List of Logical Fallacies for DU, dont be that person.

[Eko]

Logical Fallacies
An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.
What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[Eko]

1. Dont just look at the post,

go to the link. Study the fallacies and do your best not to commit them.

[Jim Lane]

10. But DO look at any post you respond to.

I'm appalled at how often people who are disagreeing with something I said are, in fact, disagreeing with something they THINK I said but that I didn't actually say.

A common DU fallacy is: "This post said A, B, and C. Those points are sort of in line with F, a position also held by (name of Designated Villain), who also believes G. Therefore the DUer is endorsing G." Of course, it isn't spelled out that clearly, but the bottom line is the same.

I understand that your point is that people should go beyond looking at this particular post because the link here, about fallacies, is valuable. Your wording prompted me to make the more general point about looking at posts before responding.

[Hari Seldon]

2. All men are

a) Socrates was a man
b) All men are mortal

therefore

all men are Socrates

[Eko]

3. The founders had wigs,

therefore we were founded on wigs.

[yurbud]

41. and they wore yoga pants

[Eko]

4. C'mon, there has to be more of us out there?

The liberal party is not just a left wing tea party is it? Give a shout out! Are we the party of intelligence or not? Are we going to let posts that are premised on a logical fallacies become the normal? Cant we be better? Shouldn't we be? Don't we have the responsibility to be? Are we going to embrace science only when it fits our narrative or are we going to use logic on all things no matter the outcome?

[Fred Sanders]

5. Using science and logic on the ebola outbreak meant folks had to abandon their firmly held fears....

it is a losing battle with fear clutchers, even now that the country is predictably ebola free you still have Tremblers everywhere.

America only requires education to a level fit for the military, everything after that is a waste.

[unrepentant progress]

6. "Are we going to let posts that are premised on a logical fallacies become the normal?"

You must be new here. That ship sailed sometime around 2004.

[Bill USA]

11. aren't 'we' being a bit transparent?

[Eko]

15. No,

This thread is not about a single person, it is about the caliber of thinking that I encounter on DU way too much. By the way, that would be an ad-hominem attack for anyone that cares to know. I am not saying that I am innocent of committing logical fallacies, but when I realize I do or am informed so I retract my statement.

[Bill USA]

17. your act is not fooling anybody. If you have specific cases and charges, then be upfront about it

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

... and make them.

I have found Conservatives put almost no importance on the legitimacy of their generalizations based the data they site. Usually you are content to make a case on the basis of one observation (i.e. an anecdote).

Your assertion (implied) is that the "caliber of thinking" you "encounter on DU way too much" is markedly inferior to the thinking you've encountered... where? ... in the general population, on other internet web-sites?? -- or on Conservative web-sites (which of course you do not spend most of your time on).

The logic I've seen on DU (I have more than 220 posts) compares quite favorably to the logic I have encountered from virtually any GOP politician, propagandist or apologists - whatever the medium.

If you are trying to make an implied case that the logic exhibited on DU is inferior to that offered by Conservatives -- well, your going to have to make that case - explicitly - not by implication.

..And start by coming up with some cases - or no Democrat will take your rhetoric as honest discourse but rather will correctly identify it as casuistry.

Ramble on, as you no doubt will, without specific cases, but don't expect anybody to be fooled.


Try being upfront with your arguments Mr. '200 posts'.

[Eko]

18. You are doing a nice job of making my case for me.

[Eko]

20. So I will use you as a specific case.

You have replied twice to me and each time you used logical fallacies, on the second reply you had multiple logical fallacies. Good enough for you? This is exactly what I am talking about. I post something about logical fallacies and next thing you know people are implying that I a conservative, why? I don't believe I have ever espoused conservative ideals anywhere on here, yet here we are. So is that specific and upfront enough for you?

[Doctor_J]

7. I teach university logic

"If you don't like the ACA, you are hoping that people die" - appeal to emotion

[cbayer]

8. One thing I've noticed is that accusing someone of a logical fallacy

is itself a logical fallacy.

It's a weak tool often used to entirely dismiss someone's POV. The fallacy is that one can always find some kind of logical fallacy to accuse others of and then never have to actually support your own position.

They exist but not nearly as often as accusations of having committed them occur.

[Eko]

14. Could you explain that?

Which logical fallacy would it be?

[cbayer]

16. It's the "calling someone's argument a logical fallacy" logical fallacy.

[Eko]

19. couldnt seem to find that one

for some reason.

[cbayer]

21. The Fallacy Fallacy. It's akin to a straw man.

Instead of actually responding to someone's point, the debater will attack that point as being some kind of logical fallacy.

Logical fallacies are flexible enough that one can almost always find one that fits.

If someone dismisses your point as a logical fallacy, there is no reasonable response.

I think this is a weak debating tool and used a lot when someone really has no response. "Nice Strawman!", "No True Scotsman!", "All you've got is ad homs!", "Appeal to Authority!", "Anecdotal!". These are some of the favorites around here.

[Eko]

22. Learned something new.

There is indeed a fallacy fallacy, but, accusing someone of a logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy, saying that their entire point is wrong because they committed a logical fallacy would be. So accusing someone of a logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy at all.

[cbayer]

23. You, sir, are technically correct.

I knew that when I posted my response, but wanted to see what I could get away with..

I should have know I had a worthy opponent.

So what I propose is something different, and perhaps you can help me name it.

Not infrequently, someone dismisses another's point as a "logical fallacy". This is sometimes a response of last resort.

It places the accused in the position of having to abandon their point in order to defend their position.

In short, it moves the whole debate towards process and away from content.

Whether it is a logical fallacy or not, I don't know. But it is a debating technique that is used to divert and deflect from the point.

[Eko]

24. The original point can be a logical fallacy.

If so, it should not be a response of last resort, but the first thing. You don't abandon your point when you have to defend it at all, that is the way a conversation/debate works. It most certainly is content if the crux of the content is a logical fallacy. It does not divert and deflect from the point, it is describing the point and the type of thinking that was used to get to that conclusion in this case a logical fallacy.

[cbayer]

29. This hurts my brain.

All I know is that some people try to shut down debate by accusing you of using a logical fallacy when you have not. This accusation is a debating tactic.

I'm not sure what to call it, but those that do this will just persist and never concede that your point actually has merit.

[Eko]

37. A point can be a logical fallacy

and still have merit and even be true.

[cbayer]

38. I understand that, I think.

That is why I reject to having an argument dismissed as a logical fallacy.

It's a way of blowing someone off. Whether it is or is not a LF, it's a way of dismissing someone.

[Eko]

40. If the original thought

is a logical fallacy itself, then it can be dismissed because using that type of logic does not make the point right or wrong without some other type of reasoning to support it. Lets say you post "Its hot here so global warming is correct". That does not make global worming correct and is worth dismissing. If you worded it as "Its hotter here every year and its the same all over the earth so global warming is correct" then that would a much better argument, especially if you can back up the trends with data.

[Eko]

39. An example.

I could accuse you of being a paid tea party person on here just to sow discord, that could be true and it could be false. Even if it was true it does nothing for the discussion other than to cast doubt on what you are saying and deflects from the points you have made.

[Eko]

25. When you use a logical fallacy as your main argument

It can be true or not true.
Ex.1 I live in Australia, there are mice here, there must be mice everywhere on earth.
I think that is a reasonable argument, I personally don't know anywhere on earth where there aren't mice continent wise.
Ex.2 I live in Australia, there are Kangaroos here, there must be Kangaroos everywhere on earth.
That is not true. Same type of logical fallacy, one is true the other is not. To point out they are logical fallacies doesn't make Ex.1 false, it just means that that type of thinking can also lead to a wrong conclusion and is not a good type of reasoning to use because it is not reliable and can lead to incorrect conclusions.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Are logical fallacies the same as false equivalents?

Or are false equivalents a category of logical fallacies?

[nilesobek]

12. Thanks for the reminder.

[CBHagman]

13. Two useful tools in understanding logical fallacies and how people think...

...are David McRaney's books You Are Not So Smart and You Are Now Less Dumb, which cover the why and how of a great many human responses -- e.g., the backfire effect, blaming the victim. The primary impression I came away with was that people need narratives to explain the world, and that aspect of the human mind is a key factor in politics.

[Scootaloo]

26. For those who need a picture drawn for them....

Argument from Consequences

Arguing from consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. Just because a proposition leads to some unfavorable result does not mean that it is false. Similarly, just because a proposition has good consequences does not all of a sudden make it true. As David Hackett Fischer puts it, “it does not follow, that a quality which attaches to an effect is transferable to the cause.”

In the case of good consequences, an argument may appeal to an audience's hopes, which at times take the form of wishful thinking. In the case of bad consequences, such an argument may instead appeal to an audience's fears. For example, take Dostoevsky's line, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” Discussions of objective morality aside, the appeal to the apparent grim consequences of a purely materialistic world says nothing about whether or not the antecedent is true.

One should keep in mind that such arguments are fallacious only when they deal with propositions with objective truth values, and not when they deal with decisions or policies [Curtis], such as a politician opposing the raising of taxes for fear that it will adversely impact the lives of constituents, for example.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/

[djean111]

27. This does explain how those who blast liberals who do not support Hillary as purists, can also

blast liberals for supporting a candidate who is whatever constitutes "less than perfect" for THEM - mostly that consists of Not Being Hillary.
I thought that they were just being disingenuous, but perhaps they are just being obtuse, or the logical fallacy really does escape them.
Or else "purist" is a very bendy word indeed.
That "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" meme certainly escapes some people too, it only runs one way for some. And, of course, the definition of "good" is certainly is all over the map.

[TBF]

28. Form over substance -

I deal with this in Texas a lot.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Eko]

30. Maybe this will help you some.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/importance.htm
Other than that if you have something to say feel free to say it.

[TBF]

31. I also have a piece that

may help you some: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/internet-trolls-guide-to-different-flavours

[Eko]

32. If you have something to say, say it.

I am being pretty open here, you are just implying things. So just say it.

[TBF]

33. We come to political discussion

boards to discuss politics - not the rules of debate. It isn't just this thread.

So, where do you fall politically? I am a socialist and desire the end of capitalism. I have managed to find a few other revolutionary socialists on this board and others who are at least open to containing capitalism if not getting rid of it altogether.

[Eko]

34. Politics is about ideas,

and all ideas are subject to reasoning. Instead of discussing logical fallacies with me and the use of it in conversations it seemed like you were implying I was here for some other reason. Now you want to discuss where I stand politically instead of the topic of fallacies, why is that? All of my friends, family, co-workers, and anyone else who knows me would call me far left. I think there is a lot wrong with capitalism and it should be heavily regulated for the common good, I am also open to other forms of society and would judge each on its reasoning.

[TBF]

35. I am not discussing it with you

because I saw you hitting someone over the head with this in another thread. Rather than debate ideas you are determined to debate how ideas should be discussed.

I was interested in hearing where you stand politically because we come to a political message board to discuss politics. At least that is what I would logically assume ...

[Eko]

36. I think that is somewhat fair,

I come to DU at least once a day, I like to see what is going on and to be at a place where the politics and the news fits me. I understand I do sometimes go a bit too far with using logic and am guilty of illogical things from time to time. I am very science oriented and use reason as much as I can. That being said, what do you call someone that responds on a post for reasons not related to the original thread? I am not accusing you of anything, I am not implying, just that we all mess up some. If you want to debate the ideas, in this case using a logical fallacy in a discussion and why it is important I would be happy to do so with you.