially important, along with equivocation (i.e. Doublespeak.)

An appeal to faith would be categorized in the very large group of irrelevant appeals. (e.g. Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, etc.) faith is irrelevant to the truth of a claim because your willingness to believe a proposition doesn't effect it's truth, logically. Spiritually is a different story, perhaps.

The Fool: Most people on here already know this. (thats the first time I ever said that. lol) Just leave a like to fallacies.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 9:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:15:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 7:12:43 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)

Yes, I admit that I don't know that his criteria was justified exactly in picking these exactly, but these do, along with the others, seem fairly common in general.

Any use of ambiguous language, especially ambiguous phrases, detract from reasoning, because you can always come back ad hoc and redefine what you meant to support your argument better. When it's done with a single word it's called equivocating, when it's done with whole phrases it's an ambiguity fallacy (i.e. amphiboly.) This one is really problematic, even in the definition of it, because there are so many vague ways to piece words together in English. That, to me, makes it especially important, along with equivocation (i.e. Doublespeak.)

An appeal to faith would be categorized in the very large group of irrelevant appeals. (e.g. Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, etc.) faith is irrelevant to the truth of a claim because your willingness to believe a proposition doesn't effect it's truth, logically. Spiritually is a different story, perhaps.

The Fool: Most people on here already know this. (thats the first time I ever said that. lol) Just leave a like to fallacies.

I swear I posted this 2 hours ago, but you can't tell how much of what I was going to put on here people already know, as I've only put 8/25 of the most common. Secondly, I can't leave a link to my Kindle Fire, because as I said before these are from a book. I liked the way they were addressed within the book.

So, if you know so much about it, because your the only one who said so, then what do you say to a duel? I will debate you on any topic under the condition that the winner is determined solely by who commits the least fallacies. In other words, whoever has the most fallacies in their arguments -- as determined by the voters -- at the end loses. The second condition being that they -- the voters -- have to name all of the ones they count, as to prove your theory that they are all well known to them.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 9:32:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 9:06:04 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 7:15:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 7:12:43 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)

Yes, I admit that I don't know that his criteria was justified exactly in picking these exactly, but these do, along with the others, seem fairly common in general.

Any use of ambiguous language, especially ambiguous phrases, detract from reasoning, because you can always come back ad hoc and redefine what you meant to support your argument better. When it's done with a single word it's called equivocating, when it's done with whole phrases it's an ambiguity fallacy (i.e. amphiboly.) This one is really problematic, even in the definition of it, because there are so many vague ways to piece words together in English. That, to me, makes it especially important, along with equivocation (i.e. Doublespeak.)

An appeal to faith would be categorized in the very large group of irrelevant appeals. (e.g. Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, etc.) faith is irrelevant to the truth of a claim because your willingness to believe a proposition doesn't effect it's truth, logically. Spiritually is a different story, perhaps.

The Fool: Most people on here already know this. (thats the first time I ever said that. lol) Just leave a like to fallacies.

I swear I posted this 2 hours ago, but you can't tell how much of what I was going to put on here people already know, as I've only put 8/25 of the most common. Secondly, I can't leave a link to my Kindle Fire, because as I said before these are from a book. I liked the way they were addressed within the book.

So, if you know so much about it, because your the only one who said so, then what do you say to a duel? I will debate you on any topic under the condition that the winner is determined solely by who commits the least fallacies. In other words, whoever has the most fallacies in their arguments -- as determined by the voters -- at the end loses. The second condition being that they -- the voters -- have to name all of the ones they count, as to prove your theory that they are all well known to them.

The Fool: well the thing is that all fallacies are forms of contradictions, they get called fallacies and are put into this special categori only because they are common ones we make in a everyday sense. But if you know your logic you will catch them anyways. You see you have put yourself in a paradox, because if its true that they can know the fallacies well that was my point. You can post them I am just saving you time, because we all know how to use google..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 9:46:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
well the thing is that all fallacies are forms of contradictions
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Gambler's fallacy?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 10:00:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 9:46:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
well the thing is that all fallacies are forms of contradictions

The Fool: Ah good question. There is a set of now called fallacies, which were from the passed called irrational techniques of persuasion. They were defined by Schopenhauer. But they have gotten mixied in some how. Things like Red herrings, and loaded questions. But still look.

What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

Gambler's fallacy?
The Fool: to give a false sense of truth. Truth=/=false.
In fact every error is a contridiction. Contradition=false.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 10:00:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.
That's not a contradiction, that's just a deceptive appearance. A contradiction must somehow assert or logically imply that a thing is both true and false at the same time.


Gambler's fallacy?
The Fool: to give a false sense of truth. Truth=/=false.
In fact every error is a contridiction. Contradition=false.

Contradiction implies false but false does not imply contradiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 9:32:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 9:06:04 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 7:15:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 7:12:43 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 1:46:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:53:16 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:30:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Some of these aren't actual logical fallacies, just bad arguments.

That is essentially the same thing, as I've stated that committing an informal fallacy doesn't necessarily make your argument incorrect.

Formal fallacies are much different, as they usually imply invalidity (though still not necessarily untruth, "even a blind pitcher hits the side of a barn once in awhile.")

And I got these particular ones from the book "Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies" so I suppose it depends on how much you trust the source.

In all my years of doing theology/philosophy (now granted I'm not an expert in philosophy, as I'm still learning, but I have been discussing philosophical and theological matters -- in fact, since I've never had a formal background in logic, I'm reading through documents on the basics of logic to give myself more grounding in it), never once has anyone ever mentioned a fallacy of faith or a fallacy of ambiguity to me (and you'd think they'd play the fallacy of faith card when discussing theological matters).

At the very least, I don't know if they'd qualify as the "top 25" fallacies, but I'm open to being wrong. At the very least, I don't think those fallacies are very well known or I certainly would have at least heard of the "fallacy of faith," since many atheists love to try and side-step theological arguments by trying to find fallacies with them.

Also, I do know the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. :)

Yes, I admit that I don't know that his criteria was justified exactly in picking these exactly, but these do, along with the others, seem fairly common in general.

Any use of ambiguous language, especially ambiguous phrases, detract from reasoning, because you can always come back ad hoc and redefine what you meant to support your argument better. When it's done with a single word it's called equivocating, when it's done with whole phrases it's an ambiguity fallacy (i.e. amphiboly.) This one is really problematic, even in the definition of it, because there are so many vague ways to piece words together in English. That, to me, makes it especially important, along with equivocation (i.e. Doublespeak.)

An appeal to faith would be categorized in the very large group of irrelevant appeals. (e.g. Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, etc.) faith is irrelevant to the truth of a claim because your willingness to believe a proposition doesn't effect it's truth, logically. Spiritually is a different story, perhaps.

The Fool: Most people on here already know this. (thats the first time I ever said that. lol) Just leave a like to fallacies.

I swear I posted this 2 hours ago, but you can't tell how much of what I was going to put on here people already know, as I've only put 8/25 of the most common. Secondly, I can't leave a link to my Kindle Fire, because as I said before these are from a book. I liked the way they were addressed within the book.

So, if you know so much about it, because your the only one who said so, then what do you say to a duel? I will debate you on any topic under the condition that the winner is determined solely by who commits the least fallacies. In other words, whoever has the most fallacies in their arguments -- as determined by the voters -- at the end loses. The second condition being that they -- the voters -- have to name all of the ones they count, as to prove your theory that they are all well known to them.

The Fool: well the thing is that all fallacies are forms of contradictions, they get called fallacies and are put into this special categori only because they are common ones we make in a everyday sense. But if you know your logic you will catch them anyways. You see you have put yourself in a paradox, because if its true that they can know the fallacies well that was my point. You can post them I am just saving you time, because we all know how to use google..

Just because there are only certain ones that have names in no way implies that they are contradictions. You may be able to somehow intuitively catch them or avoid them, having a specific name and structure for them makes it much more efficient though. And I take it as a no to my challenge then.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 10:00:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 9:46:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
well the thing is that all fallacies are forms of contradictions

The Fool: Ah good question. There is a set of now called fallacies, which were from the passed called irrational techniques of persuasion. They were defined by Schopenhauer. But they have gotten mixied in some how. Things like Red herrings, and loaded questions. But still look.

What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

Gambler's fallacy?
The Fool: to give a false sense of truth. Truth=/=false.
In fact every error is a contridiction. Contradition=false.

Frankly, you're just using ambiguous and incoherent sentences to tear me down and build yourself up, even though there was no position stated by either side in the first place. I think you're resisting this thread because it threatens your own brand of shoddy logic.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements. If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:26:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements. If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

So this is a frequent thing then? And do you, or anyone other than The Fool, have an opinion regarding the utility of my original post?
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:01:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements.

The Fool: You are still on the Hate things. Holy, let it go already.

You are wrong. its a contradiction in the sense that someone judge it to be a logical connection with the argument. Many people make he fallacy of saying something like Micheal Jacksons music suck because, he is a Pedifile. In that attacking the charater doesn't effect the logic of the argument.

What is wrong with you? That is not even complicated. Dude, drop the hate rage all ready..

If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

The Fool: I think you are smoking the wrong stuff tonight.. get over IT!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:09:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 1:01:35 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements.

The Fool: You are still on the Hate things. Holy, let it go already.
You are wrong. its a contradiction in the sense that someone judge it to be a logical connection with the argument. Many people make he fallacy of saying something like Micheal Jacksons music suck because, he is a Pedifile. In that attacking the charater doesn't effect the logic of the argument.

What is wrong with you? That is not even complicated. Dude, drop the hate rage all ready..

OMGJustinBieber: If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

The Fool: I think you are smoking the wrong stuff tonight.. get over IT!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:11:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:26:12 AM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements. If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

So this is a frequent thing then? And do you, or anyone other than The Fool, have an opinion regarding the utility of my original post?

The Fool: They are people who have losed arguments or have gotten offended about past argument I have made and they want to regain face. It part of the concsequences of challanges the ideas of others.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:15:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:26:12 AM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements. If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

So this is a frequent thing then? And do you, or anyone other than The Fool, have an opinion regarding the utility of my original post?

The Fool: Just think, what was his motive for him even saying that. Why didn't he not just show how it was wrong? There was no other motive. ITs called haters.

Secondly I didn't say you can't do it. I was pointing out that you only need to give a reference. If you look in the archives you would see that many people in the past have give reference to sites that contain lots of information on fallacies.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:19:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: you got to watch it at this point. Everybody start looking for you to slip up. So they can attack! Or show where you made a mistake. or and exuse to get in any kind of hostility. lol. ah well. Thats what it means to be The Fool.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:28:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:26:12 AM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:55:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What's the contradiction in ad hominem?
Its a contradiction in that it can appear like a part of the argument when its not. aka contradiction.

I love catching you with these statements. If you can mix a few bizarre statements that show an utter misunderstanding of basic logic into a posting repertoire which consistently name drops semi-obscure philosophers it makes for excellent trolling.

So this is a frequent thing then? And do you, or anyone other than The Fool, have an opinion regarding the utility of my original post?

Daily - the OP is fine I don't really have any objections besides what has already been mentioned that most aren't strictly logical fallacies but rather rhetorical fallacies. Begging the question is one that would be strictly illogical and you could put that in proposition form, but not with something like ad hominem or emotive language. The post is fine.