Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
After reading many, many threads about such fun topics as how evolution is false and how 9/11 was caused by government bombs, I've come to think that there are some pretty big misconceptions about what constitutes rational thought in this forum.
So, without further ado, here is the direct cause of that problem:
Logical Fallacy
What is logical fallacy?
"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is invalid for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies – those which are invalid for reasons other than structural flaws, such as an error in the premises – as well as formal fallacies."
In other words, if you make an argument and it is based on a logical fallacy, you have failed to make a valid argument.
Invalid arguments, by definition, do not make logical sense, and can be dismissed until they are corrected.
Any argument (and any question) based on a logical fallacy is invalid until repaired.
There are many types of logical fallacy.
These are a few of the biggest I have seen used lately to promote invalid arguments, grouped more-or-less arbitrarily:
List of Logical Fallacies
1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information.
2: Complex Question:
A question is invalid if the question presupposes the validity of unproven claims.
3: Animistic Fallacy:
It is not valid to argue that an event or situation is evidence that someone consciously acted to cause it.
4: Reversing the Burden of Proof:
In science, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"
If the person reverses the burden of proof by only saying "you can't disprove this," their argument is invalid.
5: Quote mining:
Quote mining refers to the process of presenting only information that supports one's argument while selectively omitting other important information (such as context) from the same source.
6: Argument From Ignorance:
Claiming that lack of evidence for one scenario is instead evidence for another scenario (without additional evidence for the other scenario) invalidates the claim.
7a: Enthymeme:
An argument is invalid when a key element of the argument is an unstated assumption.
7b: Existential fallacy:
When a claim is made based on a stated premise, but the claim do not establish this the premise as factual, the claim is not valid.
7c: Infinite Regress:
Infinite regress occurs when one premise is simultaneously dependant on another when neither is proven.
8: Straw Man:
A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. Doing so invalidates the refutation.
9: False Analogy:
Using an analogy in which the compared objects or events are fundamentally and relevantly different in some way, without addressing the differences, invalidates the analogy.
10a: Naturalistic Fallacy:
Any claim that draws an ethical conclusion from whether something is "natural" or unnatural" is invalid.
10b: Wisdom of Repugnance:
It is not valid to object to an argument purely out of a sense of disgust concerning the conclusion.
10c: Wishful thinking:
It is not valid to base a decision on an imagined pleasant outcome, and not one based in evidence or rationality.
11: Negative Proof:
It is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary.
12: Perfect Solution Fallacy:
Rejecting a solution because it doesn't solve every part of a problem is not a valid position.
13a: Cum hoc:
It is not valid to claim two events that occur together are cause and effect, when no proof of cause or effect is given.
13b: Post Hoc:
It is not valid to assume that two events are connected simply because one preceeds the other.
14: Reification:
Treating abstract concepts as though they are quantifiable is not valid.
15: Slippery Slope:
Claiming that one event will eventually spark a chain of events is not valid unless each causality in the chain can be proven.
16: Trivial Objection:
It is not valid to distract from the bulk of an argument by focusing on small, irrelevant elements.
17: Wrong Direction:
It is not valid to reverse cause and effect or to claim cause and effect in situations where causality is unclear.
Disclaimer
Most, if not all, logical fallacies can be prevented by simply presenting clear evidence or a rational argument instead.
That being said, one should be careful when applying the term "fallacy" to an argument before looking into it.
An argument showing all the signs of a logical fallacy may simply be common knowledge or too simple to bother sourcing.
Any valid statement, however, can be supported if questioned.
Just try not to be pedantic, lest your argument classify as a #16.
If you aren't normally the questioning type, try applying these ideas to things you read on the internet, or in other areas of your daily life.
The results may surprise you!
More (less common) logical fallacies can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
So, without further ado, here is the direct cause of that problem:
Logical Fallacy
What is logical fallacy?
"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is invalid for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies – those which are invalid for reasons other than structural flaws, such as an error in the premises – as well as formal fallacies."
In other words, if you make an argument and it is based on a logical fallacy, you have failed to make a valid argument.
Invalid arguments, by definition, do not make logical sense, and can be dismissed until they are corrected.
Any argument (and any question) based on a logical fallacy is invalid until repaired.
There are many types of logical fallacy.
These are a few of the biggest I have seen used lately to promote invalid arguments, grouped more-or-less arbitrarily:
List of Logical Fallacies
1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information.
2: Complex Question:
A question is invalid if the question presupposes the validity of unproven claims.
3: Animistic Fallacy:
It is not valid to argue that an event or situation is evidence that someone consciously acted to cause it.
4: Reversing the Burden of Proof:
In science, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"
If the person reverses the burden of proof by only saying "you can't disprove this," their argument is invalid.
5: Quote mining:
Quote mining refers to the process of presenting only information that supports one's argument while selectively omitting other important information (such as context) from the same source.
6: Argument From Ignorance:
Claiming that lack of evidence for one scenario is instead evidence for another scenario (without additional evidence for the other scenario) invalidates the claim.
7a: Enthymeme:
An argument is invalid when a key element of the argument is an unstated assumption.
7b: Existential fallacy:
When a claim is made based on a stated premise, but the claim do not establish this the premise as factual, the claim is not valid.
7c: Infinite Regress:
Infinite regress occurs when one premise is simultaneously dependant on another when neither is proven.
8: Straw Man:
A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. Doing so invalidates the refutation.
9: False Analogy:
Using an analogy in which the compared objects or events are fundamentally and relevantly different in some way, without addressing the differences, invalidates the analogy.
10a: Naturalistic Fallacy:
Any claim that draws an ethical conclusion from whether something is "natural" or unnatural" is invalid.
10b: Wisdom of Repugnance:
It is not valid to object to an argument purely out of a sense of disgust concerning the conclusion.
10c: Wishful thinking:
It is not valid to base a decision on an imagined pleasant outcome, and not one based in evidence or rationality.
11: Negative Proof:
It is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary.
12: Perfect Solution Fallacy:
Rejecting a solution because it doesn't solve every part of a problem is not a valid position.
13a: Cum hoc:
It is not valid to claim two events that occur together are cause and effect, when no proof of cause or effect is given.
13b: Post Hoc:
It is not valid to assume that two events are connected simply because one preceeds the other.
14: Reification:
Treating abstract concepts as though they are quantifiable is not valid.
15: Slippery Slope:
Claiming that one event will eventually spark a chain of events is not valid unless each causality in the chain can be proven.
16: Trivial Objection:
It is not valid to distract from the bulk of an argument by focusing on small, irrelevant elements.
17: Wrong Direction:
It is not valid to reverse cause and effect or to claim cause and effect in situations where causality is unclear.
Disclaimer
Most, if not all, logical fallacies can be prevented by simply presenting clear evidence or a rational argument instead.
That being said, one should be careful when applying the term "fallacy" to an argument before looking into it.
An argument showing all the signs of a logical fallacy may simply be common knowledge or too simple to bother sourcing.
Any valid statement, however, can be supported if questioned.
Just try not to be pedantic, lest your argument classify as a #16.
If you aren't normally the questioning type, try applying these ideas to things you read on the internet, or in other areas of your daily life.
The results may surprise you!
More (less common) logical fallacies can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
