|
I've always been fascinated by logical fallacies. We often resort to, sometimes subconsciously, to logical fallacies in our own dialectic as well as those who find fallacies abundantly useful in their daily lives. The use of fallacies can be found nearly anywhere, but especially in politics where grey area's of debate are often forced to be defined by a 'Heads, I win. Tails, you lose' conclusion with no logical reason to even agree with that conclusion. So, what is a fallacy? fal·la·cy ˈfaləsē noun a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. "the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy" synonyms: misconception, misbelief, delusion, mistaken impression, error, misapprehension, misinterpretation, misconstruction, mistake LOGIC a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument. "the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem" A fallacy is a last ditch effort to win an argument when you have no leg to stand on. Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument. Aristotle listed some 13 fallacies, however many many more have been invented and the list continues to grow. Dr. Bennett's book looks at the numerous fallacies he has discovered in his years of study. Here is a quote from Dr. Bennett's book. Appeal to Accomplishment (also known as: appeal to success) Description: When the argument being made is sheltered from criticism based on the level of accomplishment of the one making the argument. A form of this fallacy also occurs when arguments are evaluated on the accomplishments, or success, of the person making the argument, rather than on the merits of the argument itself. Logical Form: Person 1 claims that Y is true. Person 1 is very accomplished. Therefore, Y is true. Person 1 presents evidence against claim Y. Person 1 is told to shut up until person 1 becomes as accomplished as person 2. Example #1: I have been around the block many times, and I have had my share of success. So believe me when I tell you that there is no better hobby than cat-juggling. Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) (p. 29). eBookIt.com. Kindle Edition. Check it out. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have, and if you know any logical fallacies that you've heard, let me know by posting here. https://www.amazon.com/Logically-Fa...gical+fallacies
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Hi Bo
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
When you're presented with an argument, whether you agree or disagree with it, the proper response is not to begin listing logical fallacies as if finding enough of them or finding the right one will provide a good comeback. Logical fallacies are the structure of a problem with many arguments but they are not the content of the problem. The actual content of a problem with an argument is the reason why the logical fallacy in this case makes the argument break down. Given this, then, once you've found the fallacy, you would still need to explain why the fallacy is, in this specific case, an instance of fallacious reasoning. This two step process is redundant and unhelpful - instead of first identifying the fallacy and only later explaining why the fallacy is an instance of fallacious reasoning, you should train yourself to hone in on the fallacious reasoning directly. Let's just go with a simple example: You argue that it would be wrong to stab my neighbor and take all their stuff. I reply that you have an ugly face. I commit the "ad hominem" fallacy because I'm attacking you, not your argument. So one thing you could do is yell "OI, AD HOMINEM, NOT COOL." Does that solve anything? No, actually. You've just thrown Latin at me. There's probably a name for the fallacy you've just committed, or maybe there isn't, who gives a poo poo. What you need to do is go one step more and say "the ugliness of my face has no bearing on moral judgments about whether it is okay to stab your neighbor." But notice you could've just said that without yelling "ad hominem" first! In fact, that's how all fallacies work. If someone has actually committed a fallacy, you can just point out their mistake directly without being a pedant and finding a pat little name for all of their logical reasoning problems. If you talk to genuine philosophers (particularly good ones) for a while, you'll basically never hear them talk about the names of fallacies. The only one I think I've ever heard people use is "affirming the consequent," and that's just when they're talking about simple mistakes undergraduates make. Real people who work with arguments are interested in the actual argument, not cool sounding labels you can use to dismiss your interlocutor. No matter how fallacious someone's reasoning is, I encourage you, in the future, you take on arguments as genuine arguments, not as opportunities to list a bunch of fallacies and then peace out as if you've done anything useful or interesting or smart. Read my book on the subject here
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:When you're presented with an argument, whether you agree or disagree with it, the proper response is not to begin listing logical fallacies as if finding enough of them or finding the right one will provide a good comeback. Logical fallacies are the structure of a problem with many arguments but they are not the content of the problem. The actual content of a problem with an argument is the reason why the logical fallacy in this case makes the argument break down. I agree with you 100%. Understanding the root of your divide and addressing that is far more important than throwing words around uselessly. Good post, Thank you. But could you update your link? Lou Bega's Mambo #5 is fun, but I don't think it's what you meant to post lol. ight8 fucked around with this message at 08:59 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
to put it another way, with apologies for the anachronistic homophobic languageGrandmother of Five posted:i don't read d&d, but it seems to me that it is hard to beat this guy in debate because when you point out how he has been unreasonably wrong and stupid about everything you're likely to break some incestuous high-school debate team competition rules. what happens when you cross Roberts Rules of Order with TV Tropes
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Insightful. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
ight8 posted:Insightful. Thank you. Another insight, Bo. It's really effin' cringeworthy when you market your book and refer to yourself as "Dr. Bennett, PhD." ...oh I see that it's a Walden degree. That explains a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
I'm not here to win a university debate in front of a panel of judges evaluating the logical merits of my statements, I'm a polemicist and logical fallacies are just some of the dirtier tricks in the arsenal of my arguments
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Its weird how the author uses both Dr. and PhD even though his uncredited degree is not in a field related to rhetoric. Its almost as if he is trying to create a false sense of his own expertise to cover up for deficiencies in his argumentation An Appeal to False Authority, if you would
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Its weird how the author uses both Dr. and PhD even though his uncredited degree is not in a field related to rhetoric. I added the Dr. portion to his title, perhaps in mistake. After reading this book, I didn't feel like he was making any arguments for or against fallacies, only describing them. I use this book as a reference to fallacies, to discover and understand the errors in logic.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Lunchmeat Larry posted:I'm not here to win a university debate in front of a panel of judges evaluating the logical merits of my statements, I'm a polemicist and logical fallacies are just some of the dirtier tricks in the arsenal of my arguments I must admit, before I become roadkill in my own post, that I'm not as conversant in debate as many others. This book helps me to understand a complex multifaceted area that is not within my realm of talents. So I appreciate good recommendations and advice.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
ight8 posted:I must admit, before I become roadkill in my own post, that I'm not as conversant in debate as many others. This book helps me to understand a complex multifaceted area that is not within my realm of talents. So I appreciate good recommendations and advice. I recommend bookmarking a list of logical fallacies, like the one on wikipedia, although I'm sure there's many, many more. But I'd also advise avoiding the Fallacy Fallacy, which is the logical fallacy that arguments containing logical fallacies are therefore incorrect. edit: Argumentum ad logicam according to the wikipedia article, which also provides examples illustrating just how insufferable it is, but I'll give you this example for free Syd Midnight fucked around with this message at 01:54 on May 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
which raises a good point what makes this book superior to say, a wikipedia article?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
I've found a few logical fallacies through Wikipedia and the sort. Even a few in select YouTube videos. You can read Wikipedia until the cows come home, but it won't list more then a small handful. This book offers me a very long list of fallacies all in one place, and it helps me to understand the nature of the fallacies. The author attempts to relate each with a short story of how it could be used. So I spend a little time each week reading each fallacy and relating it to some experience I've had. This helps to understand the failure in logic in each of these fallacies, and with that I attempt to create a template for a rebuttal. Certainly, there is no one size fits all template. However having a base understanding of each of these failures of logic puts my non-polemicist mind to work for me long before the discussion happens. If I can refute even one argument with what I've learned in this book, I think it's paid for itself.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
ight8 posted:If I can refute even one argument with what I've learned in this book, I think it's paid for itself. Yeah, but what if you're wrong? You will have been corrupted by your thirst for power, using Appeal to Logic into a weapon for silencing others regardless of their truth. There is more to life than victory in battle. What will it have cost you then, Darth ight8?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
What other books do you like other than this book
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:Yeah, but what if you're wrong? You will have been corrupted by your thirst for power, using Appeal to Logic into a weapon for silencing others regardless of their truth. There is more to life than victory in battle. What will it have cost you then, Darth ight8? HAH. I like this guy already. I'm not the type of person who seeks to underhand another persons argument, simply to make the appearance of correctness. If a person approaches you with a disagreement, then they disagree and the argument could be valid. If I were to argue that tomato's are a healthy fruit, and someone would argue with me that tomato's aren't possibly a healthy fruit because they believe tomatoes are a vegetable. Then this simple mistake that tomatoes are a vegetable could stop them from enjoying the healthy benefits of tomatoes. And the real argument they are trying to make is, they dislike vegetables. And to resolve this, you need to approach their dislike of veggies. While this is an over simplification, I think it gets the point across that fallacies are a breakdown in understanding, and it's this understanding of each argument that must be reasoned with. I see what you are saying though Syd. If a person doesn't like veggies (or fruits), then they are under no obligation to enjoy them. This doesn't change the fact that tomatoes are a fruit, and they have healthy benefits. Mel Mudkiper posted:What other books do you like other than this book Fiction mostly. I read scientific studies all day long, I don't want to go back to work as soon as I come home.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
ight8 posted:I see what you are saying though Syd. If a person doesn't like veggies (or fruits), then they are under no obligation to enjoy them. This doesn't change the fact that tomatoes are a fruit, and they have healthy benefits. In what contexts? In a culinary context, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. They may also be legally considered vegetables for tariff purposes. In a botanical context, they are fruits, but more specifically berries. And they're definitely not a health benefit to someone with a tomato allergy. Whether facts are right or wrong or facts or opinion can most definitely change depending on context! A list of logical fallacies is not much use without knowing how to spot them in ones own beliefs or when to ignore them in others. Rationalwiki's is probably helpful here. Don't let the name fool you, it's a good resource for avoiding the "I am rational and logical so I'm right" kind of traps that approaching debate as gamesmanship can lead to. It's a good place to start. Certainly better than listening to me, I'm pretty full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:In what contexts? In a culinary context, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. They may also be legally considered vegetables for tariff purposes. In a botanical context, they are fruits, but more specifically berries. And they're definitely not a health benefit to someone with a tomato allergy. Whether facts are right or wrong or facts or opinion can most definitely change depending on context! Good post. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
ight8 posted:Good post. Thank you. I vaguely remember rational wiki being some sort of pseudo-philosophical poo poo source full of people who, just to give an example, think Richard Dawkins is smart. If you want to reason or think better or whatever it might be a better idea to read an introduction to philosophy, since that's basically what it seems you want. https://www.amazon.com/Think-Compelling-Introduction-Simon-Blackburn/dp/0192854259 Personally I read this and it seems to be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:I vaguely remember rational wiki being some sort of pseudo-philosophical poo poo source full of people who, just to give an example, think Richard Dawkins is smart. If you want to reason or think better or whatever it might be a better idea to read an introduction to philosophy, since that's basically what it seems you want. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 05:12
|
|