11 ms·

Fallacies

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• tokenizer 13y ago
  It's always nice to see the fallacies of debate promoted so we can hopefully all improve in our exchanging of ideas. Ones to really watch out for IMO are Appeal to Emotion and Ad Hominem. These two are the most used fallacies in internet debates IMO. The more you familiarize yourself with these, the better you may become in recognizing a poor argument.
  • lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
    Adding to that is the strange fascination with slippery slope on the internet. It's so bad that people will start by calling their own argument a slippery slope and implying that that makes it logically sound. Removing that from discussions would go along way to promoting reasonable debate.
    • alex-g 13y ago
      If you believe a slippery slope argument, you'll soon find yourself believing any old rubbish.
  • pgsandstrom 13y ago
    Personally I would guess that biases such as confirmation bias interferes with or reasoning much more than any fallacies. Also, they are harder to get rid of.
    • tokenizer 13y ago
      Agreed. The fallacies are simply a toolset for confirmation bias IMO. Personally, I think cognitive dissonance is a major problem. People in general have opinion set A at any given moment, and when a direct contradiction to one opinion in set A occurs, they either fight it, or flee. There's a lot of science behind the idea that most people use their reptilian brain in arguments, emotionally defend their already engrained views, and then try to logically defend it after the fact. The real challenge is while defending your own views, to try and attempt at discerning whether or not you are simply emotionally responding to a cognitive dissonance, or whether you are rationally defending a built up worldview with foundations in knowledge and insight. I'd like to say I do the latter, but I'm sure everybody would like to agree with that...
  • nollidge 13y ago
    It's important to really know what those fallacies look like, though. Just insulting someone isn't an ad hominem, and just using emotionally charged language isn't necessarily an argument that's relying on an appeal to emotion. And if you're going to call someone out on a fallacy, don't throw it down like a trump card. SHOW how their argument is fallacious.
  • vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    A lot of people also mix up ad hominem for poisoning the well.
• felideon 13y ago
  Interesting. Just keep in mind that pointing fallacies out in friendly conversation is very annoying. Relevant previous discussion on "YOUR BALONEY DETECTION KIT SUCKS": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5832320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5832320
• uio32 13y ago
  Sigh. Americans are obsessed with trying to use logical fallacies in any debate or argument, must be something they're taught in high-school. They're often using them incorrectly too.
• frobozz 13y ago
  Sadly missing is the "Fallacy Fallacy", which seems to crop up in internet discussions rather frequently.
  • bildung 13y ago
    Indeed, but see the date of the source: The content of these pages is a few decades old. And it is indeed quite handy in real life situations e.g. the panel discussions.
  • spenuke 13y ago
    Good point. Though the fallacy fallacy is just a special case of Denying the Antecedent: 1. If [argument is sound], then [conclusion is true]. 2. [argument] is not sound. 3. Therefore, [conclusion] is not true. Similar to: 1. If it has rained, then the street is wet. 2. It hasn't rained. 3. Therefore, the street isn't wet.
  • BlackDeath3 13y ago
    Fallacies, fallacies, one for you, and two for me...
• sz4kerto 13y ago
  That's good as well: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
  • Aoyagi 13y ago
    Agreed. I also use http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html
• reqres 13y ago
  I'm trying to find the name of a suspected logical fallacy that I think some founders make... wonder if anyone can spot it? It goes something like: 1. Established product A has traits X,Y and Z and is a billion dollar business 2. Our new Product B also has traits X,Y and Z and so it will be a billion dollar business Example I saw the other week from "Why Bitcoin Matters" > A mysterious new technology emerges, seemingly out of nowhere, but actually the result of two decades of intense research and development by nearly anonymous researchers. Political idealists project visions of liberation and revolution onto it; establishment elites heap contempt and scorn on it. On the other hand, technologists – nerds – are transfixed by it. They see within it enormous potential and spend their nights and weekends tinkering with it. What technology am I talking about? Personal computers in 1975, the Internet in 1993, and – I believe – Bitcoin in 2014. Please note, I'm not knocking bitcoin here. I'm just wondering if this is indeed a fallacy and has a name.
  • azatris 13y ago
    It is highly related to the Questionable Cause fallacy: namely many believe that if two events are highly correlated then there is a causal link between them. The business has traits X, Y, Z and successful, so we conclude that the traits X, Y, Z causes it to be successful.
  • bildung 13y ago
    This is an inductive argument I'd say, which is also listed as a fallacy on that site - see the "Examples of Fallacies" below the numbered list).
  • jiggy2011 13y ago
    I think this person is mostly off the hook here. To begin with "I believe" makes it clear that this is an opinion, not a statement of fact. They aren't saying "bitcoin will be popular because personal computers were popular" they are saying "I can see similarities between the two". They aren't even making any specific statement about bitcoin beyond it being controversial and interesting to nerds; both of which are already true.
  • bladedtoys 13y ago
• iopq 13y ago
  "For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise." Of course, "too much" and "too little" already implies a negative. "Too much" of anything is bad, that's why it's called "too much".
• omegamu 13y ago
  It's always interesting to see these (in)formal fallacies on the internet. They're really only fallacies if they're wrong. Usually I just want to say "fallacy of not knowing mathematical logic."
• grandalf 13y ago
  I'd love to see all the fallacies reframed as "persuasion tactics".
  • rogerbraun 13y ago
    You are looking for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
  • abvdasker 13y ago
    Yeah, I'm not crazy about the overly simplistic way some of these "fallacies" are constructed. I've always thought people who go on about fallacies in argument are incredibly smug, and the fallacies themselves are just names given to things we already recognized and understood. In the "Appeal to Pity" fallacy the example given is: Jill: "He'd be a terrible coach for the team." Bill: "He had his heart set on the job, and it would break if he didn't get it." Jill: "I guess he'll do an adequate job." The argument that Bill cares immensely about the job IS evidence that he would likely do it well. A coach who cares is more likely to work hard, be more invested in the outcomes of games, etc. But the real problem, as you mention, is that people don't argue to logically prove something. People argue to convince someone else (often not even the person they're arguing with). If you can convince people you won the argument, you won the argument. It doesn't matter whether you appealed to base human emotion or made a logically/factually empty argument.
• rayiner 13y ago
  Fallacies are invoked too often in internet arguments. Take ad hominem, for example. People invoke ad hominem as a counter to people who attack the credentials/funding sources of scientists who have an interest in promulgating a particular point of view. However, it is totally valid to argue that the minority of scientific studies that find, say, chemical X not to be harmful were funded by chemical companies. It's not a valid counter for a purely logical argument, but debates on the internet are rarely based on pure logic. Rather, they are usually based on evaluating the credibility of experts, evaluating the relevance of evidence, and distinguishing what kind of conclusions can and cannot be determined by particular evidence. To me, a better source for internet debate is the Federal Rules of Evidence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre. Particularly the modern statistical approach to evaluating the relevancy of evidence based on Bayes' rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_under_Bayes_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_under_Bayes_theorem.
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    Attacks against credentials are valid against an argument to authority (in which case they are, in fact, pointing out a fallacy), but you only have an argument to authority when a conclusion is offered on the sole basis that the conclusion was offered by an authority. When the actual argument by the alleged authority is presented (including by reference), an attack against credentials is not a valid rebuttal, because the credentials are not the support offered for the conclusion. It is appropriate and correct to label such an attack, offered as a rebuttal, as invalid by way of the ad hominem fallacy.
    • rayiner 13y ago
      Your point is correct, but irrelevant. Almost any internet debate that you an imagine is ultimately rooted in arguments to authority. It's simply not useful to look at internet arguments as logical ones. It's the wrong level of abstraction. They involve some basic logical reasoning, but generally, they are all about weighing conflicting evidence and expert opinions. Should we regulate fracking? It all depends on what the evidence is, and which evidence we believe and which evidence we don't believe. Each of those expert opinions might be characterized as logical arguments themselves (generalizing from particular empirical observations to conclusions), and could possible be tackled at that level (well you can't reach this particular inference from that particular data point), but that would make internet arguments completely intractable and not very illuminating.
• coldtea 13y ago
  Logical fallacy #1: that actual argumentation in real life can be reduced to some axiomatic system where you can just discard arguments as logical fallacies. It's easy as a nerd to fell into that trap, but real life has much more nuances than those fallacy lists capture. Case in point: "the no true scotchman fallacy". In real life groups CAN be argued to have certain characteristics to recongnise members from non-members, hypocritical members, non-practicing members, posers and "fakes". So the "no true scotchman" fallacy breaks down when you're dealing with such nuances. Or take "appeal to tradition": 1) X is old or traditional 2) Therefore X is correct or better. Well, it depends on how you define correct or better. If you value tradition and see conformance to it as the most important metric, then X is indeed better for you. Who is to say what metric you should use for "correct", in issues like ethical ones, that are not clear cut and measurable as things are in the hard sciences and mathematics?
  • Zikes 13y ago
    Actually it's "no true Scotsman". Man, now I just don't know about everything else you've written there. (kidding)
    • skyraider 13y ago
      I know you're doing it in jest, but it's interesting how often the tendency to 'well-actually' minor, irrelevant factoids and the tendency to reduce conversations to axiomatic systems appear together. It's part of the hacker desire to be Less Wrong (TM). But in doing so, they are More Wrong (TM). Both situations involve missed social cues. Correcting a minor point is another way of saying you place a higher priority on correctness for its own sake - even if doing so prevents you from reaching higher goals - than you do on understanding. These things can make it hard to for non-hackers to converse with hackers, and vice versa.
      • humanrebar 13y ago
        It's not necessarily correctness for its own sake. Sometimes it's the linguistic equivalent to pointing out a spot of mustard on someone's shirt, which is a courtesy in my book. That being said, an audience member pointing this out to someone on stage is a net negative. But I'm not convinced that I should ignore irrelevant errors altogether, especially for errors that people use as signal levels of education or intelligence (nuclear and nucular, you're and your, etc.).
• dharmach 13y ago
  "Science fallacy": Anything coming from a scientist or a science/research group/organization becomes "scientifically proven" and therefore "the truth".
  • asgard1024 13y ago
    Sounds like "appeal to authority" to me, but the way you stated it, it looks more like a straw man. The reason to trust scientists is their method, which gives a good approximation to truth. If you are capable of evaluating their results yourself, then you don't need to trust them, but if you aren't, you have a good reason to trust them, even if technically committing the fallacy, because what else are you gonna do?
• squirejons 13y ago
  the biggest logical fallacy is not realizing that homo sapiens is evolved to NOT use logic in certain areas: tribal allegiances, bonding and politics. You can see this play out in the GOP/conservative vs Dem/liberal farces in various forums and on TV every day. Same thing goes for what passes for the term 'political correctness.' Also, religion--logic does not come into play there. Also, death and the afterlife--logic is precluded there as well. Homo sapiens is evolved to use logic in certain limited areas only.
• mbateman 13y ago
  (I'm a philosophy professor.) Some training in logic -- reflecting on what make good reasons and justified conclusions -- does have value. It has the same sort of value that learning grammar does. It enables you to make certain things explicit, to put them under conscious scrutiny and control, when needed. But I think this sort of enumeration of logical fallacies is of very limited value. In the abstract there are only a few ways that arguments fail, and informal fallacies are all iterations on an extremely similar theme. Moreover, the kind of argument for which it is easiest to characterize fallacies is deductive, and many instances of reasoning that appear deductive are in fact statistical, inductive, inferences to the best explanation, or some combination thereof. Even for deductive arguments, what if any fallacies are being committed will depend upon how one interprets suppressed premises. The best thing is to learn about different sorts of reasoning and how they work in good cases, and pick up a feel for some fallacies along the way. At the end of the day, reasoning is an art.
  • humanrebar 13y ago
    What about looking at these lists of fallacies as vocabulary building tools? Perhaps fallacies are all variations on a handful of errors, but it certainly expedites conversation to be able to say, "No, that's just begging the question." Otherwise I would have to waste my breath disagreeing in a more clumsy way.
    • mbateman 13y ago
      I agree, there's some value in that. But two things: (1) For begging the question, I think it's more perspicuous to go up a level of abstraction and talk about circular reasoning. And something analogous is true of most of these fallacies. (2) For any real argument you're going to have to spend some breath anyway. It's very rare when you can just stop at, "Isn't that question-begging/circular?", or, "But aren't you equivocating on the word 'freedom'?" This is part of what I mean by saying that reasoning is an art: the classification of an error in reasoning in any particular case will involve nuance and controversy.
  • KiwiCoder 13y ago
    Your last sentence feels unfinished. At the end of the day, reasoning is an art, and an art worth your learning. The question is rather, whether you be capable of learning it? [0] [0] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/683/pg683.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/683/pg683.html
• anywherenotes 13y ago
  Actually I think "Ad Hominem" is a rather good filter. Although it's not a proof of statement being true or false, it's still good to ask your self a question "why is this person saying this?" For example: A stranger rolls up in a truck up to a kid on their walk from school and says "get in my truck, your parents were in an accident, and I need to drive you to hospital". Now all the person said could be true - but I would strongly advise from getting into the truck.
  • alextingle 13y ago
    Ad hominem is when you dismiss what someone says because of who they are, not what they say. There's no fallacy with simply not bothering to listen to them in the first place, if they have a history of spouting bullshit.
  • Crito 13y ago
    Ad Hominem is grossly 'over-diagnosed' on the internet. I would say that the vast majority of the time that somebody claims somebody else is using ad hominems, what they are actually doing is merely insulting the other person. In other words: "You are wrong because of X, Y, and Z. You fucking idiot." not: "You are wrong, because you are a fucking idiot." The first will typically get cries of "ad hominem", but it isn't. The second sentence is not being used to logically support the assertion in the first sentence, it is just a tacked on plain-old insult.
• alextingle 13y ago
  The Adventures of Fallacy Man (Comic): http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• jheriko 13y ago
  interesting, but i want to nitpick on the appeal to authority: > This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. Such arguments are fallacious even when person A is a well informed individual who is sufficiently well qualified to understand the subject. Not recognising this misses the spirit of the fallacy - that all claims must be substantiated and that prior performance is /completely/ irrelevant as to whether any individual claim is valid - even when that experience makes it the case that person A is the foremost expert in the field.
  • tquishinisti 13y ago
    Yes, and it's amazing and ironic how many otherwise authoritative sources (i.e. sources worth reading and listening to) get this totally wrong -- they still think that the source of an idea can have a bearing on whether it is true. I think they are variously conflating three issues: (1) whether an idea is true, (2) whether one can (rationally) rely upon it in some way, (3) whether one understands it.
• Dylan16807 13y ago
  What's wrong with example one, the fact that it doesn't explicitly say 'probably'? Just because something is a conclusion doesn't mean it's an absolute. When talking about real-life situations, there are no absolutes. Your premises can change behind your back. Sometimes you have to go with the most likely option to not get stuck in a quagmire. Being imprecise for the purposes of focus is not an error.
• snowwrestler 13y ago
  Fallacies are favorites of Internet forums because you don't need a bit of domain knowledge to attack any argument. They're sort of like grammar or spelling corrections.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]