Types of fallacious logic most often seen on DU. Which is worst for DU?

[Wonk]

I've seen all of these (and more) here on DU recently. Which do you think is the most underhanded and disengenious attempt to "argue" the validity of a point that someone is trying to make and most damaging to DU in general? They all, imho, lower the level of discourse on DU when they are used.

Now, in no particular order...

1) Appeal to ridicule
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
eg. Sure my worthy opponent claims that ________, but that is just laughable.

2) Burden of proof
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

3) Bandwagon
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html
eg. My friends in the Young Republicans taunt me every time I make my views known. I accept their views in order to avoid rejection.

4) Appeal to belief
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
eg. 80% of Americans believe X, so it must be true.

5) Straw Man
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

6) Appeal to common practice
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
eg. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong.
(This particularly applies to the candidate bashing threads. Just because you see someone using a fallacious argument, such as an appeal to ridicule, to bash your favorite candidate doesn't make it right to start another thread with a fallacious argument to bash theirs.)

7) Poisoning the well
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
eg. That guy made a tinfoil speculation before, so don't believe anything else he says

8) Appeal to fear
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
eg. If (candidate X) isn't the nominee Bush will surely win in '04

9) Red Herring
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

10) Other (please specify)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Feel free to discuss.

[gristy]

1. Great site, Wonk!

And thanks for putting the poll together. Kind of like a homework assignment so we'll do the reading. :)

I chose Red Herring. I think Red Herrings show up when someone just loses the train of logic in an argument, since these can get pretty complex.

Straw men are pretty common too. People use those on purpose.

[Lisa]

7. Yeah!

Thanks, Wonk -- I wanted to cover "logical errors" with my class this month, and this is a great site to point them to.

[Wonk]

41. I've posted it before but today seemed like a good time to post it again.

nt

[QC]

2. False Dilemma, also known as Either/Or

That one's pretty popular.

[slackmaster]

61. Sometimes called False Dichotomy

That would be my vote for #2. I put Straw Man at #1.

[Sterling]

3. You forgot....

"All you left wingers are embarrassing the party"
Or "all these conspiracy theories are an embarrassment to the party"

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. From some of our 'Centrist' democrats

on another thread. But I don't think they're really Democrats-probably Rove's evil minions in disguise. Woops-is that a conspiracy theory?

[sangha]

21. That's an "appeal to ridicule"

Learn your propoganda!!!

[Iverson]

45. better add this

Sweeping generalization describes an assertion about all members of a class. Ridicule is overlaid upon those examples.

[Terwilliger]

4. other

the Terwilliger Stratagem -- pummel them until they can't take anymore!

[stickdog]

5. How could you forget our old favorites?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

[Wonk]

8. There were only 10 spots in the poll. I'd like to have included them all.

nt

[XanaDUer]

9. Straw Man does not work everytime.

n/t.

[Wonk]

10. In fact it rarely does, when the people who use it are called on it.

Yet some people continue to use it on a regular basis. People who really should know better :eyes:

example

[Isome]

13. The example highlighted in your link

If that's the post you intended as an example of a straw man argument, I'd disagree. It seems more like ridicule to me.

[Wonk]

14. Bit of both, imho. It's saying using lead bullets isn't bad so

using depleted uranium isn't bad.

Sometimes fallacious arguments can be fallacious in more than one way at a time.

[sangha]

22. No, it's an appeal to ridicule

You just created the straw man.

It doesn't mean "using lead bullets isn't so bad". It means "All war is bad"

[Julien Sorel]

31. It was using ridicule against a post

that employed a wide variety of fallacies (question begging, complex questions, aka 'wife beating' fallacy) in the first place. The original post didn't deserve a reasoned response; and this person's post actually subtly pointed out one of the fallacies inherent in the original post: the presumption that DU is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' If lead bullets kill more people than DU, how can DU be a 'weapon of mass destruction,' and lead bullets not? It wasn't saying lead bullets are bad; it's saying the original post is lacking in logic.

[Wonk]

33. Depleted Uranium, the munition that keeps on killing

both locals (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) AND our and our allies troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/362484.stm

[sangha]

34. Lead keeps on killing also

Just ask the thousands of poor children who get lead poisoning from paint that used 100 years ago.

[Julien Sorel]

38. Not a universally accepted fact. Sorry, that makes the premise

unproven, which leads to question-begging and complex questions.

The Pentagon and the U.K. currently assert that A) DU is not hazardous and B); even if it was hazardous, the benefits of its use, in saving soldiers' lives (from both sides) outweighs any deleterious effects from it. They have a mountain of research backing up their position.

Before this turns into a DU-is-evil debate, I'm going to point out that I'm not interested in that side of it at this time. My actual aim was to point out that there's more to the use of logic than the example you gave -- you have to keep the big picture in mind. For what it was, I thought the sangh0 (?) post was actually not a bad way of poking a hole in a bullshit post that was designed to smear, not enlighten. Had the original post been better reasoned, sure I'd have had a problem with sangh0's barb -- but the fact is, it wasn't.

[sangha]

23. Straw man arguments ALWAYS work

Either you don't respond to them, and the straw man remains standing, and if you do respond, then you've been distracted.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. OR - you expose it as a straw man argument

[sangha]

27. And then you've wasted time

NOT making more points. And your response is often met with a straw man response to your response to a straw man response.

The Freepers arguments don't depend on logic, so they have nothing to lose by disrupting the natural flow of a debate in order to bicker over things no one ever said.

[Isome]

11. I see a lot of "poisoning the well".

Particularly with the candidate bashing threads. It usually boils down to: so and so did/said this so they are forever a >> insert your favorite pejorative here! <<

[ButterflyBlood]

12. straw man

just because it's used so often. although not as much here as in arguments with conservatives.

[SOteric]

15. Recently?

I had an eerily similar discussion with Armstead on this board a few months ago.

They're all fairly well represented hereabouts; and with disappointing frequency.

[BurtWorm]

16. I'm trying to remember the ones I employed today...

I'm sure some people I scrapped with will remember.

:hi:

I love fallacies! They're so much fun!

[Clete]

17. What a fancy shmancy run down for common sense.

That's what it seems to be to me anyway. Well, I suppose having words to describe what it is helps. :shrug:

[sangha]

29. Common sense is over-rated

Everyone seems to have it. At least, according to them. Naming things helps you identify them when people use them, so you can more easily recognize a fallacious argument.

[Clete]

52. I had a logic class in college, which I don't really

remember very much about being it was over forty years ago. I got an A because I found it very easy. That's probably why I just considered logical thinking common sense. I didn't get A's that easily. But sure it should be formalized for the sake of debate. No argument from me on that point.

[sangha]

60. Formalization

Yes, that's EXACTLY what it's about. Formalizing thought helps internalize the processes that are being formalized.

[xJlM]

18. This is good

Someone invested some time in laying all this out so anyone could understand it. I've bookmarked this page to take some time reading through it.

[tom_paine]

19. Red Herring is the favorite of the Freeps

[leftofthedial]

20. strawman is the most common

but the most disingenuous and damaging IMHO is poisoning the well, often used in conjunction with guilt by association (and often strawman at the same time). We see that going on in about twenty current candidate-bashing threads and in numerous posts rejecting candidates based on one past vote or statement.

Also, false dilemma is quite common in my experience.

The real value of this site is how it exposes the incredible stew of fallacies that comprise almost every neocon argument on almost every issue. If people could recognize these fallacies, pundits like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly and Scarborough would be laughed off the public stage.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Bandwagon; not the most nauseating or unfair, but the most dangerous

There's a herd mentality and hunger to belong that plays far too well among the human animal, and it's probably responsible for more horrors than the rest.

It works dangerously well for conservative and liberals. In broad strokes: conservatives need to be smugly correct, thus with the group, and liberals need to be liked, thus with the group.

The panicky rush to Clark is a great example, just as the groupthink glee of the newly ascendent Dean folks is.

Great thread!

[Iverson]

46. Everyone agrees with you, so it must be true!

;-)

[sangh0]

48. LOL!

Good one

[Iverson]

49. gadzooks!

Why sangha, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
:hug:
I feel all misty-eyed now.
;-)

[Yupster]

25. Jumping to conclusions

I voted "burden of proof." I guess that's the closest.

An example would be the 12 soldiers killed today. The reports originate in Arab media which anyone my age knows is always wildly exaggerated, yet for some reason, it's believed by many here. When it gets sorted out as 3 dead (bad enough), many won't correct their mistake. Instead they'll assume cover-up and side with the Arab Press, who reported Egyptian soldiers marching through Israel when the Egyptian Army was in full retreat across the Canal in 67, and hasn't been closer to accurate since then.

People who would be so careful in protecting the rights of an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt will jump at any silly conspiracy without any proof at all and throw the name Bush or BFEE behind it.

Maybe it's just part of the fun of the site.

[Sterling]

57. You just made a #1

People who would be so careful in protecting the rights of an accused person beyond a reasonable
doubt will jump at any silly conspiracy without any proof at all and throw the name Bush or BFEE
behind it.

And it smells like you made a #2 in your pants.

[Iverson]

58. was that ...

... an appeal to ridicule, you degenerate?;-)

[prolesunited]

28. You mean people around here

are constructing arguments using faulty logic. :wow: I though baseless accusations and inflamed passions were all one needed for a good debate around here. :eyes:

Thanks for posting this. It's a good reminder. It's easier to deconstruct the patterns when you are aware of the techniques.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Other

cuz I can't pick just one. There are a lot of non sequitur arguments as well as syllogistic errors, such as illicit minors and majors.

Actually I think what is worst is that so many don't even try to make arguments; they just assert.

[Awakened Dreamer]

32. Upon further reflection...

I just spent the last 2 hours reading EVERY SINGLE FALLACY on the site and I really think that, upon further reflection, False Dilemma is the most dangerous and most common of the fallacies.

How often have you been presented with, "You can either support bush or support the terrorists". Even here, there are prevailing schools of thoughts that try to limit the possiblities of choices. Worst of all, is that it is often not intentional.

For example... Using hard line liberal and hard line conservitive stances, you can either support a bloody handed dictator who kills his own people or support a bloody unjust war. These false dilemma's restrict thinking not just between the political sides but between liberals, leftists, and progressives.

For example, I was all for a war in Iraq and I still maintain that there should have been a war in Iraq. HOWEVER, I never thought that the Neo-Con shock and awe was a good idea. I favored a war in Iraq similar to the American leftist intervention similar to the Spanish civil war... rather then facist intervention in the Spanish civil war.

But if you limit thought you come up with 2 decisions. You can either be anti-war and let Saddam off or be pro-war and help bush rake in the oil profits.

By creating false dilemmas, we limit the rainbow of possibilities into just black and white.

[Wonk]

39. Welcome to DU :-) Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Good answer. False dilemma is one of the favored right wing tactics for limiting debate. Now you can point it out to your friends when you hear an argument presented in that way and explain why it's fallacious.

[Bossy Monkey]

35. Appeal to fear, because it's most likely to be successful

since we're all here because we fear 4 more years of Yale's Worst Cheerleader, and (thousands of threads claiming that "only _____ can beat Bush notwithstanding), nobody really knows who has the best chance to win in '04. On the whole, maybe we ought to be trying to figure out who the best candidate is and let Rove do his own opposition research.

[depakid]

36. The strawman fallacy is by far the most common but poisoning

the well is probably even more annoying, frequently juvenile, and is readily apparent whenever Ralph Nader or some other noted Green makes a perfectly valid point on a very important issue.

If this type of behavior simply reflected the shallow minds of the posters, that would be fine, but unfortuately it degrades the quality of the whole site.

[sistersofmercy]

37. Hopefully very insightful to some! Strawman, definitely!

[kodi]

40. you forgot that some people are just plain unbelievable stupid

.

[gottaB]

42. Appeals to spite can be toxic, esp. bad for du

In politics appeals to tradition get on my nerves.

When journalists report on sociological phenomena, they're frequently guilty of ignoring a common cause. Very deleterious.

When it comes to current political slugfests in the media, I agree with Awakened Dreamer: False dilemmas make us stupid. I'm prettty sure that's the intent of the Bushistas, at least the more clever among them. You know, level the playing field. (Appeal to ridicule? Depends on what you mean by "ridicule." :-| .)

[Wonk]

43. Early Friday morning kick

[Iverson]

44. straw man: it's epidemic here

Also, straw man may contain elements of other logical fallacies (e.g.- appeal to ridicule), but it effectively prevents real exchange because a discussant has grasped enough of his opponent's position to restate it in misleading terms.

Some of the other fallacies can be overcome with maturity or removing distractions, but straw man involves a decision to impede the exchange of ideas.

It's particularly insidious on DU because some versions of straw man are acceptable to the group, whereas others are not.

[Guaranteed]

47. Right on, Wonk...

I love seeing the logical fallacies discussed here on DU. This should make us all better people LOL!
Anyway, I think the most disingenuous and underhanded is certainly the straw man, but the most damaging is either ridicule, bandwagoning or appeal to belief. The straw man argument is equivalent to just lying. All you're doing, and most of the time you KNOW you're doing it, is twisting someone's argument so that they're saying something that you know they weren't saying. Totally without integrity, AND shortsighted and immature in that all you're trying to do is win the argument. It IS tough to deal with, though, because on top of the misrepresentation, it's a distraction. Republicans FREQUENTLY use this tactic (in fact almost all of their responses to my arguments seem to twist what I'm saying in one way or another, i.e. I'm supporting the terrorists).
But the most dangerous has to be either ridicule, bandwagoning or appeal to belief. ANY ARGUMENT INVOLVING SOCIAL PRESSURE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND TOTALLY INVALID. Others are right when they say it leads to mob mentality. It truly does. It seems to me as many as 30% of Americans changed their views on the war once it seemed apparent it was going to happen, for fear of seeming unpatriotic. The problem with that type of argument is that instead of using our intelligence it reverts to our stupid, primal need to fit in. Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions" had a short story illustrating how dangerous it is (appeal to authority hee hee). In the story human beings were more worried about being friendly with others than using their brains and reasoning out how good particular ideas really are. So they welcomed an alien race of automobiles that had destroyed their own (the automobile's) planet and come to Earth. The automobiles soon destroyed their planet too. There ya go: that's what happens when you worry about being friendly.
The lesson is to not give a shit about what anyone thinks. Just shut off your emotions in general and do what's right. Fuck everyone else.
:) Have a nice day!

[quinnox]

50. Appeal to authority

This one is used a lot by the Deanies.

[Wonk]

51. kick

[slappypan]

53. you forgot the ad hominem attack

I think that is the very worst.

[Terwilliger]

54. How many voted Straw Man...

because that's the only one you've seen repeated here at DU every day?

[Iverson]

55. You're just saying that ...

... because you want infants to die horribly.
Sorry, I can't agree with that.
:hi:

[Wonk]

59. LOL... nt

[spooky3]

56. How about a related poll? Which do Repugs used most often?

Wonk, Thanks for pointing out a really interesting site.

[oasis]

62. A kick for DU education