Avoiding Logical Fallacies

[lemondiesel]

There are many many more but these are some of the most common. If you’re in a debate and you see these tactics being used, call them out on their fallacies.

You’re having a debate and your argument just isn’t working. You’re being accused of ad homs, strawmanning, and red herrings. What the **** are these people talking about?

A logical fallacy is an approach to making an argument or point by breaking rules that are known to not be sound in reasoning and logic. There are many many of these fallacies but I’ll list and describe some of the main ones.

Ad Hominem (the argument against the man)
Attacking the person’s character instead of attacking the argument.
Examples:
“Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school.”
“You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?”

Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc (After this, therefore, because of this)
This one is a favorite of mine. Drawing a conclusion that two or more events are related when there is no real proof they are.
Examples:
“We ate fish tacos last night and this morning my head was pounding. Fish tacos give me headaches I guess” (the person isn’t qualified to conclude fish tacos were definitely the cause of the headache)
“I had a dream I won the lotto, so I bought 20 scratch off tickets and one ended up being a winner for 500 bucks! I must be psychic.”

circular logic (The conclusion of the argument is the same as the premise)
Examples:
“The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible.”

Ad baculum (appeal to the stick or force)
An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force is used to justify the conclusion.
Examples:
“If you don’t repent your sins you will burn for eternity in hell, therefore you MUST repent.”
“Don’t argue with the king’s policies or he will lock you up and toss away the key. Therefore keep your mouth shut.”

Ad lapidem (throwing stones)
Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving reason why it is absurd.
Examples:
“You don’t believe in a divine being? That’s just ****in’ retarded!”
“You don’t think marijuana is addictive? Are you crazy!? Pull your head out of your ***.”

Untestability fallacy
Argument based on assertions that cannot be tested.
Examples:
“You’re not old enough to really understand life.”
“Eating beans prouts may not kill you today, but one day you may eat a poisonous one and die. Therefore you should just avoid eating bean sprouts.”
“All atheists secretly believe in a god.”

Red Herring
An attempt to divert the argument or change the subject
Examples:
Person A- “Bush should have been tried as a war criminal.”
Person B- “What about all the other people in the world that commit crimes and get away with it? What about that justice not served? In fact, the murder rate in Romania is bla bla yack yack…”

loaded question
Asking a question that presupposes something that isn’t yet proven.
Examples:
“Do you still beat children up with baseball bats?”
“Why is Obama afraid to admit he was born in Kenya?”

Straw Man
Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man.
Examples:
“Of course evolution isn’t true. No one has ever seen a reptile turn into a bird.”
“Liberals just want a big nanny state.”

Ad Populum (appeal to the people)
Concluding an argument is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.
Examples:
“Most people in the US believe marijuana is a dangerous drug therefore it is.”
“Majority of the world believes there is a divine being, they can’t all be wrong.”

Subjectivist Fallacy
Using the fact that one wants to believe something to be true as evidence of it’s truth.
Examples:
“We are all beings of spirit and light.”

Person A-“We are an electro-chemical system.”
Person B-“That may be true to you, but that’s not true to me. That’s just your opinion.”

negative proof (argument from ignorance)
Appealing to lack of proof of the negative. X is true because there is no proof X is false.
Examples:
“There is no evidence Glenn Beck didn’t rape and kill a woman in 1984.”
“You can’t prove god doesn’t exist!”

Argumentation ad misericordiam - (appeal to pity)
Using an emotion like pity, sympathy, or compassion for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
Examples:
“If you don’t give me a job here, I can’t donate to the starving children’s fund! My life dream would be ruined.”
“Of course the judges should vote me winner of the chili cookoff, I’ve recently had a death in the family.”

false dilemma or false dichotomy - (either-or fallacy)
An argument where only two choices are given when there are in fact more.
Examples:
“You’re either with us or with the terrorists.”
“Either love your country with all it’s problems or leave it.”

inductive fallacy - (Hasty Generalization)
Fallacy committed when one comes to a quick conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
Examples:
“My town is mostly republican. Three of the five houses on my street have republican signs in them.”
“I did a survey in my town by going to three different Dentists and they all said Crest was the best toothpaste to use so Crest must be the best.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lemondiesel

*negative proof (argument from ignorance)
Appealing to lack of proof of the negative. X is true because there is no proof X is false.
Examples:
“There is no evidence Glenn Beck didn’t rape and kill a woman in 1984.”
"You can’t prove god doesn’t exist!"/I]

Since it is true that you cannot prove that God does not exist, the statement cannot be a fallacy. *

 

[lemondiesel]

lol touche

sorry, i posted this on a different forum so if any of these are wrong please follow what Charles did

 

[vz71]

Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which it is claimed an argument is false based solely upon the person making the case has been shown wrong in other areas.

I have seen this used in creation/evolution arguments; someone will simply dismiss a perfectly logical point on the basis that the one pointing it out believes the world was created in 6 days.

Likewise a variation of this gets pulled out with regularity when someone attempting to defend their argument pulls out a laundry list of credentials that supposedly bolster their level of education and by extension their argument.

“Perhaps your limited view doesn’t understand why I am right, I have a PhD in this area of study and thus have an understanding you cannot hope to argue with…”
or
“That line of reasoning is to be expected from a youg earth believer…”

 

[Luke_K]

circular logic (The conclusion of the argument is the same as the premise)

How about the statement “Logic leads to truth because logic says so.”

Is that a logical fallacy? :whacky:

 

[JohnDamian]

How about the statement “Logic leads to truth because logic says so.”

Is that a logical fallacy? :whacky:

All logic is Circular; or at least makes assumptions; although people generally only call an argument “circular” when one of the parties does not believe in one of the original premises.

I shall give to illustrative examples;

1. What you see reflects the world
2. You see me holding a Red Ball
3. You should believe I am holding a Red Ball

This is circular; although most people would accept 1); insofar as they would not call the argument Circular; even though it rests upon an undefended premise.

1. The Bible is written by God; and is infallible
2. The Bible is infallible because it was written by God

This is circular; but most people would not accept the first premise; be more likely to challenge your assumption. In general keeping assumptions to “reasonable things” allows for a practical argument.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Luke K

*How about the statement “Logic leads to truth because logic says so.”

Is that a logical fallacy?*

Yes it is. Logic has nothing to do with truth. You can have three statements composing a syllogism, all of which are false, and still have a valid (logical) syllogism.

All men are imbeciles.
All women are men.
All women are imbeciles.

If you don’t believe this, try it with a Venn diagram.

 

[JDaniel]

How about the statement “Logic leads to truth because logic says so.”

Is that a logical fallacy? :whacky:

Luke:

This might be more appropriately called, “Truth by Exclusively Accidental, and non-Relevant Means.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Luke_K]

All logic is Circular; or at least makes assumptions; although people generally only call an argument “circular” when one of the parties does not believe in one of the original premises.

I shall give to illustrative examples;

1. What you see reflects the world
2. You see me holding a Red Ball
3. You should believe I am holding a Red Ball

This is circular; although most people would accept 1); insofar as they would not call the argument Circular; even though it rests upon an undefended premise.

1. The Bible is written by God; and is infallible
2. The Bible is infallible because it was written by God

This is circular; but most people would not accept the first premise; be more likely to challenge your assumption. In general keeping assumptions to “reasonable things” allows for a practical argument.

Good points!

You’re examples remind me of the trouble with trying to define things. Fundamentally speaking it all comes down to us innately/intuitively understanding what someone means when they talk of “time” or the number “1”, for example. Defining those terms by other terms doesn’t really get you closer to the truth. It’s just circular logic that goes unnoticed.

 

[Luke_K]

Luke:

This might be more appropriately called, “Truth by Exclusively Accidental, and non-Relevant Means.”

God bless,
jd

Can you explain what you mean by that? I don’t understand.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

All logic is Circular; or at least makes assumptions; although people generally only call an argument “circular” when one of the parties does not believe in one of the original premises.

I shall give to illustrative examples;

1. What you see reflects the world
2. You see me holding a Red Ball
3. You should believe I am holding a Red Ball

This is circular; although most people would accept 1); insofar as they would not call the argument Circular; even though it rests upon an undefended premise.

1. The Bible is written by God; and is infallible
2. The Bible is infallible because it was written by God

This is circular; but most people would not accept the first premise; be more likely to challenge your assumption. In general keeping assumptions to “reasonable things” allows for a practical argument.

Good post.

What do you think of this, though:

“If a statement is proposed which is not a matter of definition, and not capable of being confirmed or falsified by evidence, that statement is “metaphysical”, which is synonymous with “meaningless”, or “nonsense”.”

This is, of course, the centerpiece of Moritz Schlick’s Logical Positivist “Vienna School.”

So therefore, statements like “All unmarried men are bachelors” can be verified by evidence and by definition.

However, “There is life after death” or “There is a God” are “meaningless” statements.

Would they really?

I’m not as “Philosophy-Educated” as you, but defining those statements as “meaningless” does NOT seem right to me, intuitively.

That may be the reason why the “Vienna School” was never able to gain a major foothold in philosophy, (although it paved the way for Carnap and others)

And are they in any way “logical fallacies?” It just seems to me that making those statements as “There is no God” would be a type of “logical fallacy.”

I’m sorry if I’m inconveniencing you on this—this thought popped into my head as I was reading your post.

 

[JDaniel]

Can you explain what you mean by that? I don’t understand.

Luke:

Well, it was supposed to be humorous. But, logic can lead to Truth, providing the premises of the syllogism are not non-sensical. For example:

1.) Whatever astronomical theory is mathematically simple is the true theory of the heavenly movements.
2.) The heliocentric theory is mathematically simple.
3.) Therefore, the heliocentric theory is the true theory of the heavenly movements.

This is what’s called a syllogism. Can you see the problem herein?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Good post.

What do you think of this, though:

“If a statement is proposed which is not a matter of definition, and not capable of being confirmed or falsified by evidence, that statement is “metaphysical”, which is synonymous with “meaningless”, or “nonsense”.”

This simply means that the contestants have taken a syllogism that is dialectical in nature, and ridiculed it. This can be done, unfortunately, whether they are right or wrong. A Dialectical syllogism is one that has provable status, but is not yet proven. It may be provable, but, it might not.

This is, of course, the centerpiece of Moritz Schlick’s Logical Positivist “Vienna School.”

So therefore, statements like “All unmarried men are bachelors” can be verified by evidence and by definition.

However, “There is life after death” or “There is a God” are “meaningless” statements.

Would they really?

Again, that is another dialectical syllogism. In order to be proven true, it will require somewhat more logic and definition.

I’m not as “Philosophy-Educated” as you, but defining those statements as “meaningless” does NOT seem right to me, intuitively.

Another form of logical syllogism is the demonstrative syllogism, also called “demonstration.” Generally speaking, if the premises are not non-sensical, the middle term of this type proves the conclusion. An example is:

1.) Whatever is spiritual is indestructible.

2.) The human soul is spiritual.

1. therefore, the human soul is indestructible.

That may be the reason why the “Vienna School” was never able to gain a major foothold in philosophy, (although it paved the way for Carnap and others)

And are they in any way “logical fallacies?” It just seems to me that making those statements as “There is no God” would be a type of “logical fallacy.”

Based on what we have just discussed, what sort of logic, or syllogism, would result in such a conclusion?

I’m sorry if I’m inconveniencing you on this—this thought popped into my head as I was reading your post.

Ordinary:

We are not inconvenienced. Believe me. We live for this stuff! We are happy to oblige.

God bless you and ask away!

jd

 

[Luke_K]

Luke:

Well, it was supposed to be humorous. But, logic can lead to Truth, providing the premises of the syllogism are not non-sensical. For example:

1.) Whatever astronomical theory is mathematically simple is the true theory of the heavenly movements.
2.) The heliocentric theory is mathematically simple.
3.) Therefore, the heliocentric theory is the true theory of the heavenly movements.

This is what’s called a syllogism. Can you see the problem herein?

jd

Is it that premises must be supported by observation?

From this discussion I already feel led to the conclusion that observation, logic, and assumptions are all required to make an acceptable argument.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This simply means that the contestants have taken a syllogism that is dialectical in nature, and ridiculed it. This can be done, unfortunately, whether they are right or wrong. A Dialectical syllogism is one that has provable status, but is not yet proven. It may be provable, but, it might not.

Again, that is another dialectical syllogism. In order to be proven true, it will require somewhat more logic and definition.

Another form of logical syllogism is the demonstrative syllogism, also called “demonstration.” Generally speaking, if the premises are not non-sensical, the middle term of this type proves the conclusion. An example is:

1.) Whatever is spiritual is indestructible.

2.) The human soul is spiritual.

1. therefore, the human soul is indestructible.

Based on what we have just discussed, what sort of logic, or syllogism, would result in such a conclusion?

Ordinary:

We are not inconvenienced. Believe me. We live for this stuff! We are happy to oblige.

God bless you and ask away!

jd

Thank you very much for answering the question!

As to the answer to your question about the “logical fallacy,” I just had an intuitive FEELING it might have been a logical fallacy. I really can’t explain it. I also understand that Philosophical arguments don’t go on “feelings.”
But you’re right, anyway.
TENTAVELY I would say (using Schlick’s method) that “There is no God” is “meaningless” because it is a dialectical syllogism, meaning it might be proven, or it might not.
It would be a “logical fallacy” also because it would presupose a definite knowledge (“logic”) in the part of the stater that cannot be be verified either by experience or by proof. It’s assuming on the part of the stater that it is true. The same goes in terms of “dialectal syllogism” or “logical fallacy” the statement “There IS a God.”

Again, all of this is tentative on my part. If I have committed a “logical fallacy” or “dialectical syllogism” of my own so far, please feel free to point it out to me.

“All knowledge is tentative” anyways, as Karl Popper pointed out,

Thanks also for reminding me about “syllogisms,” BTW. That had totally slipped my mind. I took Philosophy years ago but still struggle to remember things and how to incorporate them in my life and faith.

 

[JohnDamian]

“If a statement is proposed which is not a matter of definition, and not capable of being confirmed or falsified by evidence, that statement is “metaphysical”, which is synonymous with “meaningless”, or “nonsense”.”

The Vienna School of Positivism; or Positivism at all leave a bad taste in my brain…

I would respond; their claim can neither be confirmed nor falsified; nor can their statements be regarded as anything beyond a statement of definition; ie; ergo; they are self refuting.

And are they in any way “logical fallacies?” It just seems to me that making those statements as “There is no God” would be a type of “logical fallacy.”

I’m sorry if I’m inconveniencing you on this—this thought popped into my head as I was reading your post.

It’s not inconveniencing at all.

Stating “There is no God” is an absurd claim; for it to constitute a formal fallacy however; some premises would have to be offered. An argument cannot be fallacious unless there is an argument; and an assertation alone (ie; “There is no God”) is not an argument; but a statement.

 

[JDaniel]

Is it that premises must be supported by observation?

From this discussion I already feel led to the conclusion that physical observation, logic, and assumptions are all required to make an acceptable argument.

Luke:

That is a common misconception. (Did you like that?) Actually, most of science uses demonstrative logic, and, you’re right in that most of it is from “observation.” But, it doesn’t have to be.

The above syllogism is merely provable the way is stands, and, therefore, as a per se syllogism it will remain a dialectical one. Whether or not the conclusion can be proven true will take a lot more research and a quite modified middle term.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you very much for answering the question!

As to the answer to your question about the “logical fallacy,” I just had a FEELING it might have been a logical fallacy. I really can’t explain it. I alos understand that Philosophical arguments don’t go on “feelings.”
But you’re right, anyway.

Thanks also for reminding me about “syllogisms.” That had totally slipped my mind. I took Philosophy years ago.

OM:

There’s no question that the opposition will use all available strategies, up to and including Non-Sense. But, if it “feels” like non-sense, it probably is non-sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

All logic is Circular; or at least makes assumptions;

Making assumptions is not the basis of “circular” in logic. Circular logic is problematic because it is a restatement. Whether a premise is or is not defended is irrelevant to the arguments circularity.

although people generally only call an argument “circular” when one of the parties does not believe in one of the original premises.

This is your clue that you misunderstand – the qualifier for circularity is not what you suggest.

I shall give to illustrative examples;

1. What you see reflects the world
2. You see me holding a Red Ball
3. You should believe I am holding a Red Ball

This is circular; although most people would accept 1); insofar as they would not call the argument Circular; even though it rests upon an undefended premise.

That is not the least bit circular as an argument. 3) is not a restatement of 1) (or 2).

1. The Bible is written by God; and is infallible
2. The Bible is infallible because it was written by God

This is circular; but most people would not accept the first premise; be more likely to challenge your assumption. In general keeping assumptions to “reasonable things” allows for a practical argument.

This is indeed circular, but not because people would not accept 1) (circularity does not obtain from soundness or unsoundness of a premise!). It is circular because it is a restatement, and “goes both directions”.

What you have missed for circularity is the role the the conclusion in supporting the premise. Here, 2), your conclusion, is used to support 1) the premise. That’s the error; logically, we want to go from premise to conclusion, and the syllogism should stand on its own unidirectionally. In your “red ball” example, your conclusion 3) is not the guarantor of premise 1). There is not “reverse argumentation” that is the essence of circularity in reasoning.

A simple rule that can help test this principle is just to look and see if anything is added by the conclusion – is any putative new knowledge presented? In the red ball argument, there is new knowledge to be gained (assuming the soundness of the premises). We can now believe you are holding a red ball (we went from “seeing” to “believing”).

In the Bible example, your conclusion adds nothing over the premise, and as such is not an argument at all.

If I say:

1. Paul’s words are true because they are in the Bible
2. Paul’s words are in the Bible because they are in the Bible.

On their own, neither 1) or 2) on their own is a problem in formal terms. It’s only when 1) is offered to support 2) which is in turn used to support 1) which then is used to support 2)… that the problem obtains (note the “because” used in both). It’s problematic precisely because it is NOT susceptible to challenge, but is trivially true.

I note that tautologies and other circular forms are incredibly useful. They are trivial truths, though, just definitions. When offered in the context of arguments about the state of the real world, it’s an error, as the real world doesn’t enter into the equation, and no liability to challenge exists at all.

The Red Ball argument begins with a metaphysical claim as the premise, and then goes onto apply a concrete conclusion based on the physical particulars in 2). 3) doesn’t argue back to 1), chasing its tail as does the Bible argument. The Red Ball argument invites testing and challenge, which is what fundamentally separates it from the Bible argument, which admits of neither.

-TS

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

OM:

There’s no question that the opposition will use all available strategies, up to and including Non-Sense. But, if it “feels” like non-sense, it probably is non-sense.

God bless,
jd

Indeed…