8 replies to this topic

[Plenoptic]

Well like the topic says, "What is a Fallacy?" A fallacy basically is invalid reasoning. There are many types of fallacies and I'll start with a couple and add more or give a link to more.

Dicto Simpliciter - This fallacy is when someone generalizes something the wrong way. For example: Exercise is good, so everyone should exercise. Well if you have a heart disease you shouldn't exercise because it could make things worse. So you should say, "Exercising is usually good."

Hasty Generalization - This is like an experiment with only one trial, you can't really make assumptions because you have too few instance to support your inference. Example: If I can't speak French, and Saint_Michael and jlhaslip can't speak French, then no one on Trap17 can speak French.

Post Hoc - This one is hard to define, you are connecting too causes and effects that can't really be placed together. Example: Bill can't come to the baseball game because every time he comes it rains. But really, Bill has nothing to do with rain it's just coincidental.

Contradictory Premises - the basis's of an argument contradict each other really not giving an argument. Example: If God can do anything, then can he make a stone that he himself can not lift? Well, if God can do anything he would be able to create the rock but then he wouldn't be able to lift it which means he can't do anything. And if he can't create a rock too heavy for him to lift then once again he can't do everything.

They are sort of confusing at first but really they make sense. There are a lot more I found a link here. http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

[keri-j]

Hmm, I've always wanted to properly understand what a fallacy is.... And now I do I have realised that I point them out to my friends often, and quite enjoy discussing about how or why something is a fallacy with my more intellectual friends.... Or explaining it to the not so smart friends of mine. Thanks

[sportytalk]

Well, i suppose I was in a similar position to keri-j. I had heard of the word fallacy but I didn't know what fallacies actually were / didn't understand how they work.

Thanks for explaining all about fallacies Plenoptic, your post is very nicely laid out, nice to read (there isn't too much text and it's not dull) and your post is very easy to understand

Edited by sportytalk, 16 November 2006 - 11:35 PM.

[ariolander]

I am studying these in my Logic class right now.

We have 8 different types of fallacies and they all have their distinctive signs. Here is my chapter simplified:

Ad Ignoratium Argument from Ignorance
Premises - Nothing is known with certainty about x
Conclusion - Makes a definite claim about x

Ad Hominen, Abusive
Premises - Attack the character of someone presenting an argument
Conclusion - Rejects other argument's conclusion

Ad Verecundiam Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Premises - Cite an authority in field A
Conclusion - Makes a conclusion in field B

Ad Hominen, Circumstantial
Premises - Attack the motives of someone presenting an argument; claims bias or self intrest
Conclusion - Rejects the conclusion of that person's argument

Ad Populum Appeal to Emotion
Premises - Mention some popular belief, prejudice; appeal to the desire to be included
Conclusion - Unsupported by reason

Ad Misericordian Appeal to Pitty
Premises - Evoke pitty
Conclusion - Recomends unwise remedy

Ad Baculum Appeal to Force
Premises - Suggests or states a threat
Conclusion - Unsupported by reason

Ignoratio Eleuchi Irrelevent Conclusion
Premises - Support Conclusion A
Conclusion B - Unsupported
Conclusion A


These are hte most common fallacies according to my book. Sure you can make a contradictory argument but that isn't a fallacy so much that it is false and is simply an invalid form.

[Voidless_Shadows]

The last one sounds like a paradox, I guess essentially it is, I'm good at breaking my point in arguments with my arguments when I'm not really too sure what I even think

[Plenoptic]

There are probably hundreds of fallacies out there. Very common ones would be like Stereotypes or Circular Reasoning. Circular reasoning being when you restate the question as your reason. Example: "I think we all should have cake, because cake is what we should have." Probably not the best example but I forget what the other one I had before was. They are really interesting and now when I listen to a conversation these things pop into my head on why their sentence doesn't make sense and it scares me.

[TeeCee06]

That is very interesting. I have thought about things like that before and I never knew it actually had a name... That really makes you think about things and after reading this im thinking of my own.

[rval]

A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole, except in the case of begging the question, a false analogy and other informal fallacies. In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy, or logical fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.

Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities. A similar approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory.

Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. As we illustrate with various examples, fallacies may also exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.

A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[zyzzyvette]

Plenoptic, on Nov 17 2006, 12:17 PM, said:

There are probably hundreds of fallacies out there. Very common ones would be like Stereotypes or Circular Reasoning. Circular reasoning being when you restate the question as your reason. Example: "I think we all should have cake, because cake is what we should have." Probably not the best example but I forget what the other one I had before was. They are really interesting and now when I listen to a conversation these things pop into my head on why their sentence doesn't make sense and it scares me.

I thought that "God is real because he created the Earth" was one, because you assume the conclusion is true in the premise.

Another fairly popular one is the "Bandwagon fallacy" (can't remember the specific Latin name, but it is a form of Non-Sequitur); it goes a bit like this:

"Most people I know like cupcakes over cake, therefore cupcakes are better."
"65% of people agree that global warming is fake, so it must be"

etc. There's a good website that covers fallacies called "fallacyfiles", and it lists a whole whack of fallacies under their Latin and English names, with explanations of what each is, examples, and why it's logically incorrect. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but its still a pretty extensive resource if you're interested in this sort of thing.