4 ms·

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

26 points by jwilliams 17y ago

idlewords 17y ago
You know who else made lists? Hitler.
- mahmud 17y ago
  Don't forget Santa Claus, but does this have to do with anything?
- tlrobinson 17y ago
  The list is missing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
mynameishere 17y ago
Psychogenetic Fallacy: if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. A good example of one of those sort-of fallacies. In reality, everyone is biased, and understanding those biases is part of politics. Politics is not a truth-seeking endeavor, and so fallacies are very much acceptable strategically. Someone who surrenders his own biases, and also surrenders examining his opponents' biases losses every time. over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as "Taxation is theft" fall in this category. Right, exactly. Actually, all taxation is in fact theft. The nuance that is missed by people who say that, is that some theft is positive-sum, even to the victim. Similarly, a common justification for bribery is that "Everybody does it". And in the past, this was a justification for slavery. "Slavery: Everybody does it"? Uh, no. I doubt anyone ever put together those words.
- jrockway 17y ago
  "Slavery: Everybody does it"? Uh, no. I doubt anyone ever put together those words. I am sure someone rationalized slavery to themselves like that. "All my neighbors have slaves, so I guess it's OK for me to have one too." This is how I convinced myself not to go to class in college. "Nobody else is going."
  - mynameishere 17y ago
    Uh, again, no. At least in the United States, there was the status quo which is not a matter of truth or falsehood, and then there were arguments. Slavery was always a matter of debate, and the South had lots of "good" reasons for the practice, and it was never "because everybody's doing it." That's a straw man, not that it matters.
    - sorbits 17y ago
      And your argumentation falls under the Amazing Familiarity :) Twelve million Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries (according to Wikipedia), I doubt any of us know how every single person involved justified this enterprise.
  - flare 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof
- Confusion 17y ago
  Concerning 'taxation is theft': you are redefining theft. Theft is, by the definition everyone uses in practice, something immoral. Something that we don't want and that should be punished. If taxation is positive-sum, even to the victim, then it cannot possibly be theft. By asserting that 'taxation is theft', you muddle the discussion, because the point in question is whether taxation is immoral.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Theft means taking someone's property without their consent. If we had a system by which taxation had some sort of optional element (e.g. it's up to you but if you don't pay you can't vote) then we could debate the morality of taxation. But from the perspective of the taxed, under the present system, there is no moral element - it's simply beyond your control.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      killing people = murder, but if the government does it it is no longer murder. Theft, murder and whole pile of other 'bad' things are legal when the entity that defines what is legal and what is not does it. That entity can be changed, that is why you have the vote so in the long run we all collectively determine what is legal and what is not. That's oversimplified but it shows you that tax is legal and theft is not legal so therefore they can't be equivalent.
      - billswift 17y ago
        Nobody said they are equivalent; taxation is a subset of theft, theft that is approved by the government. That is all taxation is theft (coercive appropriation) but not all theft is taxation (legal coercive appropriation).
        jacquesm 17y ago
        If you think that taxation is a subset of theft I suggest that you try getting the government indicted for stealing because of them taking your taxes. Theft is defined by the government, not by you.
tlrobinson 17y ago
I'd like to know what the fallacious argument is called when someone cites an obscure logical fallacy in order to sound more intelligent, while ignoring the otherwise valid portions of the original argument.
- gort 17y ago
  Well, the claim that the opponent must be wrong, because he has committed a fallacy, is the fallacy fallacy...
- Confusion 17y ago
  It's a version of the Argument by Generalization: you show that one of the arguments is fallacious and generalize that everything the other has said must be fallacious. The generalization might be merely implied, by not responding to other arguments. BTW, you are aware that 'cites an obscure logical fallacy in order to sound more intelligent' is something between an ad hominem and a red herring, because you draw attention to the supposed, morally questionable, intentions of the other, rather than face the fallacy head on?
- dtf 17y ago
  Straw man and ad hominem are obviously the big hitters here. A good way to find examples is to search for, say: "ad hominem fuck" or "straw man asshole". The extra profanity term helps narrow the search to discussions which are particularly heated.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I hate these fallacious argument articles, mainly because I think they miss the point. Sure, if you're on a collegiate debate team it's great to be able to categorize the faults in your opponent's argument. But in the real world, we have discussions -- sometimes heated ones -- in order to advance some common cause. That means we should be working on each other's teams here. When somebody uses one of these, they're not "cheating" -- it's more like they slipped up into a simple response when a more well-thought out response was called for. Lists like this lead us to think we just point our finger and shout "ad hominem!" instead of actually engaging somebody. Somebody can commit every logical fallacy there is and still have valuable and important information that you need to have. Heck -- they can actually have a better case than you do. If somebody runs in the room and shouts "you're such an idiot you probably don't even realize the building is on fire", the proper response is not to critique their argumentation skills. I have the same problem with these lists as I do with design pattern books. The purpose shouldn't be to memorize the label and pattern, the purpose should be to develop enough critical thinking skills that you don't need the list, don't need the patterns book. Then the labels are just nice after-thoughts.

26 points by jwilliams 17y ago

idlewords 17y ago

You know who else made lists? Hitler.

mahmud 17y ago
Don't forget Santa Claus, but does this have to do with anything?
tlrobinson 17y ago
The list is missing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

mynameishere 17y ago

Psychogenetic Fallacy: if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. A good example of one of those sort-of fallacies. In reality, everyone is biased, and understanding those biases is part of politics. Politics is not a truth-seeking endeavor, and so fallacies are very much acceptable strategically. Someone who surrenders his own biases, and also surrenders examining his opponents' biases losses every time. over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as "Taxation is theft" fall in this category. Right, exactly. Actually, all taxation is in fact theft. The nuance that is missed by people who say that, is that some theft is positive-sum, even to the victim. Similarly, a common justification for bribery is that "Everybody does it". And in the past, this was a justification for slavery. "Slavery: Everybody does it"? Uh, no. I doubt anyone ever put together those words.

jrockway 17y ago
"Slavery: Everybody does it"? Uh, no. I doubt anyone ever put together those words. I am sure someone rationalized slavery to themselves like that. "All my neighbors have slaves, so I guess it's OK for me to have one too." This is how I convinced myself not to go to class in college. "Nobody else is going."
- mynameishere 17y ago
  Uh, again, no. At least in the United States, there was the status quo which is not a matter of truth or falsehood, and then there were arguments. Slavery was always a matter of debate, and the South had lots of "good" reasons for the practice, and it was never "because everybody's doing it." That's a straw man, not that it matters.
  - sorbits 17y ago
    And your argumentation falls under the Amazing Familiarity :) Twelve million Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries (according to Wikipedia), I doubt any of us know how every single person involved justified this enterprise.
- flare 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof
Confusion 17y ago
Concerning 'taxation is theft': you are redefining theft. Theft is, by the definition everyone uses in practice, something immoral. Something that we don't want and that should be punished. If taxation is positive-sum, even to the victim, then it cannot possibly be theft. By asserting that 'taxation is theft', you muddle the discussion, because the point in question is whether taxation is immoral.
- gaius 17y ago
  Theft means taking someone's property without their consent. If we had a system by which taxation had some sort of optional element (e.g. it's up to you but if you don't pay you can't vote) then we could debate the morality of taxation. But from the perspective of the taxed, under the present system, there is no moral element - it's simply beyond your control.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    killing people = murder, but if the government does it it is no longer murder. Theft, murder and whole pile of other 'bad' things are legal when the entity that defines what is legal and what is not does it. That entity can be changed, that is why you have the vote so in the long run we all collectively determine what is legal and what is not. That's oversimplified but it shows you that tax is legal and theft is not legal so therefore they can't be equivalent.
    - billswift 17y ago
      Nobody said they are equivalent; taxation is a subset of theft, theft that is approved by the government. That is all taxation is theft (coercive appropriation) but not all theft is taxation (legal coercive appropriation).
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        If you think that taxation is a subset of theft I suggest that you try getting the government indicted for stealing because of them taking your taxes. Theft is defined by the government, not by you.

tlrobinson 17y ago

I'd like to know what the fallacious argument is called when someone cites an obscure logical fallacy in order to sound more intelligent, while ignoring the otherwise valid portions of the original argument.

gort 17y ago
Well, the claim that the opponent must be wrong, because he has committed a fallacy, is the fallacy fallacy...
Confusion 17y ago
It's a version of the Argument by Generalization: you show that one of the arguments is fallacious and generalize that everything the other has said must be fallacious. The generalization might be merely implied, by not responding to other arguments. BTW, you are aware that 'cites an obscure logical fallacy in order to sound more intelligent' is something between an ad hominem and a red herring, because you draw attention to the supposed, morally questionable, intentions of the other, rather than face the fallacy head on?
dtf 17y ago
Straw man and ad hominem are obviously the big hitters here. A good way to find examples is to search for, say: "ad hominem fuck" or "straw man asshole". The extra profanity term helps narrow the search to discussions which are particularly heated.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I hate these fallacious argument articles, mainly because I think they miss the point. Sure, if you're on a collegiate debate team it's great to be able to categorize the faults in your opponent's argument. But in the real world, we have discussions -- sometimes heated ones -- in order to advance some common cause. That means we should be working on each other's teams here. When somebody uses one of these, they're not "cheating" -- it's more like they slipped up into a simple response when a more well-thought out response was called for. Lists like this lead us to think we just point our finger and shout "ad hominem!" instead of actually engaging somebody. Somebody can commit every logical fallacy there is and still have valuable and important information that you need to have. Heck -- they can actually have a better case than you do. If somebody runs in the room and shouts "you're such an idiot you probably don't even realize the building is on fire", the proper response is not to critique their argumentation skills. I have the same problem with these lists as I do with design pattern books. The purpose shouldn't be to memorize the label and pattern, the purpose should be to develop enough critical thinking skills that you don't need the list, don't need the patterns book. Then the labels are just nice after-thoughts.