AsenDURE @ Corner of 11th & 20th

While discussing/debating ideas with people, we tend to use logic and reason to justify our points. In forums, especially LYN, opposing parties tend to quickly point out the other person’s flawed logic (term popularized by chewyx) and the purpose of this exercise is to destroy the foundations on which an argument is built upon. Case studies are abundant especially in RWI and is the preferred tactic of tackling an argument. While we strive to achieve ultimate logic, it is important to examine the most frequent logical fallacies our arguments fall into, I myself being guilty of quite a few…:P (hey, I’m no Vulcan)

In general, of course, it’s a good idea to avoid logical fallacies, if at all possible, because a good opponent will almost always catch you. It is especially important to avoid obvious logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum, because they are especially vulnerable to powerful (and persuasive) refutations thus resulting in a humilating pawnage. Sometimes though, a logical fallacy, or at least an unjustified logical leap, is unavoidable. The most important guideline for committing such fallacies yourself is to know when you are doing it, and to be prepared to justify yourself later if the opposition tries to call you down for it.

The following is a partial list of common fallacies of logic with explanation and (some) examples.

Ad hominem (attacking the person) aka flaming - Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example: His objections to capital punishment carry no weight because he is a convicted felon. Note: Saying something negative about someone is not necessarily ad hominem. Eg. critizing stupid members of parliment or ministers.

Appeal to emotion - Deliberate introduction of emotional devices in place of logical assertions to persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Example: Ecal’s attempt to use photographs as justification for Palestinian cause to whop Israelites ass. For the low down on who ecal is kindly go to empire23’s blog, where he displays another talent of his in the form of internet perp profiling.

Ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance) aka burden of proof fallacy - Arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. If you cannot prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can’t prove there isn’t a green chimpanzee, so there must be one.

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - A specialized form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It consists of putting forward an assertion without justification, on the basis that the audience must disprove it if it is to be rejected. Normally we take it that the new position must have supporting evidence or reason adduced in its favor by the person who introduces it. When we are required instead to produce arguments against it, he commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Example: You prove it, no you prove it ain’t….typical.

Ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) - A deliberate attempt to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Often manifested by an authority in one field speaking out of their field of expertise. Example: Britney Spears selling Toyota cars.

Affirming the consequent - invalid form of the conditional argument. The second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If I kick you in the nuts, you can’t have children. You can’t have children, therefore you’re nuts had been kicked.

Straw Man - Misrepresentation or recasting of an opponent’s position to make it more vulnerable. Usually this is done by distorting the issue to a ridiculous extreme. This can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones. Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.

Argument From False Analogy An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak or irrelevant analogy to prove its point. Example: This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.

Begging the question aka circular reasoning An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premise. Example: Holy books are infalitable, is the word of God. Why…? Because it’s stated so in verse bla bla bla.

Amphiboly - Syntactical ambiguity involving the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences that leads to communication of a erroneous idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement. Example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. Ow! She should be reported for animal abuse. [This was supposed to relate Jim’s sighting of Jenny through the window, not Jenny’s passing bodily through the window.]

Slippery Slope A line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. Example: We can’t let the minority attain power, if we do, it won’t be long before they take absolute control.

Common Belief aka bandwagon or appeal to popularity - Assertion of a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that!

Past Belief - A form of the Common Belief fallacy. The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: Slavery is not morally wrong, it has been practiced for centuries.

Composition - Conclusion that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The Trump clan must be rolling in money, since Donald Trump is a billionaire

Contrary to fact hypothesis - Assertion of an idea based on an unjustified or unsubstantiated degree of certainty that a hypothetical consequence would have resulted. Example: If the US of A didn’t go to war with Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have overtaken control of Saudi Arabia and controlled the world’s oil today.

Denying the Antecedent - An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent. Often mistaken for modus tollens. Example: Nut kicking incident in reverse.

Bogus Dilema aka “the either” or false dichotomy - Assertion that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other possibilities; a false form of disjunctive syllogism. Example: “Chicks, love them or leave them.” (The implication is, since you don’t love it the only option is to leave it).

Division - Conclusion that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that characteristic. Example: I am Kim Seng is good at business since , since Chinese are good at business.

Hasty Generalization - A generalization accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All atheist are arrogant. Just look at these postings here.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc(“After this, therefore caused by this.”) A form of the false cause fallacy in which it is inferred that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. Example: Ever since you’ve join the team we keep on losing. Must be your fault.

Inconsistency aka self pawnage - A discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions. Example: A feminist who doesn’t believe women should be ordained priest.

Non Sequitur (“It does not follow.”) aka en passe - Assertion of premises that have no direct relationship to the conclusion. Example: A cute chick standing provocatively by a fast car is by no means an indicator of it’s performance.

Non causa pro causa (Questionable cause) - This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I expect that it will rain tomorrow because I washed the car.

Red Herring - Introduction of an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a smokescreen. It is a tactic designed to divert attention from the issue at hand.

Slanting - A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. Example: I can’t believe how much money is being poured into the PTPN loans. [Use of the word “poured” suggests heedless and unnecessary spending].

Two Wrongs Make A Right - An attempt to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning pointing to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.

“Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”

Jargons and who’s who
LYN:Low Yat Net or Lowyatdotnet. A forum for enthusiast for practically anything or everything (found at http://forum.lowyat.net)
RWI: Real World Issue sub forum which contain political, religious and other serious issues.
Empire23: Refer links on the side people
Chewyx: Same as above.
Ecal: Refer Empire23.
Pawnage: to rule, to rock, or be generaly superior to…from root word P0wnz (refer to the urban dictionary at http://www.urbandictionary.com/)
Flame: To insult someone electronically.

Edited: Changed from master list to partial list since there’s 70 logical fallacies and I just listed a couple of the popular ones.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 15th, 2005 at 11:25 pm and is filed under Physics, Philosophy, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.