Logical Fallacy and You!

[jonathanasdf]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

To add to the list: tl;dr symptom. Don't go into Critical Thinking forums if you have this.

[ledwix]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.

[jonathanasdf]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.

I don't think it quite falls under any of the two categories you have suggested. It is basically, someone being lazy, and not reading the entire argument or entire thread before replying with a counter argument, which was probably already used in the thread, or was not targeted towards the general issue in the thread because they did not read it. It isn't "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position", its more like "I'm lazy and want to bring up my post count" or something.

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Well, this is a list of the "informal fallacies of logic" and the general philosophical community hasn't recognized tl;dr as a formal objection to an arguement *grin*

I think that tl;dr falls under the actual forum rules dictating that every post must be about something, and address the subject at hand.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

But tl;dr is apart of the subject at hand.

The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read .

[jonathanasdf]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

lets not start a debate in a topic about logical fallacies...

I'll just agree with what Devon says

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read

A post to that effect is non-contributory and would be deleted for breaking the CT forum rule dictating that all posts must contribute to the discussion.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem

Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything.

I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

What about appeal to authority? Where people conclude that something is right because someone in power or of higher authority than them said it. Because the president says it's true, it is true!

And what about when someone says that since something can be interpreted multiple ways, it isn't true and there is no true interpretation. Since this huge metaphor is confusing and can be interpreted many different ways, there is no true interpretation of the subject.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#hominem

Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything.

I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it.

... what about the lack of appeal to authority?

EDIT: Just in case you get jumped to Ad Hominem (which you should, it's what the link is designed to do), remember, up scrolling is your friend. Link contains every appeal and every other logical fallacy you'll ever need.

[tha Guardians]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Thank you so much for this. I have no doubt in my mind that I will be quoting this. <3

Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc or Correlation implies Causation - This fallacy is where you conclude that because two events simultaneously, that the two events are necessarily related. Example: When I sneezed, the power went out, therefore my sneeze caused a power outage.

Do you mean occur simultaneously?

Edit: Ohcrap. I just fed a bump. Mahbad :<

[A2P]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I know this a long bump, but I want to point something out.

Bear in mind that every sample is biased in some small way, and the biased sample fallacy is only a fallacy if you fail to point out any potential biases when presenting your data.

So are you saying that if I give a completely biased survey (ex. according to a group of marijuana users, 100% admit to smoking marijuana), as long as I mention the bias, it's no longer a fallacy? I don't understand this.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I know this a long bump, but I want to point something out.



So are you saying that if I give a completely biased survey (ex. according to a group of marijuana users, 100% admit to smoking marijuana), as long as I mention the bias, it's no longer a fallacy? I don't understand this.

Okay: Let's say I say, "After taking a poll of 1038 citizens over the age of 18, 100% admitted to smoking marijuana", and then use said poll to say everyone smokes pot.

That's a fallacy.

Now, change "citizens" to "marijuana users".

Instead of a fallacy, it's now just a plain wrong conclusion.

[God Dethroned]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I did not read all the posts so forgive me if there is any repitition.

I feel as though the impression that this thread has created is that fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, which is not the case. Maybe it would benefit the discussion if the concepts of validity and truth were explained along with the levels of "goodness" of an argument (validity, consistancy, sound, good). I am assuming that my terms will be wrong, but hopefully everyone understands what I am saying.

An argument can be valid but have a false conclusion.
An argument can be sound and contain a fallacy.
-----These are the types of concepts I think should be explained in the thread before going into deep discussion on the effects of logical fallacies.

Also, I know there are different ways to pick fallacies out of an argument, but I could not explain them myself. The three ways I can think of off the top of my head are counterexamples, recognizing faulty structure in arguments, and some sort of 'logical tree'. If someone could explain the 'logical tree' (If anybody knows what I am talking about), I would love to learn how to use it.

side notes:
When it comes to God, aliens, and many other topics, there is still the fallacy of proving non-existence.

I did not look closely at the list of fallacies, but I do not think I saw circular reasoning.

Would anybody like to discuss the argument "I think, therefore I am"?

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I feel as though the impression that this thread has created is that fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, which is not the case. Maybe it would benefit the discussion if the concepts of validity and truth were explained along with the levels of "goodness" of an argument (validity, consistancy, sound, good). I am assuming that my terms will be wrong, but hopefully everyone understands what I am saying.

The intention of the thread is within the context of "A valid argument" for the purposes of this flash rhythm game's critical thinking subforum full of highschoolers, and isn't really intended to get into the depths of formal or symbolic logic, etc.

Yes, an argument can be semantically valid and have an invalid conclusion. Yes an otherwise sound argument can have one or more fallacies present, and the intention here was never to suggest that those things are not true.

The purpose of this sticky is simply to say "Here are some of the things you can do, thinking they are okay, but which aren't, and detract from whatever point you're trying to make" for the sole purpose of avoiding those things wherever possible in what is pretty much a completely informal discussion group.

I did not look closely at the list of fallacies, but I do not think I saw circular reasoning.

Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.