Fallacies

[Geoff332]

Here is a long ariticle on fallacies. It's long because it lists most of the common fallacies -- of which there are a lot. They give four definitions of a fallacy:

The term "fallacy" is not a precise term. One reason is that it is ambiguous. It can refer either to (a) a kind of error in an argument, (b) a kind of error in reasoning (including arguments, definitions, explanations, etc.), © a false belief, or (d) the cause of any of the previous errors including what are normally referred to as "rhetorical techniques". Philosophers who are researchers in fallacy theory prefer to emphasize meaning (a), but their lead is often not followed in textbooks and public discussion.

Whichever definition of 'fallacy' one adopts, it means that the reasoning is flawed and needs to be revised.

I highly recommend reading through the list of fallacies. Most of us here (myself included) rely more on fallacies than on sound argument.

[Sodfather]

Those are very interesting concepts; I especially like Accent - it's a sly little bugger. But, um, I thought a fallacy could simply be defined as a lie?

[Geoff332]

A fallacy is (literally) a false statement. When you knowingly make a false statement, it is a lie. When you unwittingly make a false statement, it is not a lie, but is still a fallacy.

In philosophy, a fallacy is generally not treated as intentional (there are exceptions to this rule, of course), but an unwitting error.

[RebelWithanAK]

I had already bookmarked this, I just realized. Of course, I'd have to say that all too often in political debate, fallacies are still unwitting (but entirely sincere) errors...

[xm.bretton]

The Fallacy of Retrospective Determinism

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

This is a better list.

[Geoff332]

What is it about that second list that makes it better?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

My mistake, only saw your quote, not your link. Makes them even. :)

[treme]

Here is a long ariticle on fallacies. It's long because it lists most of the common fallacies -- of which there are a lot. They give four definitions of a fallacy:
Whichever definition of 'fallacy' one adopts, it means that the reasoning is flawed and needs to be revised.

I highly recommend reading through the list of fallacies. Most of us here (myself included) rely more on fallacies than on sound argument.

And most of us here (myself included) are here to try to convince ourselves that what we believe is true.

It's possible to be persuasive with flawed logic that leads to the "right" conclusion.

The part about debate that always gets me is that we're not supposed to argue from authority but it helps the argument if we quote others and it's expected that we name drop (citations).

I think our egos are helping define these fallacies to protect themselves and their belief systems. The ego loves to have a rule to point to that automagically says, "You're wrong!"

It's easy to defend any position when there is a list of mental technicalities that immediately invalidate an argument. At the time of writing this, the Creationism vs. Evolution thread currently has 234 pages at 50 posts per page. If debate like this works, when we gonna see that last post?

There have been at least 5 fallacies added since I took logic in college.

I really like the Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy.

The first line of the description goes like so...

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

link

By that fallacy being included in the list the fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause has been committed!

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.

link

The fallacy of Confusing Cause and Effect assumes complete knowledge of the universe.

It is a fact that we don't have it.

Given this fact, if we accuse someone of being guilty of the Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy, we're guilty of not "considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of A and B." and that factor is that there are some things we just don't know.

More formally...

A = Person committing the Confusion Cause and Effect fallacy.

B = You not believing their argument.

this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected.

The more fallacies our egos add to the list, the more likely it is that one of them will falsify the entire list and render it completely meaningless.

Douglas Adams said it best...

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[PlatoNot]

I really like the Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy.

The first line of the description goes like so...
By that fallacy being included in the list the fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause has been committed!
The fallacy of Confusing Cause and Effect assumes complete knowledge of the universe.

Any logic can be discounted when the discounter gets to describe it. The cause and effect logic has nothing to do with A&B being together. It has to do with A existing. Since A has not always existed, something must have caused A to exist, say B. Then if B existed to cause A and B has not always existed, the something had to cause B. And so it goes on adinfinitum until one comes to the conclusion something always existed. That being the case, that something is responsible for everything else. Pure logic and unrefutable.

[Jack]

And so it goes on adinfinitum until one comes to the conclusion something always existed. That being the case, that something is responsible for everything else. Pure logic and unrefutable.

I disagree. Logic would dictate that if infinite regression were the case in all observable cases, then it's reasonable to conclude it applies in all conditions. Why would one come "to the conclusion something always existed" if infinite regression were the case in every other observation we made?

[SoylentGreen]

Any logic can be discounted when the discounter gets to describe it. The cause and effect logic has nothing to do with A&B being together. It has to do with A existing. Since A has not always existed, something must have caused A to exist, say B. Then if B existed to cause A and B has not always existed, the something had to cause B. And so it goes on adinfinitum until one comes to the conclusion something always existed. That being the case, that something is responsible for everything else. Pure logic and unrefutable.

And yet you seem to have done such a great job of refuting it yourself.

That "something is responsible for everything else" must, by your reasoning, also have had something to cause it to exist. something is responsible for everything else ad infinitum as you say.