Talk:Logical fallacy/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Article[edit]

This article seems to be nothing more than a list. On a slightly related note, there seems to be some overlap between the categories:Evaluating arguments, False arguments, and Assessing Pseudoscience. Also, it's unclear to me why some articles go in one category and not the other. ThunderkatzHo! 10:58, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a direct result of the mobocracy structure. There's nothing to stop anyone creating a category: " things I wanna put in this category". Equally thee's nothing to stop anyone deleting/reassigning it.Susantalk to me 11:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
It's a good list though - when should a list be made a category? Susantalk to me 12:34, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
I would like to see a portal for debunking that makes it easy to go through the various articles, including Baloney detection and Log. Fall. Perhaps a merging of cats, etc?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 09:43, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a good idea, I think. The overlap is as follows:
Between Evaluating arguments and False arguments:Ad hominem, Willful ignorance.
Between Evaluating arguments and Assessing pseudoscience:Argument from authority, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Quote Mining, Syllogism, The Fine Art of Baloney detection.
Some of the ones in Assessing Pseudoscience belong there, such as the essays and the side-by-sides. The only things that really belong in False arguments are the banana, bumblebee, and peanut butter argument. ThunderkatzHo! 10:32, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Arghh...this is going to be a pain in the bum.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 10:45, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'd like to make Category:Assessing pseudoscience the clearinghouse.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 11:05, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps do away with Category:Evaluating arguments, or making it a subcat--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 11:06, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Category:False arguments should probably go into the dust bin of history.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 11:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Um, actually there are means of evaluating arguments that have nothing to do with logical fallacies. IMHO, logical fallacies should be a sub-cat of evaluating arguments.
I always saw "evaluating arguments" as means of evaluating arguments, whereas "assessing pseudoscience" was more assessments of pseudoscience. And, there could be a uber-article (apart from a category) about logical fallacies; it probably should be expanded. VirileSterileyawn! 13:03, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

ok,ok but can we but together some sort of portal for debuking??--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 13:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

How about something like a super category of assessing pseudoscience of something like it, with sub cats of "eval arugments", "log fals", etc? Maybe for starters all work on that uber-art you suggested.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 13:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Sure--sounds good. Unfortunately, I don't know how much help I'll be--I'm still swamped with work... VirileSterileyawn! 13:35, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Keep in mind that the cat structure does not have to be "tree like". At the extreme, two major categories could be in each other in order to create a strong, useful cross refernce (like, PS and logic could be members of each other). The goal is not for it to minimal, neat and tidy, but for it to be useful. humanbe in 18:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Grouping?[edit]

As the list is getting a bit long, I thought grouping them would work to tidy the page up a bit. Trouble is, defining the groups. Some are easy, the correllation ones could go under a statistics heading and a few others can be general bad thinking (Referring to the title of a chapter in Tricks of the Mind). It's just a good page and could do with some care. ArmondikoVmoral 13:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I think a good first level grouping would be into Formal and Informal Fallacies. Formal fallacies being those that constitute an actual error in logical form (i.e. if p then q; q; therefore p). Informal would be those that are invalid arguments that while mostly following proper logical form, have invalid content in the premise.HumanisticJones 09:28, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I think that would be quite a good idea.--Bobbing up 10:12, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Might be more challenging then a first glance would make it seem. All the ones listed are actually informal logical fallacies (at least by the definitions at the Fallacy Files website). I'll look into it more in a bit.HumanisticJones 11:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)

La-la-la[edit]

Observation dictates that logical fallacies make up over 50 % of Rationalwiki's content. The rest are some puerile, sneering remarks made by those who don't go to church. I'm not fooled by you. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem, Argument by assertion, Argument from incredulity, Association fallacy, Non sequitur, Overgeneralization, Poisoning the well, Style over substance fallacy. tmtoulouse 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If I may:
Atomic Bomb.gif
Pwned!
Blue Talk 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Argument from incredulity? Come on. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It is the closest I could come for "I'm not fooled by you." tmtoulouse 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
58 actually wins: Art - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
For the "not fooled by you", while not a fallacy, i think this one can fit: Cognitive dissonance, fitting with the LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO theme. However, Style over substance fallacy suits it well too. But the Incredulity fallacy also works for it, since apparently, one claims to not be "fooled" by some logic and empirical evidence, how is one fooled by "reality" (or to be more precise, ideas backed up by facts and evidence obtained through careful - repeated analysis)? Imadmagician (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny, this assumes in a prejudicial way that the this wiki is directed towards the "annihilation of xians", Persecution complex at its best. This is "RATIONAL" wiki, as in "LOGIC", "FACTS", i don't see how pointing out the many inaccuracies in debate methods is weird for it. Not to mention that this person sees their religion among all just as valid other ones as being beyond rational criticism ("screw the logic, we have one of many brands of religion"). To end this, by their words about "going to church", it seems they think that we are evil spawns who swore the destruction of the all-holy christianity because we fear their god whom we do not apparently acknowledge as a solid fact anymore than Lord Voldemort or Odin, instead of regular people who are merely using reason to point out the many inconsistencies and such of religions - mythologies - baseless claims about Unicorns and Reptilian Aliens IN GENERAL. Christianity isn't any more special than Hinduism, Shintos, Nordic Pantheon, or Reptilians experiment vs Cosmic Unicorn claims - cults - sects etc. when it comes to overall validity. Believe whatever you want, but you have no right to persecute others or reject actual evidence while using completely twisted logic just because your scripture / Alien Tablet / Telepathic message say it is ok to do so, without any sound arguments (Be it to deny backed up facts and ideas, or to treat others badly just because they are considered "demonic spawns" without any evidence for any demon lineage or supernatural force controlling them). Imadmagician (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "fallacy of the Unidivided Middle"[edit]

All cows are brown. My dog is brown. Therefore my dog is a cow. TrogL (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So add it. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that's just a non sequitur. I can't find many references to it. ADK...I'll feast your needle! 16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the only references to it I can find are by you. ADK...I'll edify your turkey sandwich! 16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a pretty clear-cut case of affirming the consequent. Just translate TrogL's example into formal logic:
If P (it's a cow), then Q (it's brown).
Q (it's brown).
Therefore, P (it's a cow). The One They Call Mars (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

agrumentum ad martyrdum[edit]

This addition by a BoN is really the Galileo Effect. Bad Faith (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Or at least some application of a persecution complex. It's an interesting idea, but as I can only find one passing remark to it under the name "argumentum ad martyrdom" I think it's already coined as something else. ADK...I'll annihilate your rabbit! 14:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Though, if anything, argument ad martyrdom considering the actual definition of martyrdom would be something like "I'm right because I'm willing to put up with so much persecution" (perhaps not necessarily up to the point of dying for it). It would be saying that one must be correct because they still believe despite all the adversity and things going against them. That would put it on a slightly and subtly different footing to the Galileo Gambit, which is really arguing that "One person in history was laughed at and was right. I'm laughed at, therefore I'm right", which is different to "I'm right because people oppose me.". ADK...I'll endanger your dog! 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additions[edit]

I thought we should have a section on the talk page where people can post fallacies, and others can comment on whether they have already been covered (or whether they have been given different names elsewhere). I'll start.

Not a proof fallacy[edit]

Not a proof fallacy Fdof (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Apex fallacy" fallacy[edit]

The assumption that a preponderance of one group in a position of power is of no statistical or historic significance. EVDebs (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Or the assumption that it must be. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice poster[edit]

I rather like this one. [1] Pashley (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)