Informal Fallacies - Revision history

Hannibal: /* False Criteria */

Hannibal — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:26:14 GMT

False Criteria

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 6 October 2012
Line 387:		Line 387:
	===False Criteria===		===False Criteria===

-	Also known as the fallacy of '''questionable criteria'''. this is the application of irrelevant standards to the subject of the argument. It is a basic fallacy of assumption. Asking someone to 'weigh an idea' ~~as if it were a concrete entity, discrete from~~ '~~other~~ ideas' and not a fluid, interconnective process involving numerous neurons, would be an example.	+	Also known as the fallacy of '''questionable criteria'''. this is the application of irrelevant standards to the subject of the argument. It is a basic fallacy of assumption. Asking someone to 'weigh an idea' which presupposes or 'begs the question" that ideas are particular entities and not fluid, interconnective process involving numerous neurons, would be an example.

	===Extension===		===Extension===

Hannibal: /* Appeal to Adverse Consequences */

Hannibal — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:22:18 GMT

Appeal to Adverse Consequences

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 6 October 2012
Line 233:		Line 233:
	15:13-19, NIV)''		15:13-19, NIV)''

-	In other words, if you don't believe Christ was raised from the dead, then we must face the painful reality that the dead are merely dead.	+	In other words, if you don't believe Christ was raised from the dead, then we must face the painful reality that the dead are merely dead. And such a position would be pitiful. Therefore, we should accept the belief.

	'''Warning signals''' http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/drsmith_dark.jpg Watch out for an opponent who confuses what he desires to be true for what is true. When this occurs, disengage from the conversation, as you are wasting your time... and his.		'''Warning signals''' http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/drsmith_dark.jpg Watch out for an opponent who confuses what he desires to be true for what is true. When this occurs, disengage from the conversation, as you are wasting your time... and his.

Hannibal: /* Appeal to Faith */

Hannibal — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:20:27 GMT

Appeal to Faith

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 6 October 2012
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought (i.e., a desire) and produces intransigence. Faith has never been shown to be anything more than believing what you want to believe no matter the reality. Historically, people "of faith" have used the very next appeal that follows "to alter the opinions" of their opponents.		Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought (i.e., a desire) and produces intransigence. Faith has never been shown to be anything more than believing what you want to believe no matter the reality. Historically, people "of faith" have used the very next appeal that follows "to alter the opinions" of their opponents.

-	'''What to look out for:''' http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/drsmith_dark.jpg Faith is not a means to gain knowledge. Faith is simply an assertion that one can accept a belief without justification~~. It's an end to rational thought, not a beginning~~.	+	'''What to look out for:''' http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/drsmith_dark.jpg Faith is not a means to gain knowledge. Faith is simply an assertion that one can accept a belief without justification.

	===Appeal to Force: Ad Baculum===		===Appeal to Force: Ad Baculum===

Hannibal: /* Internal Contradiction: Fallacies of Self Refutation */

Hannibal — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:19:34 GMT

Internal Contradiction: Fallacies of Self Refutation

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 6 October 2012
Line 38:		Line 38:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

-	In this passage, Morris tells us that there was no death in the world - but that people still ate food which is in this case would presumably be plant life, a living substance that died when it was consumed. One cannot deny that there was 'death' if one maintains that there was 'food', unless of course, one redefines what the ~~term~~ 'death' ~~means~~. (See the ad hoc fallacy)	+	In this passage, Morris tells us that there was no decay or death in the world - but that people still ate food which is in this case would presumably be plant life, a living substance that died and decayed (the process wherein organic substances are broken down into simpler forms of matter) when it was consumed. One cannot deny that there was decay and death if one maintains that there was 'food', unless of course, one redefines what the terms 'decay' and 'death' mean. (See the ad hoc fallacy)

Hannibal: /* Red Herring */

Hannibal — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:54:41 GMT

Red Herring

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 22 August 2010
Line 1,062:		Line 1,062:
	Also known as "Ignoratio elenchi" or "missing the point", a red herring occurs when your opponent adds in information that is connected in some way to the current discussion, but in no way has any bearing on the argument at hand. A good example would be an argument I entered into recently:		Also known as "Ignoratio elenchi" or "missing the point", a red herring occurs when your opponent adds in information that is connected in some way to the current discussion, but in no way has any bearing on the argument at hand. A good example would be an argument I entered into recently:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
-	Opponent: Where do you think Christianity shows up in ~~Folwer~~'s ~~famous~~ hierarchy of faiths?	+	Opponent: Where do you think mainstream Christianity shows up in Fowler's stage theory on the hierarchy of faiths?
	<BR>		<BR>
-	Myself: Very low, I am afraid. Christianity, with all its tenets, its dogma, would appear, ipso facto, at his conventional stage. Stage 3 of the 7.<BR>	+	Myself: Very low, I am afraid. Mainstream Christianity, with all its tenets, its dogma, would appear, ipso facto, at his conventional stage. Stage 3 of the 7.<BR>

-	Opponent: Aha! But ~~Folwer~~ himself is Christian!	+	Opponent: Aha! But Fowler himself is Christian!
	<BR>		<BR>
-	Myself: Yes... but this has no bearing on the matter~~! The only way it could is if~~ you are insinuating that ~~Folwer, because of his status as a Christian,~~ would ~~purposely~~ shape his theory of faiths to ensure Christianity made the top of the list. But if this happened~~, then~~ you would ~~still~~ be ~~refuted, because you would be admitting~~ the theory was biased~~! Therefore, the fact Folwer was a~~ ~~Christian has no bearing here whatsoever!~~	+	Myself: Yes... but this has no bearing on the matter unless you are insinuating that Fowler would shape his theory of faiths to ensure Christianity made the top of the list. But if this happened you would be implying that the theory was biased.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Hannibal: /* Red Herring */

Hannibal — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:51:23 GMT

Red Herring

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 22 August 2010
Line 1,075:		Line 1,075:
	Just an aside here - but if apologists need to spend so much time going back to older biblical sources (and not of course, "original sources", which no longer exist, and of course, as human made documents, were not any more sacrosanct as later versions anyway...), just what kind of job did the biblical translators do? And if these amateur apologists are so much better at transcribing the older sources, why aren't they writing newer and more correct versions of the bible?		Just an aside here - but if apologists need to spend so much time going back to older biblical sources (and not of course, "original sources", which no longer exist, and of course, as human made documents, were not any more sacrosanct as later versions anyway...), just what kind of job did the biblical translators do? And if these amateur apologists are so much better at transcribing the older sources, why aren't they writing newer and more correct versions of the bible?

-	===Black Holing=== Black 'holing" refers to the endless void of a black hole in space, and it occurs in a debate when an opponent attempts to stall all discourse by continually demanding that you justify each and every future attempt to justify your position. For example, your opponent replies to the claim "psychology states that X is true" by demanding that you define "psychology". When you reply, he then demands that you define the terms used to define 'psychology', and so on, ad infinitum.	+	===Black Holing===
		+
		+	Black 'holing' refers to the endless void of a black hole in space, and it occurs in a debate when an opponent attempts to stall all discourse by continually demanding that you justify each and every future attempt to justify your position. For example, your opponent replies to the claim "psychology states that X is true" by demanding that you define "psychology". When you reply, he then demands that you define the terms used to define 'psychology', and so on, ad infinitum.

	We can rightly hold that our opponent is black holing us when our level of justification reaches claims that even our opponent holds to... For example, if the person defined psychology as "the study of human behavior, thought and emotion" and his opponent stated "define thought" he would be black-holing his opponent, if he already agreed as to what the meaning of the word 'thought" entailed.		We can rightly hold that our opponent is black holing us when our level of justification reaches claims that even our opponent holds to... For example, if the person defined psychology as "the study of human behavior, thought and emotion" and his opponent stated "define thought" he would be black-holing his opponent, if he already agreed as to what the meaning of the word 'thought" entailed.

Hannibal: /* Suspect Debate Tactics */

Hannibal — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:46:36 GMT

Suspect Debate Tactics

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 22 August 2010
Line 1,014:		Line 1,014:
	==Suspect Debate Tactics==		==Suspect Debate Tactics==

-	I've always wanted to add in a section on dirty debate tactics. These are not 'fallacies' so much as they are either ~~ignorant~~ flaws or purposeful attempts to twist reality in order to convince another of your position. I will start out by looking more closely at rhetoric techniques, and then I will examine a few debate styles that are more than just a little bit suspect... "	+	I've always wanted to add in a section on dirty debate tactics. These are not 'fallacies' so much as they are either flaws or purposeful attempts to twist reality in order to convince another of your position. I will start out by looking more closely at rhetoric techniques, and then I will examine a few debate styles that are more than just a little bit suspect... "

	===Rhetoric of Imperatives===		===Rhetoric of Imperatives===
Line 1,123:		Line 1,123:
	of systematically spewing out refuted idea after refuted idea, but with such speed that the		of systematically spewing out refuted idea after refuted idea, but with such speed that the
	presentation gives the illusion to some that, "well, there must be something in all of that..."		presentation gives the illusion to some that, "well, there must be something in all of that..."
		+
		+	===Moving the Goalposts===
		+	http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/6d1b5335.jpg
		+
		+	"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
		+	— Darth Vader, The Empire Strikes Back
		+
		+	"Moving the Goalposts" occurs whenever an opponent responds to a valid response to his challenge by simply changing his original challenge.
		+
		+	Example: You've been asked to "just name one example!" the response you receive is: "OK, fine, but can you name another?"

	===Intellectual Dishonesty===		===Intellectual Dishonesty===

Hannibal at 17:04, 21 August 2010

Hannibal — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:04:24 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 21 August 2010
Line 124:		Line 124:
	This fallacy is closely related to the ad populum fallacy. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. There is at least a weak correlation between the number of people who accept a proposition and it's validity - but correlation is not causality.		This fallacy is closely related to the ad populum fallacy. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. There is at least a weak correlation between the number of people who accept a proposition and it's validity - but correlation is not causality.

-	===Argumentum ad ~~Nauseum~~===	+	===Argumentum ad Nauseam===
	http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/adnauseam.jpg		http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt102/hanniballecturer/candleinthedark/adnauseam.jpg

Line 132:		Line 132:

	''If Qi were just a concept, why would there be such a plethora of information regarding it's importance and use?''		''If Qi were just a concept, why would there be such a plethora of information regarding it's importance and use?''
		+
		+	Argumentum ad nauseam is also a suspect debate tactic. Debaters can wear out the opposition by just repeating arguments until they get sick of the whole thing and give in.

	===Appeal to Wonder===		===Appeal to Wonder===

Hannibal: /* Internal Contradiction: Fallacies of Self Refutation */

Hannibal — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:00:46 GMT

Internal Contradiction: Fallacies of Self Refutation

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 18 August 2010
Line 28:		Line 28:
	If you have read the section on the axioms of classic logic , you learned that classic Aristotelian logic is based on the law of non contradiction Â¬ (P + Â¬ P) , which in turn is defended through retortion - according to defenders of classical logic, denials of the law of non contradiction rely on the LNC. In the words of Aristotle, the law of non contradiction declares: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time (without falling to a contradiction)" And it follows from Aristotle's view of logic that all contradictions are false.		If you have read the section on the axioms of classic logic , you learned that classic Aristotelian logic is based on the law of non contradiction Â¬ (P + Â¬ P) , which in turn is defended through retortion - according to defenders of classical logic, denials of the law of non contradiction rely on the LNC. In the words of Aristotle, the law of non contradiction declares: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time (without falling to a contradiction)" And it follows from Aristotle's view of logic that all contradictions are false.

-	Therefore, the Self Refuting fallacy is the simplest fallacy to understand - it is a statement that renders itself false by containing within itself a(n) (internal) contradiction. Because these argument trip over themselves, they are usually humorous in nature. Here is my all time favorite, from the biblical book of Numbers, supposedly written by Moses. I will let Thomas Paine explain it for you:	+	Therefore, the Self Refuting fallacy is the simplest fallacy to understand - it is a statement that renders itself false by containing within itself a(n) (internal) contradiction, and therefore, its own refutation. Because these argument trip over themselves, they are usually humorous in nature. Here is my all time favorite, from the biblical book of Numbers, supposedly written by Moses. I will let Thomas Paine explain it for you:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	"But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd: -- for example, Numbers xii. 3: "Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment		"But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd: -- for example, Numbers xii. 3: "Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment

Hannibal: /* Examining Weak/False Analogies */

Hannibal — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:35:54 GMT

Examining Weak/False Analogies

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 14 April 2010
Line 844:		Line 844:
	Is the unknown example like the known example in the -essential- areas being compared?		Is the unknown example like the known example in the -essential- areas being compared?

-	As long as the similarities lie in the areas about which the claim is made, argument by analogy constitutes proof. If the analogy draws its comparisons in an area not relevant to the claim, the argument will be faulty. Therefore, this fallacy occurs when a comparison between one phenomena and another is made based on a resemblance so superficial that the analogy clearly is nonsensical - i.e. there is no legitimate reason to claim that the two entities are similar. No logical evidence for the connection is made. Here is an example: Why should we sentimentalize over a few hundred thousand Native Americans who were ruined when our great civilization was being built? It may be that they suffered injustices, but, after all, you \| can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In order to make an omelet, one is required to crack open the eggs. In order to build a nation, it is not required that one rape and slaughter its native inhabitants.	+	As long as the similarities lie in the areas about which the claim is made, argument by analogy constitutes proof. If the analogy draws its comparisons in an area not relevant to the claim, the argument will be faulty. Therefore, this fallacy occurs when a comparison between one phenomena and another is made based on a resemblance so superficial that the analogy clearly is nonsensical - i.e. there is no legitimate reason to claim that the two entities are similar. No logical evidence for the connection is made. Here is an example:
		+
		+	"Why should we sentimentalize over a few hundred thousand Native Americans who were ruined when our great civilization was being built? It may be that they suffered injustices, but, after all, you \| can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."
		+
		+	In order to make an omelet, one is required to crack open the eggs. In order to build a nation, it is not required that one rape and slaughter its native inhabitants.

	====Incorrectly classifying an analogy false====		====Incorrectly classifying an analogy false====