Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Logical fallacies

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I propose that new logical fallacies be instigated to deal with some of the more stupid arguments that I am sure we have all encountered.

Argument from the obvious: When a person asserts that the truth of their point is so obvious it need not be defended.

Argument from your lack of ability to understand: An argument that consists of stating your opponent simply cannot understand your argument because he is to stupid/naive/in denial.

These are the only two I could think of off hand, but I'll add more as they come to me. Please feel free to add your own to the list.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:01:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
I propose that new logical fallacies be instigated to deal with some of the more stupid arguments that I am sure we have all encountered.

Argument from the obvious: When a person asserts that the truth of their point is so obvious it need not be defended.

I think that this fallacy, if accepted, would result in the refutation of 95% of all philosophy that had ever been written. That isn't to say it's not fallacious thinking, just that it's more widespread than one would think.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:24:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
going into debating religion one fallacy is when they say, "the proof is all around you." three words for that. worst...argument...ever.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:44:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The first is called an "argument from common sense".

The second is called an "ad hominem".
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:53:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:01:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
I propose that new logical fallacies be instigated to deal with some of the more stupid arguments that I am sure we have all encountered.

Argument from the obvious: When a person asserts that the truth of their point is so obvious it need not be defended.

Argument from your lack of ability to understand: An argument that consists of stating your opponent simply cannot understand your argument because he is to stupid/naive/in denial.


These are the only two I could think of off hand, but I'll add more as they come to me. Please feel free to add your own to the list.

Both of these really really bother me when used. I also hate it when somebody says that an argument is so stupid it doesn't warrant a response.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I couldn't find this on any list, so I came up with one myself.

Inherence Bias: Where a belief has become seen as so inherently true that, even when shown to be wrong, the person will still hold the belief.

Example: Person A is for increased taxes on the Rich. Person B proves that increased taxes would cause less investment, and so hurt the economy. Person A, despite being unable to prove otherwise, still holds their belief, because it just feels inherently true (or because it's "obviously" true).

Usually it's caused by being told something is true often enough without real opposition. Also often caused by people seeing something and forming an immediate opinion on it before making any effort to understand the subject (like deciding the Rich should be taxed more without understanding anything about economics), which usually leads to assuming that fact is right, and disbelieving and evidence because obviously real evidence would support that fact. Sometimes the person will accept they have lost, yet will still claim their belief is right because it just "feels" like it's right.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 8:28:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2013 4:44:45 PM, APB wrote:
The first is called an "argument from common sense".
Which is the inverse of Personal Incredulity. Unlike Incredulity, "I can't imagine that you are right, so you must be wrong", this instead says "I can't imagine that I am wrong, therefore I must be right"

The second is called an "ad hominem".
Many of these hyper-general fallacies can cover so many situations that it's sometimes preferable to list something a bit more specific.
In particular I'd say it's a hybrid between Ad Hominim (By Attacking the person's ability to understand rather then attacking their argument), Circular Reasoning ("If you understood, you would agree with me. Since you don't agree with me, that means you don't understand" Again, no attack on the actual case), No True Scotsman ("An understanding man would agree. You don't agree, so you don't understand." It's a form on Circular Reasoning, but one I feel deserves credence), and Courtier's Reply ("Until you come to understand it, of course you will disagree with me", the person is implying that you are only in disagreement because you have not learned enough). As with any complex fallacy, it also can see bits and pieces of other fallacies, but in scale enough to mention.

Of those, I would hit it to be more specifically a Circular Reasoning/Courtier's Reply Fallacy. I excluded Ad Hominim from the final list as it is too broad a fallacy, and the other two more aptly explain it. I excluded No True Scotsman, because it is simply an honourable mention variant of Circular Reasoning.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 1:44:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2013 4:01:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
I propose that new logical fallacies be instigated to deal with some of the more stupid arguments that I am sure we have all encountered.
Example, your first statement, lol
Argument from the obvious: When a person asserts that the truth of their point is so obvious it need not be defended.

Argument from your lack of ability to understand: An argument that consists of stating your opponent simply cannot understand your argument because he is to stupid/naive/in denial.


These are the only two I could think of off hand, but I'll add more as they come to me. Please feel free to add your own to the list.

Here ya go. Engage Dr. Bo, he has an extensive list and explanations of fallacies.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...