Recongnizing Fallacies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2014, 08:13 AM
Recongnizing Fallacies
Most of us have been in plenty of arguments in which we have to explain our point of view to someone who is religious. The bulk of those arguments come from people who use the exact same fallacies to defend their religion. These fallacies show up in many arguments but defy logic. If you catch them in an argument, an article, a book, a show, anywhere, be skeptical. And keep thinking!

Ad Hominem- A response to an argument that attacks the arguer rather than his claim.


Example:
Liam: “When I was a Christian I prayed and prayed but God never revealed himself to me.”

Buck: “You really were never a true Christian then.””


Watch for this fallacy a lot around election time, and just everywhere on the internet. If someone is attacking you rather than your argument, they may not have a valid response to your claim.

Special Pleading- An argument that places the position above and beyond the means to analyze it.

Example:
Liam: “If all complex things must have a designer and God created us, who created him?”

Buck “He's not subject to been created .God has always just existed”


This is a particularly frustrating fallacy as it shuts down the conversation. Once invoked, the argument is effectively over, and nothing has been determined. Keep an eye out for it in religious texts, ghost and UFO writings, and new age health claims. The last in particular, as they are actively trying to separate you from your money. If someone places their argument beyond refute, it may be because the argument can’t stand otherwise.

Begging the Question/Circular Argument--Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.

Example:
Liam: "I've searched for years and I've found not one shred of evidence for the existence of a God or Gods."

Buck:The Bible is the evidence. God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.


This one in particular is rather tough. In my experience I've had to point out what actually qualifies as evidence in the scientific world(or the real world). Which usually leads to the next fallacy-straw man.


Straw Man- Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.


Example:
Buck: "If evolution is actually a fact stating we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Not knowing exactly what evolution actually is leads to a false representation and therefore making the point moot. A simple explanation that evolution will usually clear up this argument.

Fallacy of Equivocation--Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

Example:
Buck: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species."

Again false representation.


Skepticism gets a bad rap, but it isn’t simply doubting everything that sounds farfetched. Rather, it is a method of suspending judgment, one way or the other, until a topic can be properly evaluated. It is understanding that just because something can’t be explained, doesn’t mean there is no explanation. Skepticism is not jumping to conclusions. But we need tools to be a good skeptic. One of our best tools is logic.

I hope this helps out some of you and of course any of our more prominent forum members feel free to add. There are a ton more fallacies that I was too lazy to add.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like MrKrispy601's post
01-10-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
(01-10-2014 08:13 AM)MrKrispy601 Wrote:  Most of us have been in plenty of arguments in which we have to explain our point of view to someone who is religious. The bulk of those arguments come from people who use the exact same fallacies to defend their religion. These fallacies show up in many arguments but defy logic. If you catch them in an argument, an article, a book, a show, anywhere, be skeptical. And keep thinking!

Ad Hominem- A response to an argument that attacks the arguer rather than his claim.


Example:
Liam: “When I was a Christian I prayed and prayed but God never revealed himself to me.”

Buck: “You really were never a true Christian then.””


Watch for this fallacy a lot around election time, and just everywhere on the internet. If someone is attacking you rather than your argument, they may not have a valid response to your claim.

Special Pleading- An argument that places the position above and beyond the means to analyze it.

Example:
Liam: “If all complex things must have a designer and God created us, who created him?”

Buck “He's not subject to been created .God has always just existed”


This is a particularly frustrating fallacy as it shuts down the conversation. Once invoked, the argument is effectively over, and nothing has been determined. Keep an eye out for it in religious texts, ghost and UFO writings, and new age health claims. The last in particular, as they are actively trying to separate you from your money. If someone places their argument beyond refute, it may be because the argument can’t stand otherwise.

Begging the Question/Circular Argument--Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.

Example:
Liam: "I've searched for years and I've found not one shred of evidence for the existence of a God or Gods."

Buck:The Bible is the evidence. God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.


This one in particular is rather tough. In my experience I've had to point out what actually qualifies as evidence in the scientific world(or the real world). Which usually leads to the next fallacy-straw man.


Straw Man- Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.


Example:
Buck: "If evolution is actually a fact stating we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Not knowing exactly what evolution actually is leads to a false representation and therefore making the point moot. A simple explanation that evolution will usually clear up this argument.

Fallacy of Equivocation--Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

Example:
Buck: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species."

Again false representation.


Skepticism gets a bad rap, but it isn’t simply doubting everything that sounds farfetched. Rather, it is a method of suspending judgment, one way or the other, until a topic can be properly evaluated. It is understanding that just because something can’t be explained, doesn’t mean there is no explanation. Skepticism is not jumping to conclusions. But we need tools to be a good skeptic. One of our best tools is logic.

I hope this helps out some of you and of course any of our more prominent forum members feel free to add. There are a ton more fallacies that I was too lazy to add.

Not bad.

I'd question your example of an Ad-Hominem. In the provided example, the person's status as a prior Christian is actually a relevant element of the original argument, and questioning this claim can be a basis of a valid counterargument. It's actually a textbook example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. A better example of ad-hominem would be pointing out that the speaker, say, was once in rehab for drugs, so why should we believe what he said? It's a form of quibbling, in that the criticism is actually irrelevant to the initial argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
01-10-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
(01-10-2014 08:49 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 08:13 AM)MrKrispy601 Wrote:  Most of us have been in plenty of arguments in which we have to explain our point of view to someone who is religious. The bulk of those arguments come from people who use the exact same fallacies to defend their religion. These fallacies show up in many arguments but defy logic. If you catch them in an argument, an article, a book, a show, anywhere, be skeptical. And keep thinking!

Ad Hominem- A response to an argument that attacks the arguer rather than his claim.


Example:
Liam: “When I was a Christian I prayed and prayed but God never revealed himself to me.”

Buck: “You really were never a true Christian then.””


Watch for this fallacy a lot around election time, and just everywhere on the internet. If someone is attacking you rather than your argument, they may not have a valid response to your claim.

Special Pleading- An argument that places the position above and beyond the means to analyze it.

Example:
Liam: “If all complex things must have a designer and God created us, who created him?”

Buck “He's not subject to been created .God has always just existed”


This is a particularly frustrating fallacy as it shuts down the conversation. Once invoked, the argument is effectively over, and nothing has been determined. Keep an eye out for it in religious texts, ghost and UFO writings, and new age health claims. The last in particular, as they are actively trying to separate you from your money. If someone places their argument beyond refute, it may be because the argument can’t stand otherwise.

Begging the Question/Circular Argument--Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.

Example:
Liam: "I've searched for years and I've found not one shred of evidence for the existence of a God or Gods."

Buck:The Bible is the evidence. God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.


This one in particular is rather tough. In my experience I've had to point out what actually qualifies as evidence in the scientific world(or the real world). Which usually leads to the next fallacy-straw man.


Straw Man- Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.


Example:
Buck: "If evolution is actually a fact stating we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Not knowing exactly what evolution actually is leads to a false representation and therefore making the point moot. A simple explanation that evolution will usually clear up this argument.

Fallacy of Equivocation--Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

Example:
Buck: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species."

Again false representation.


Skepticism gets a bad rap, but it isn’t simply doubting everything that sounds farfetched. Rather, it is a method of suspending judgment, one way or the other, until a topic can be properly evaluated. It is understanding that just because something can’t be explained, doesn’t mean there is no explanation. Skepticism is not jumping to conclusions. But we need tools to be a good skeptic. One of our best tools is logic.

I hope this helps out some of you and of course any of our more prominent forum members feel free to add. There are a ton more fallacies that I was too lazy to add.

Not bad.

I'd question your example of an Ad-Hominem. In the provided example, the person's status as a prior Christian is actually a relevant element of the original argument, and questioning this claim can be a basis of a valid counterargument. It's actually a textbook example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. A better example of ad-hominem would be pointing out that the speaker, say, was once in rehab for drugs, so why should we believe what he said? It's a form of quibbling, in that the criticism is actually irrelevant to the initial argument.

His example is a "No-True_Scotsman" fallacy not an Ad-Hominem.

An Ad Hominem fallacy Would be something like this.

Person A: So those are the reasons why You should vote Democrat in the next election.

Person B: You're just a Libtard spouting off talking points of the "Lame-stream" Media.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-10-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
http://Www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
01-10-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
Don't forget that spurious accusations of fallacy just make you look like an idiot.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
Thanks for the correction of my ad hominem example. Was running on fumes when I wrote this up. My apologies for the misinformation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MrKrispy601's post
01-10-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
A lot of the fallacies just takes practice to recognize. Some are subtle more than others, and you have to be able to learn to recognize how people present their language in a argument to detect some of them with more ease.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2014 09:30 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
Question beggin or leading questiong as sometimes uses by lawyers

......'.Is it true that you've stopped beating your wife'.....the defendant needs to be very careful.Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: Recongnizing Fallacies
(01-10-2014 09:04 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 08:49 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Not bad.

I'd question your example of an Ad-Hominem. In the provided example, the person's status as a prior Christian is actually a relevant element of the original argument, and questioning this claim can be a basis of a valid counterargument. It's actually a textbook example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. A better example of ad-hominem would be pointing out that the speaker, say, was once in rehab for drugs, so why should we believe what he said? It's a form of quibbling, in that the criticism is actually irrelevant to the initial argument.

His example is a "No-True_Scotsman" fallacy not an Ad-Hominem.

An Ad Hominem fallacy Would be something like this.

Person A: So those are the reasons why You should vote Democrat in the next election.

Person B: You're just a Libtard spouting off talking points of the "Lame-stream" Media.

That's... exactly what I said?

Anyhow, Krispy, you might wish to note that there's some overlap. Often the same point of logical unsoundness can be classified as multiple types of fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: