Logical Fallacies, and lot's of 'em:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
Which do you think are the most important ones to watch out for?
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
Which do you think are the most important ones to watch out for?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logical Fallacies
- Thread starter Onyx
- Start date
repetition, silence, and appeal to authority seem pretty frequent
In my opinion, the most important thing about knowing your fallacies is not so that you can win arguments. For one thing, no one wins arguments against people prone to fallacious thought. Rather, knowing your fallacies helps you keep your thoughts straight. It's not about the other guy, it's about benefiting you.
What's "silence" and why is it a logical fallacy?
Good point.
now I'll have to go back to the article and find it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
"Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.[18][19]"
An important one isn't listed there......
The "false false equivalency" fallacy.
It arises when someone objects to comparing 2 things which share some criticized trait.
They claim "false equivalency" because the trait is not shared to an identical degree,
even though there is no such claim made. This is where the straw man creeps in.
The purpose is to avoid comparison, thereby rendering one thing immune to criticism.
It can be either a tactic or a mistake about the magnitude of the degree.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
This isn't necessarily a fallacy. It can be a useful and very valid argument in studies of history (and many other things).
The idea is that if something had actually happened, then there would likely be evidence. The fact that there is none is a good reason to believe it didn't happen.
I don't disagree; most of the informal "errors" refer to things that can be errors, or relate to the style of argument. The OP was which do we think occur frequently on RF. I was observing that this was one of three that I see with a good degree of frequency.
One of the more common ways a false equivalence fallacy is perpetrated on this board occurs when someone identifies a shared trait between two subjects as rendering the subjects equivalent, but ignores or fails to note that there is an order of magnitude difference between the two subjects in how that trait is manifested.
For instance: "Jones and Smith have both told lies, therefore Jones and Smith are equivalent liars" -- when in truth Jones has told a handful of lies and Smith, a chronic liar, has told them by the bushel.
Another common way in which a false equivalence fallacy is perpetrated on this board occurs when someone identifies a shared trait between two subjects as rendering the subjects equivalent, but ignores or fails to note that there are also significant differences between the subjects.
For instance: "They both have manes, hence, there's no difference between a zebra and a horse." "Both have fur, are cuddly, and are pets, hence there is no difference between a cat and a dog."
For instance: "Jones and Smith have both told lies, therefore Jones and Smith are equivalent liars" -- when in truth Jones has told a handful of lies and Smith, a chronic liar, has told them by the bushel.
Another common way in which a false equivalence fallacy is perpetrated on this board occurs when someone identifies a shared trait between two subjects as rendering the subjects equivalent, but ignores or fails to note that there are also significant differences between the subjects.
For instance: "They both have manes, hence, there's no difference between a zebra and a horse." "Both have fur, are cuddly, and are pets, hence there is no difference between a cat and a dog."
Skwim
Veteran Member
Quickly looking through the list three others stood out right away.
"Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it"
On Christian forums this is pretty much a given: "It's true because it's in the Bible."
.
"Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it"
"Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false."
I've come across this quite a few times. "Okay, prove Jesus didn't rise from the dead."
"Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."
I've seen this most often in Evolution vs Creationism debates. "But there are no transitional fossils between X and Y, so evolution can't be true."
.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
I didn't know this one had a name, but this:
The McNamara fallacy (also known as quantitative fallacy[1]), named for Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven.
The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.
The McNamara fallacy (also known as quantitative fallacy[1]), named for Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven.
The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.
The initial problem with this is that when you measure what is easy to measure, are you really sure that you're measuring what you think you're measuring? Because, you've probably selected something that is actually a proxy for what you really need to know...and then, your idea about what is easy to measure may in practice not be: how many VC did that bombing run kill? Well, we really don't have access to that location, because we're still under fire, Sir, but we thought there were five or ten shooting at us from that direction, and now we think there are only two, so it's between three and seven, so let's say five...
Skwim
Veteran Member
Reminds me of a remark a psych professor once told my class in a lecture on intelligence: "When it comes right down to the nitty gritty, intelligence is what intelligence tests measure."
.
Last edited:
Good list. I'd add false dilemmas and maybe ad hominems.
I think you might be right. But another related fallacy I would mention that we may need is the "irrelevant equivalency", that is where the equivalency may actually be true, but does not address the relevant point.
Is that similar to "distinction without a difference" ?
I think "tu quoque" is closer to the idea I am getting at.