User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 13

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default Commonly abused logical Fallacies..

    Ad Hominem-Today, too many people use this as the same thing as a personal insult...this is indeed the most misunderstood and the most misapplied logical fallacy.

    No no... here is what an ad hominem is: an error in reasoning, nothing more nothing less. It is basically like saying that your opponent is wrong not because there is something wrong with his reason, but just because he is an idiot.

    Here is a more subtle and more common-place version of ad hominem logical fallacy.

    John's argument about medicine is wrong because he got a 2.0 in his Medical school.



    Next most commonly abused fallacy is the Straw Man fallacy...

    I take for it to be common courtesy that when you arguing... you make your opponent's case as strong as possible first... and maybe later.. if you think he is wrong... you attack his argument then...

    A straw man fallacy occurs when we misrepresent the opponent's case and purposefully make it weak just so we can have the pleasure of tearing him up..

    Here is a good example of this...

    I say for example, in order for you to be in time, you must have both mass and be subjected to light, as supported by Einstein's relativity. So if the mind survives the death of body, it will be outside of time.

    And my opponent says, thats religious non-sense, mind surviving the death of body!?

    Basically there... the claim that is getting attacked is one that I did not make, its a distortion of what I seem to have had in mind.


    And finally, circular reasoning, the most common error on this site.

    Circular reasoning is basically having your conclusion the same as your premises.

    A typical example of this would be saying that you're right, but not supporting it with logical argument.


    Here is an example of a valid argument..

    All men are mortal
    I am a man
    I am mortal


    Circular reasoning---conclusion comes ahead of the premises...

    I am mortal...

    Then my opponent asks me to justify this... and again... I say I am mortal and period...
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Senior Member darlets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Default

    "You can't put a cost on human life". Really? What planet do people who say this live on. This bugs me alot, as if it's the ultimate fall back position and will win any argument.

    Governments put a costs on human life all the time. It's part of their job.
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
    Bertrand Russell

    http://rayofsolar.blogspot.com/
    http://zeropointseven.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Somone using the defnintion of a word as part of an argument. Two recent examples I've seen:

    Someone using the fact that "orc" usually represents evil creatures to say that Warcraft orcs must be evil. (The person didn actually say this at one point, that because "orc" traditionally means evil, thatt no matter what someone did, that definition meant that any future ideas of "orc would be evil.)

    This quote from INTPcentral:
    Liberals can be libertarian. Liberals can also be authoritarian. Liberalism refers to social control in government. It says nothing about economic control. So by being a liberal who is anti-libertarian, you put yourself into the authoritarian camp. That is, assuming you have correctly identified yourself.

    The fallaciy, of course, is that when people are arguing a point using words, they aren't arguing the words themselves, they are using words to represent ideas, and arguing the ideas, and definitions may be slightly different.

    Related to this is how people often use slightly different definitions to change around emotional meanings of words to try and score points in arguments.

  4. #4
    Senior Member logan235711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    166

    Default

    lol are you joking here? :p cause every example is the exact example it is trying to claim itself. If so, I must commend you, that must have taken a bit of time : )

  5. #5
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logan235711 View Post
    lol are you joking here? :p cause every example is the exact example it is trying to claim itself. If so, I must commend you, that must have taken a bit of time : )
    I appreciate your INTJ debasement of reason in favor of baseless intuitive leaps.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #6
    Senior Member logan235711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    166

    Default

    is that a yes? : )

  7. #7
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    I specifically came up with examples to demonstrate each fallacy...
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    I can also bring up examples to show why my "fallacy" is in fact a fallacy (And why it is a bad method for arguing in terms of correctness and finding new information.)

  9. #9
    Senior Member logan235711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    Related to this is how people often use slightly different definitions to change around emotional meanings of words to try and score points in arguments.
    hehe yep yep, I know what you mean! I think that is what is considered the difference between debate and argument, is that debate is more about the winning or losing of a conversation by means that focus on things other than purely the premises and the conclusion : ) So an 'appeal to emotion' or psychological use of how conversation structure can influence the audience are good example. Basically, anything where the audience is taken into account in possible addition to the actual premises and conclusion is a debate--while arguments do not attempt at any ulterior audience influence : )

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I specifically came up with examples to demonstrate each fallacy...
    lol ok, then I suppose to bring up some important ideas, is that first of all, these are not 'logical fallacies,' Logic is usually considered the science 'of' correct reasoning so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Second, a fallacy in logic in entirely different than the type of fallacy you are using : ) (I'll let my latter text expound upon this so hopefully you can derive what I mean through the reading : )

    So what is it that you are doing if not logical fallacies then? These are actually attempts at showing useful pitfalls in reasoning to avoid when arguing. They are not necessarily fallacies as one can, for example, accidentally still solve or answer with a solution that does not lead to a fallacious outcome : ) However, the chance that one might commit one of these ideas many might say, 'usually' leads to an absence of a good argument on ones part. But alas! let us jump to the examples--the yummy stuff!

    1. Ad-Hominem: again, this, or any of the preceding examples, are not 'logical fallacies' shame on you! ;p Ad-Hominem is actually, more precisely, when one transforms the argument into a debate on one's behalf. The appeal to emotions by attacking the person who has presented the argument means that the person is trying to present reasons by no longer looking at the premises presented, but who presented the premises. However! as mentioned above, this doesn't always lead to a bad argument on one's behalf! If, for example, the person making the premises has come to false premises by means that were related to the person in a manner (psychological, historical, etc.) then this might actually be a useful method in argument. However, usually, this is nothing more than an attempt to persuade people not by directing attention primarily to the premises, but to the person--in such a case, where no premises are derived from the person that directly correlate (usually) to the premises already at hand : ) Lastly, this is why it is considered bad reasoning, because one is attempting to reason based on the person, not the premises at hand : )

    2. lol this was the funniest one for me, because about in the attempt to explain the straw hat, you were using a straw hat, mainly because you slightly mis-used and mis-understood how it was used (on the subtler points tho! you got the main gist! ^_^), so you were arguing something that wasn't presented--which is actually what a straw hat is XD

    lol anyways, Straw Hat is usually when one refutes the premises of an arguments towards a new conclusion by arguing a close relative to the original premises that usually occurs through mis-representation : ) Don't confuse this with a 'red herring!' which tends to be rather when someone misrepresents the conclusion as support for further false conclusions, or, even for the very premises that one was trying to reach in order to maintain a sound argument in the end : ) lol a couple things to point out, is that a) straw hat, nor any potential fallacy in reasoning, does not have to be purposeful, accidents can occur, and to be frank, that is mostly what they are, accidents that slipped by people when they were arguing b) the example is actually not accurate, as the ending statement is in the form of If A, then B--and although disproving A does not disprove B, it does eliminate A as a possible example which was brought up as being related to the argument, thus is valid as an indirect attack on the main argument : ) A more correct example would be if someone said If A, then B, and rather than trying to refute A, someone refuted a variation of A (and sometimes a variation of B) because they misunderstood what you were arguing or what you meant : )

    Just goes to show, that even within these examples, it can be tricky!!

    3. Alright, this last one is actually called 'begging the question' leet speak for you philosopher junkies :p (lol not really, but it's generally not as often refered to as 'circular reasoning' by the logical/philosophical community ><) ANNDDD!!! more precisely, this is when the very premises which your argument rests on is the conclusion which one is trying to reach. wowzers!!! :o

    toodles!

  10. #10
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    No no... here is what an ad hominem is: an error in reasoning, nothing more nothing less. It is basically like saying that your opponent is wrong not because there is something wrong with his reason, but just because he is an idiot.
    Look, dumb ass, you are totally wrong on this one.

    Ad hominems can be used to manipulate the emotions of ones opponent in order to illicit an illconcieved response. Therefore, ad hominems are logical fallacies, however, they are not necessarily unreasonable.











    *
    This message should in no way be viewed as solicitation for such behavior on this website. Failure to comply to rules regarding ad hominem attacks will be met with severe punishment. The author of this post does not condone ad hominem arguments and refrains from such behavior - mostly - in order to create a professional example for the said website. This has been a public service announcement.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Commonalities/differences between ENFP and ENFJ
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 02:35 PM
  2. [NT] NTs: how do logical fallacies make you feel?
    By Society in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 02:45 PM
  3. [INFJ] Is it common for INFJ's to come out of abusive/neglectful homes?
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 09:27 PM
  4. Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.
    By Park in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO