Talk:Logical fallacy/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 July 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Article

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. Thunderkatz^Ho! 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.Susan^{talk to me} 11:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a good list though - when should a list be made a category? Susan^{talk 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. Thunderkatz^Ho! 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. VirileSterile^yawn! 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... VirileSterile^yawn! 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. human^{be in} 18:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Grouping?

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. ArmondikoV^gnostic 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.--Bob^{bing 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

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:

Pwned!

Blue (is useful) 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"

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

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

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

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

"Apex fallacy" fallacy

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

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

Some of us aren't that clever

“” A logical fallacy is not necessarily a Bayesian fallacy, so given a particular circumstance, jumping to the conclusion will be more likely than not, and get baked into human thinking as a heuristic. When the heuristic is applied outside its reasonable bounds, it becomes a cognitive bias.

Can we have that in terms that us thickos will understand. Starting with

• What makes a fallacy Bayesian?
• What does heuristic mean - OK, so I can look it up but I shouldn't need to resort to a dictionary to read a RW article
• What's a cognative bias?

Please, some of us haven't got the education. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It means that DG has been hanging around on LessWrong again. :| For the last question, we have cognitive bias. At least I think we have it.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We have articles on Bayesian and heuristic too. These should be linked, but even with the words I can't figure out what the sentence is trying to say; the whole sentence structure is awkward. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm profoundly sleep deprived and making less sense than usual. And anyway, common sense pretty much covers what I meant - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

New ideas to add

I stumbled upon this one on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager which is to summarize: "You cannot define properly the subject/matter at hand so you cannot discuss it." It could work with the many and sometimes contradictory / illogical definitions of what a god is or ought to be / do. Imadmagician (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good vs. Bad Arguments

I disagree with the premise of "good" and "bad" arguments under conditional fallacies. Any argument from a fallacy is fallacious, even if the conclusion is true. The article points out that 95 percent of climatoligsts believe global warming exists, with the conclusion that global warming is a scientific fact, and asserts that this is a "good" argument. While global warming does exist, this argument is still fallacious. There was a time where 95 percent of scientists believed the Universe had always existed. Later scientific discoveries led to the Big Bang theory with a finite age for the Universe. So clearly it's possible for 95 percent of scientists to be wrong. Of course, deniers will pull a Galileo gambit and claim this "proves" global warming is a hoax, and that's also fallacious. If 95 percent of scientists agree on something, they're usually right. But not always. And it's still a fallacious argument even if the conclusion is true. There are valid arguments for that. Citing the actual climate data is one of those ways. Simply citing what people believe is fallacious appeal to authority no matter what. Gak92 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

But that essentially means that nothing is ever a scientific fact. The condition is that an overwhelming scientific consensus equals a scientific fact which is a pretty good working definition of how we usually understand scientific facts. A "hidden" condition of this is of course one involved in all science, namely that results are always provisional, but again that's the way science works (it's a feature, not a bug). So, I think it's a valid argument unless you want to start redefining either science or how we usually define scientific facts.

No, it means something isn't automatically a scientific fact because people believe it. It's a scientific fact because of the data behind it. Just because the conclusion is true doesn't mean the argument isn't a fallacy. It's the corollary to the fallacy fallacy. Gak92 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing climate data is useless, because data is not self-explanatory but needs to be interpreted by qualified scientists. In this case, we have well-qualified scientists speaking as experts on a subject which means that their opinions are based on interpreting oodles of data while a condition is that the sum of these interpretations is unlikely to be wrong and anyway the closest thing to certainty we can get. This kind of opinion is clearly different from personal opinions à la "95% of climate scientists think vanilla ice cream is the tastiest food ever, therefore it's a scientific fact that vanilla ice cream is the tastiest food ever". Hence, what these scientists "believe" in this context is not analogous to whether people "believe" in God or "believe" that 7even is a great movie or similar kind of "gut feeling"-style of personal opinions. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when the question is just "Is global warming a real thing?" or slightly rephrased "Has there been a rising trend in the average temperature of Earth in recent years?", then you can just look at the data and conclude: Yep. No high intelligence or expertise required for that. Of course if you wanna go talk about what's causing it and what it'll mean for Earth's climate, you'd best defer to the scientists. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, .236, but the actual P1 in the article isn't just in plain text (which could be interpreted in the narrow sense of rising temperatures only). Instead P1 is: "Global warming is agreed to exist by over 95% of climatologists". This means that it directly refers to the RW article which is about AGW and the question of the cause of the rising temperatures, not merely the whether temperatures are rising. Sure, we can always lawyer this to death, but... ScepticWombat (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that just because the conclusion is true doesn't mean the argument isn't a fallacy. It's the corollary to the fallacy fallacy. If we were to change P1 to "Global temperatures have been rising steadily in recent years" and change P2 to simply say "global warming is a rise in global temperature over a period of time" then it would no longer be fallacious. It also wouldn't be appeal to authority. Gak92 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So, it's a fallacy to cite an overwhelming consensus among the relevant experts in a scientific field as constituting what we usually understand as a scientific fact?

I still don't get it: Scientific facts are based on overwhelming consensus of the relevant scientists who in turn draw on their research etc. Scientific facts don't just magically appear by themselves or are "self evident" from the data. Sure, it could be wrong, but so could any other bit of science, and using this objection is effectively a science was wrong before. It's not a fallacious appeal to authority, it's how science actually works. The "opinions" of climate scientists, or, more precisely, the consensus within the community of climate scientists on climate change, which is based on their expertise and research, is the relevant criterion for determining what's regarded as a scientific fact. If we were to change the question, then things would be different, eh, yes they would. This would also, I think, needlessly narrow the question based on an mistaken application of the appeal to authority fallacy.

But let me turn the question around: If the scientific consensus among climate scientists isn't what determines whether climate change is a "scientific fact", what does? ScepticWombat (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The data, as I have already said. Gak92 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: The data doesn't speak for itself. And your change of the question doesn't really change anything - it simply "disguises" the involvement of the scientists and their consensus by only citing measurements. It would also mean that the only things that can ever be regarded as "scientific facts" would be such first order effects as rising temperatures. To take another example, evolution could not be described as a scientific fact using such a narrow definition, only genetic change. In other words, we end up with a definition so narrow as to be practically useless, because we would simply have to invent a different designation to describe such well-established interpretations for rising global temperatures/genetic changes as AGW/evolution. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, when you put it that way. I'm inclined to agree with you at this point. I'll withdraw what I said earlier. Gak92 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've enjoyed this debate - you've presented your points well and they're certainly not without merit. We should always be careful when citing scientific consensus, exactly because it's always provisional, but at least it's open to falsification - unlike certain other academic fields. ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a name for the fallacy that refusal to engage with my argument means my argument is correct?

In essence: "You added me to your block list? Clearly I have the logical and moral upper hand!"

Is this an existing fallacy? If not, may I humbly suggest it be named the Sealion Fallacy?^{— Unsigned, by: 195.128.1.27 / talk / contribs}

I think the answer is no. And honestly, it's hard to really assert a fallacy when a discussion isn't taking place. At that point it's really not a debate anymore. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies exist in terms of pure logic, regardless of whether a debate is contested or not. For instance, I could write a blog post attacking someone, and my argument could be full of fallacies. That those fallacies exist in my argument is independent of whether or not the person I attack chooses to defend themselves (or is defended by others). To continue, if I then proclaim victory because they chose not to defend themselves, that's a further logical fallacy.195.128.1.27 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're totally right. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me of when Animalian was posting huge blocks of text to debate Castaigne about abortion and Castaigne repeatedly and outrightly refused to engage in debate. At the end of it, Animalian proclaimed having won the debate, failing to realize the debate's lack of existence. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I reworded the question in the title because I realise that "winning" can have an ambiguous meaning in terms of debates. But in essence your example illustrates what I mean better than I did. Thanks! 195.128.1.27 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You might try argument by silence, but we don't have a page on that (yet). oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone else suggested it's merely a niche of an ad hominem: "You're not engaging with me, therefore you are wrong". I suppose I can't fault that view. 195.128.1.27 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It really depends on why. Animalian was debated many times and when he was backed into a corner he just created a new debate thread. When people consistently told him that they weren't going to keep debating because he pretty much ignored everything said previously....he declared victory and finally went somewhere else. There are articles detailing those tactics and why it makes people want to smack some sense into those who do it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Dunno if it has a name, but it's much like a written Gish gallop, where the annoying foolish person spams you with a wall of text and asserts victory if you don't refute every point to their personal satisfaction.

OTOH, actually running away is common in woomeisters arguing with skeptics - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've often seen the argument "my comments make you angry so I must be right", especially on RW. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Oh my that gets so old. Doesn't matter what you say either. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it has elements of and argument by assertion, an ad hominem, and a reversal of the burden of proof, but without fitting either entirely. I'd call it the "I'm right by default"-fallacy and one who's really keen on it (and the Gish Gallop) is William Lane Craig who uses it in an awful lot of his "debates", typically in the form of something like "My opponent failed to address my point X*, so I assume he conceits it." (*X often being Craig's straw man or red herring). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

e-Penis size contest

Who's got the longest biggest collection of phalluses fallacies?

1. RationalWiki: 196 fallacy articles, 4 fallacy collections, 3 funspace articles, 2 userspace articles, 2 templates, no recurrences
2. Wikipedia: 185 articles, including recurring entries
3. Logically Fallacious: 178 articles, 98 fallacy list entries on "B-list", 276 total
4. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 137 non-redirect fallacy entries
5. Fallacy Files: 86 unique articles
6. Nizkor Project: 42 articles
7. Your Logical Fallacy Is: 24 articles
8. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not have a list of fallacy articles; a search for the query "fallacy" returned 203 articles, of which many are not about the fallacy itself.

Moved from my userspace. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Title headings

Hi, I've noticed some title headings have deviated from the original format found on Fallacy Files and I'm wondering if these extensions are necessary or even helpful. Unfortunately I often find myself reminding people that elaboration rarely equals clarification and it seems some select headings have mutated against this principle. For example, to my mind, "Non-enthymematic Propositional fallacies or Inconsistencies" may serve simply as "Propositional fallacies" in accordance with the FF taxonomy. These mutations are particularly glaring when contrasted with most other headings, which remain concise. Thanks. 146.90.165.212 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

About the (possible) "read all the books" or "appeal to accomplishment" fallacy

Hi, if anyone can do it, I think there should be an entry on something like the "read all the books" fallacy (if it is how it should be called) as discussed in https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=47537.0 Thanks. Gquenot (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Example of logical fallacy is wrong

"One may be wrong in how one arrived at a conclusion, but that doesn't mean the conclusion itself is wrong. It may be true based on some other premise or logical conclusion. For example, one may say:"
P1: Bears have four legs.
P2: All three legged animals are mammals.
C: Therefore a bear is a mammal.

I think P2 was supposed to have in it: four legs, not three :D As for this example of logical fallacy: someone arrived to C, because P1 and than P2. Which in current state make 0 sense! Because there is no other premise, from which you could deduce: bears are mammals. Therefore P2 should be: All four legged animals are mammals. ^{— Unsigned, by: Empleat / talk / contribs}

Not really. Just because P2 is false, doesn't mean that C is false.

Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes). Electros^Pardon? 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact I get what you are saying. I will update the article to focus more on how sound the argument is rather than the false premise. ShabiDOO 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the fallacy should be in assuming that all 4 legged animals are mammals (which would include iguanas and frogs), but just because not all 4 legged animals are mammals doesn't mean the conclusion that bears is mammals is wrong even though the logic is flawed. CoryUsar (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No the problem was that the argument only contained a false premise (that all three legged animals were mammals). The argument however was sound and shouldn't have been. I adjusted it so that it contained a strange and false premise AND that the argument isn't sound (it doesn't logically follow). ShabiDOO 22:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Base rate fallacy and statistics (says a footnote)

The footnote statement that statistical inference is the only mathematically valid way to determine guilt or innocence is kind of ridiculous. OK, sure, but that's a lot like saying analytic chemistry is the only valid way to figure out the tasty ingredient in that dish you ate at the restaurant last night. Statistical inference is about estimating a population parameter or making a probabilistic statement about a hypothesis. It is NOT about determine truth/falsehood. Should I only use calculus to determine how much I should press my brake pedal? Should I rely only on neuroscience to decide whether my joke is funny?

Furthermore, the legalistic examples under base rate fallacy are really poor examples. The most common examples are of population disease testing -- very relevant these days. Another good one might be of crime among various demographic subgroups.

[end rant mode] ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:285:8380:1ac8:19ad:4754:541d:3841 / talk / contribs}

Expanding on my comments as a BoN,

1) The two legalistic examples under "base rate fallacy" are not actually base rate fallacies. They are, if anything, misunderstanding of conditional probabilities and the appropriateness of inference based on those probabilities.

2) Although not base-rate fallacies, they do involve some of the same probabilities involved in Bayes rule so, yeah, mistakes are understandable.

3) Bayes rule has several terms that are explicit or implicit: P[A] and P[B], the marginal probabilities; P[A|B] and P[B|A], the conditional probabilties; and P[A,B] (the numerator of Bayes equation when multiplied out), the join probability of A and B. The base-rate fallacy refers to one, and only one, of the marginals. The legalistic examples (prosecutors and defense fallacies) are a grab bag that emphasize the incorrect use of a conditional or joint probability when a different conditional probability is preferred.

4) There are other examples within the prosecutors/defense fallacies that fall outside the realm of Bayes rule.

5) The current text under base-rate fallacy includes dramatic and unclear statements about "blaming the victim" (a consequence of the fallacy and not the actual fallacy), "blindly trusting the accuser" (a hyped up, imprecise way to incorrectly point to the marginal probability), "blah blah importance of Bayes inference" (true, but a weakness of the judicial system and not a fallacy), "ipse dixit" (nope, not the fallacy you're looking for). As such, they are interesting things, but NOT good or relevant discussions of the fallacy

Therefore,

1) The fallacy should be more directly and clearly described as in the entire syllogistic fallacy section;

2) Irrelevant, but interesting, commentary about the justice system should either be purged or exiled to footnotes. I prefer a purge.

MarmotHead (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC) (currently, a grump)

Silver

Let's Make Ratwiki Silver Again! CorruptUser 19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gold status

I say we make this a golden article! --NiciesMan (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)NiciesMan

Thermian Argument

Is the Thermian Argument and the various rebuttals to it worth mentioning?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No. (edit: the crticism of the thermian argument) is nott a fallacy. It is a highly specific argument to a highly specific context. Fallacies deal with general logic with rules that can be universally applied. Fallacies are also well established rules, not something coined in the last decade. Having said that, from a rational and critical thinking point of view, (edit: criticism of the) thermian arguments is completely correct. If a text is sexist, then it is sexist. If it is a commentary on sexism it is one thing, if it is simply sexists...then no narrative or authorial excuse explains it away. An author is never obligated to be sexist under any writing rules. Literally thousands of non sexist or non racist works are produced every year. With the unlimited possibilities of fiction and multiple narrative techniques which one can use, writing a sexist or racist plot is easily avoidable. If your text is sexist, be it consciously or subconsciously, the text is to blame, not some appeal to "narrative" or "internal consistancy" bullshit excuse. ShabiDOO 04:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Anthropologically the terms for this are effectively etic (external) and emic (internal). Horace Miner's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" used the then popular etic that '"primitive" peoples believe in magic but we are so much enlighten' and turned it on the then current 1950s United States totally ignoring the emic reasoning. The result was was that this culture is just as much a bunch of magic believing savages as whoever was being studied in Africa this month. By ignoring the emic (internal) one comes to a false conclusion. Claiming a Thermian Argument effectively says 'forget this emic point and go full speed ahead with an etic argument'.

IMHO claiming a Thermian Argument smacks too much of the type of nonsense Pulling said regarding D&D, or the people who claim that every depiction of a swastika is a reference to Nazis regardless of what it actually represents and has resulted in some really stupid things.

It is like reading The Iron Dream and not getting the point. On the surface it is a purple prose paint by the numbers example of the Hero of Thousand Faces but the sting in the tail is it portrayed as a novel by Adolf Hitler in a timeline where he came to America and became a Scifi writer. People who don't understand the real massage (ie the internal message) claim the novel supports Nazism when in reality it doesn't. What the work really does is hold up a mirror to the tropes so common to the Hero of Thousand Faces and causes us to see some uncomfortable things there.

Basically claiming a Thermian Argument is the ultimate get out of argument card as it allows one to dodge the key elephant in the room of what is the story really trying to say and does the world it present make internal sense?

I am reminded about the old joke about a person taking the Rorschach test and complaining about all the dirty pictures they are seeing. Even Sigmund Freud commented that sometimes a cigar is just that...a cigar.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see anything resembling an argument in that jumble of text. It is nothing but terrible comparisons and misdirects. "Sorry, my character had to be a pointless racists who helps confirms and perpetuates harmful stereotypes because, honestly, despite being a creative and imaginative authors and having an absolute blank canvas and nobody holding a gun to my head forcing me to write otherwise, I just couldn't for the life of me come up with any other conceivable way to have crafted this story despite the near infinite places this story and character could have gone. Zheesh ShabiDOO 11:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that one (or both) of you needs to define what you mean by "Thermian Argument". I see different versions online.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Between this and the other talkpage where it's been mentioned, it seems to be getting used to refer both to a particular argument and to the counterargument. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That was entirely my fault...sorry. I am supporting criticism of the thermian argument. The thermian argument [internal-rules/consistency of the fictional space justify x] or [treating text/works as worlds of their own rather than cultural artifacts] is garbage. ShabiDOO 14:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Step back and really look at something like Pokemon. From the prospective our our world there is a lot wrong there. From that POV Pokemon is a animal abuse simulator giving your "friends" a health dose of Stockholm syndrome and PTSD. Basically 10 year olds engaging in dog fighting. It is the kind of thing that leads to the dystopian world of Harrison Bergeron--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are comparing completely fictional fantastical creatures being compelled to train, with harmful human sexist and racist tropes and human women being raped? Seriously? ShabiDOO 01:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@BruceGrubb I wonder if you could define what you are both talking about? Because I'm still confused.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We are talking about the Thermian Argument which to oversimplify is defending something offensive in a piece of fiction by real world standards by in-universe reasoning.

The idea that capturing and effective torturing living sentient if not sapient creatures for your own prestige and profit like some form of freaking battle harem (There are jokes about the "help" Mr Mime gives Ash's mom and Ditto can take on human form.) is not on par with human sexist and racist tropes (Guess they don't know about the whole Jinx fiasco) only shows the special pleading that is needed to allow the 'its a Thermian Argument' defense.

Newsflash, Orcs themselves are "completely fictional fantastical creatures" and that is the very example used to establish the Thermian Argument. So to defend invoking the Thermian Argument defense we have...a Thermian Argument. (Facepalms)--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bruce you don't have a grasp of what the termian argument is. Are you Arguing for it or against it? Also...you don't seem to be able to distinguish between differentiating a text for being racist or a commentary on racism (that has nothing to do with the termian argument) and the justification of pointless racism via narrative sophistry. Debating whether something is racist is not the same as justifying racism. Try to distinguish the two. Also, yes there is a major difference between the mistreatment of outlandish creatures and the normalisation of sexist tropes. I would hardly call the first one praiseworthy, the second is very harmful. ShabiDOO`

(EC) The way you write makes you hard to understand. is defending something offensive in a piece of fiction by real world standards by in-universe reasoning would be better stated is defending something offensive (by real world standards) in a piece of fiction via in-universe reasoning, or something like that. The way you wrote it makes it seem as though 'by real world standards' modifies 'piece of fiction', rather than 'offensive'. Your referring to the counterargument as the 'Thermian Argument' defense also does not help. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 16:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I am arguing against 'invoking "that is a Thermian Argument"' regarding in-universe defense of criticism. The original presentation of this is still online which is more than be said of the original rebuttal video (supposedly taken down due to "hate speech" if some of the comments on mirror are to believed which given how dysfunctionally Youtube polices itself I can, sadly, easily see, though it could just as easily be for some copyright claim BS by one of Youtube's bots) It is a little ramblly and could be a lot tighter in how it makes its point.

Dan Olsen’s Claim that the ‘Thermian Argument’ is a Fallacy is Fallacious does a far better rebuttal as it goes over the actual Logical fallacies with Dan's position. The rebuttal says at the end "In short summary: Dan Olsen’s claim that the ‘Thermian Fallacy’ is a fallacy is a non sequitur for a very specific, non-representative context that ignores the fundamentals of good storytelling, and depends too much on Appeals to Consequences and emotional arguments" but if you know what to look for there are other fallacies denoted in the piece: ad hoc, ad hominem, confusion of correlation and causation, special pleading, and straw man (Orc Rape porn exists but it comes from Japan...which has a 1.2 per 100,000 rape rate while the US is 23.8 times more rape per 100,000. Make of that what you will.)

A point Dan ignores entirely is until recently author's generally didn't have full control of their work; what got in and what was cut or altered was at the whim of the publisher. "Cold Equations" is a case in point. The fact that is effectively a racist (the woman basically dies because she and her entire culture were stupid idiots) train wreck was totally out of poor Godwin's hands. If Godwin wanted the story published he had to give Campbell what he wanted which is the illogical effectively racist stupidly we got. I would like to think something along the lines of "The Cold Solutions" was one of the pieces Godwin submitted but was rejected by Campbell. And What of Earth? shows just how resent this problem is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Good story telling" is just a bullshit excuse. I repeat...hundreds of writers and producers make non biggoted and non harmful content every day. As for who contributes to the final product (writer, editor, producer, menacing interferers) is also entirely irrelevant. In fact...literally ANY explanation is irrelevant. If it is racist...it is racist. It doesn't ever need to be racist. If it has harmful tropes...then it has harmful tropes. It doesn't need to have them. As for your "rape rate" what the fuck? Do you honestly believe that in Japan rape happens at so much of a lower level or could that be explained by underreporting and different statistics? As for the thermian explanation being a fallacy. It is not a fallacy. The best you could say is the argument is fallacious. As for the critique of the thermian explanation being fallacious: There is no strawmanning. The thermian argument is fully and properly reported. There is no special pleading (the orc example is but one of MANY examples so even if it were a bad example, there are countless others that do a better job of explaining it). There is no appeal to emotion...I don't think you understand what appeal to emotion means. An argument can have emotional undercurrent without being a fallacious appeal to emotions. I would highly recommend brushing up on critical thinking and the fallacious. There are a few good youtube videos which explain the main ones well. They are constantly misunderstood and misused. Basically: good story telling justifies pointlessly biggoted shit with harmful tropes = harm. ShabiDOO 07:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"If it is racist...it is racist." Uh, no. As demonstrated by Jynx what one culture sees as "racist" may have totally non racist origins. That pokemon was a wild mixture of the singing fat lady of opera, Yama-uba, an icy ghost known for having long, white hair, a frayed red kimono, and dark, frost-bitten skin, and Yamanba style based off her. It is akin to saying goddess Hel (Hild) is half racist because she is sometimes depicted half black (the Oh My Goddess manga has Hild with brown skin) Even the related Ganguro style didn't have racism behind it - it was a rebellion against the norms of the Japanese cultural view of beauty by adopting the opposite.

Also, cultural tone deafness can result in racist images. The cover of Queen of the Spiders adventure case in point. Bad enough the evil Drow were black skinned. Worst the explanation of it being due to using ultravision (as opposed to the more logical infravision) underground didn't make sense...even in-universe. But to depict them as if they were the black extras out of a 1930s Tarzan movie?! Who thought that was a good idea? And the Drow are still darkskinned to this day. But there is no racism involved...just a series of really really dumb choices.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bruce if you cannot distinguish the problem of determining if something is racist (nothing to do with thermian explanation) Vs. justifying racism through the excuse of story telling...I'm not going to continue engaging with you. There is no point. ShabiDOO 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

First, multiple articles suggest that the origin you give for Jynx is wholly speculative; I could not find an official statement offering any such explanation. Second, even assuming that the origin you suggest is correct, this is still a poor defense of the Thermian argument. You are claiming that the allegation that the design of Jynx was racist is false, because the design was innocuously inspired. This justification, however, rests on out-of-universe information about decisions in the creative process. A Thermian argument would claim that the design is not racist solely on the basis of some explanation for the design given in-game. The Thermian argument fails in general because such in-world explanations are insufficient to exonerate an objectionable depiction. Such in-universe details might be usable as evidence in a broader argument, but they do not stand on their own. As for actual in-universe descriptions of Jynx, we have: "It seductively wiggles its hips as it walks", it "is known for its weird wiggling that causes people to dance", and it speaks a language which is "like human speech", but "it is impossible to tell what it is trying to say". Frankly, I do not see any path to even a token Thermian argument that the original Jynx design was not racist.

Now, to consider Pokemon more generally. For simplicity, let's assume that we are in agreement that it cannot fairly be called an animal abuse simulator or a dogfighting simulator. The question is whether we can justify this stance solely on the basis of in-universe justifications for a distinction between dogfighting and Pokemon battles; anything beyond this would cease to be a Thermian argument. Well, what have we got? From a brief bit of digging, I gather that it is stated within the games that pokeballs are comfortable and that trainers cannot coerce their Pokemon. Now, are these claims enough to justify our attitudes? It hardly seems like it. It is easy to imagine people pushing dogfighting making similar statements with regard to the dogs. People oppose dogfighting for particular reasons, and persuading them to endorse dogfighting would necessarily involve sublimating those reasons. Insofar as these reasons pertain to animal cruelty, one would expect a dogfighting advocate to portray dogfighting as something not really involving animal cruelty. Consequently, we would expect similar details in a game made by such a person as we actually see in Pokemon. Note that this doesn't mean our belief is unjustified, only that our belief requires justification from details about the real world, not just about the game world. And this makes sense. What would be really persuasive evidence that Pokemon is a dogfighting simulator? Well, one thing would be if the creator were arrested for dogfighting! 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here is a simple question that should demonstrate my point. Is the use of a swastika, regardless of context, racist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bruce you have completely ignored everything that I said. And even more, ignored what Serene just said, who took the time to investigate and type out a well thought out and reasoned reply. Ignoring this and continuing on with the same argument is void of intellectual integrity. As you have an arts degree you should be quite familiar with how intellectual exchange works. As I was referring to before: determining whether something is racist or a commentary on racism (or even an ambivalent stance on race) has nothing to do with the thermian argument. In other words, whether a swastika in a work of art was used as a blatantly racist symbol in an attempt to glorify or excuse racism OR if it was used as a symbol of hate in an attempt to critique racism OR if it was even a simple backdrop/historical-symbol to a story that had nothing to do with hate or racism at all ... IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE THERMIAN ARGUMENT. Obviously the nazi symbol can be used in a work of art to advance racism, critique racism or have nothing to do with either of those. The thermian argument simply excuses racist or tentatively racist elements, or the use of harmful sterotypes and tropes or anything within that general family...because of inworld logic/narrative structures and protects it from out-of-world critiques. To debate whether it IS racist or has harmful tropes is a different problem all together. So for example, that the case of a narrative where a woman who has been treated badly by a man ends up marrying the man because it is convenient for the plot or the rules set up by the creators of that fictional universe and void of commentary on this issue. The question as to whether it advances harmful tropes about women is one issue (nothing to do with thermian). The excuse that uasing these harmful tropes is justified because of the convenience of story telling or ensuring the internal consistency of the rules of the fictional world however (or at the very least shielding the creators from criticism of using harmful tropes) IS a different issue. That is the thermian argument. As I have said three times before it is bullshit. Creators can easily avoid this by using all of the tools available in their creative writing/production kit in their minds and the near limitless places they can go in a fictional world. If you can easily avoid harmful tropes without commentary and still make great fiction...then it should be a fairly easy straightforward decision. ShabiDOO 12:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Could someone please explain what the "Thermian Argument" is? CorruptUser 12:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As said before to oversimplify it is defending something offensive in a piece of fiction by real world standards by in-universe reasoning. The irony is that the term comes from a fictional race that can't tell fiction from reality which given the whole parody tone of the movie (Galaxy Quest) is likely a comment on typecasting by both studios and fans or perhaps on fans who can't tell the difference between the actors and the character they portray.

As Dan Olsen’s Claim that the ‘Thermian Argument’ is a Fallacy is Fallacious states "if a person is not able to differentiate between reality and fiction, the problems lie more with that person than the work of fiction."--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

False equivalence, bad example?

I find the "Winner-take-all is an anti-democratic way to run a multi-candidate election, but people would have "too much of a vote" in a purely proportional system." If anything it feels more like a non sequitor.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)