www.logicalfallacies.info/
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 8:30 AMLogical fallacies and online mediation/conflict resolution don't really seem to go hand in hand. In order to find out the truth, behind something, one must present all variables. How can this be done when online? I think it's to complex to do so. Is this your point? If it is then I get that. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 8:42 AMTake for instance the post made at 8:19am. brainstorm.tribe.net/thread/...93d2fdc8 - This person is very sure of him/herself and his/her world view on the behaviour of others. How is that someone can assert such knowledge when in reality them asserting such is, in theory, trollish behaviour. Take for instance bravity. Is one not brave if they do not stand up to their abusers (percieved or otherwise) or are they infact brave because they don't succumb to their weaknesses that being retaliation through upset and anger. What if retaliating is the easiest way to deal with issues of abuse but the payoff in the long run hurts one more? I'm simply using this particular post as an example and not really trying to pin one over the other/ I just feel that it is an honest example of logical fallacy as it is said with such accuracy rather than explorative measures.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 8:59 AMTwo rednecks agreed that they weren't going anywhere in life and decided they should go to college to get ahead. The first redneck then went and saw an undergraduate advisor, who told him to take math, history, and logic.
"What's 'logic'?" the first redneck asked.
The professor answered by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed-eater?"
"I sure do."
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.
"That's real good!" said the redneck.
The professor continued, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house."
Impressed, the redneck said, "Amazin!"
"And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."
"That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck was obviously catching on.
"Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor.
"You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!"
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway, where his friend was waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin'?" asked the friend.
"Math, history, and logic!" replied the first redneck.
"What in tarnation is 'logic?'" asked his friend.
"Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed-eater?" asked the first redneck.
"No," his friend replied.
"You is queer, ain't ya?"
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 9:07 AMlove!
www.youtube.com/watch
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the world's asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.
Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!
At night, when all the world's asleep,
the questions run so deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 12:00 PMTwo rednecks
--------------
good joke, but none of that was logic.
guesses aren't logic. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 12:05 PMlol. perhaps. i got a c+ in my 1st year logistics class. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 12:07 PMi believe the point in the joke is the variables taken to draw the conclusion as well as the variables NOT taken to draw the conclusion. -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 1:09 PMsometimes called a slippery slope.
The first questioner used a combination of logic and reasonable conjecture, and slowly made their way up the slope. The second sequence, the redneck jumps off a slippery slope;
and to an apparent wrong conclusion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 11:58 AMLogical fallacies and online mediation/conflict resolution don't really seem to go hand in hand. In order to find out the truth, behind something, one must present all variables. How can this be done when online? I think it's to complex to do so. Is this your point? If it is then I get that.
----------------
I think that theres a lot of variables, but i think that verbal forms of information have a better chance of covering all of them than person to person.
I'd like to cover all of the variables, and, i think that we can do so over time.
-
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Fri, October 6, 2006 - 6:32 PM
"I'd like to cover all of the variables, and, i think that we can do so over time."
Prom, that's a good way to go. It's also a good thing to remember that the time taken to cover all the variables can change/alter, multiple the variables at hand!!! I have in the past learned that lesson the hard way. I'm so damned analytical it's pathetic!!!
Amethyst -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Mon, October 9, 2006 - 12:33 PMits true that its a complicated set of issues; and that is why i am not diving straight into an attempt to just download, but taking this as it comes one step at a time.
In some senses thats all we can do; cross bridges as we come to them.
I'd prefer to do that together and supporting each other than to have everybody setting out
to face the world alone. -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 2:07 PMi suppose that the best way to approach it is to lurk if you are curious in the troll thread on
the brainstorm tribe.
:) -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Mon, May 19, 2008 - 8:58 PMPrinciples of Rhetoric
Rhetorical Context
Subject — Identifies the topic about which you are writing.
Audience — Indicates the person or persons to whom you are writing.
Purpose — Signals your expectations for the outcome of your writing.
Occasion — Marks the event or impulse which has prompted you to write.
For example, you may decide to write a letter to the editor of your city's paper protesting the rezoning of your neighborhood from a "housing" zone to a "commercial" zone. In this case, your rhetorical context is as follows:
Subject — rezoning of my neighborhood from "housing" to "commercial"
Audience — members of my immediate community; opponents of rezoning; newspaper readers in my area
Purpose — to persuade lawmakers to halt rezoning efforts; to encourage resistance to (and possible protest of) rezoning
Occasion — local lawmakers' decision to rezone my community
Or, in a business setting, you may be called on to write a grant for new computers for your office, in which case, your rhetorical context may read as follows:
Subject — necessity of acquiring new computers for the office
Audience — administrators of grant monies
Purpose — to persuade administrators to give you grant money
Occasion — office computers are inadequate for current office needs
Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are just what their name would suggest-breaks in logic. When you work to create an argument, you need to make sure that you use logic correctly. Doing so will improve your credibility as a writer and will give your readers a compelling reason to support your argument. While you will encounter countless logical fallacies in your daily life and through various media, be sure to confront them for what they are: weak rhetoric. As arguments, these reasons may seem compelling at first, but they break down over time because of their inherent faultiness. So, when you are writing, be sure to avoid the following fallacies in your own logic:
Ad Hominem - Disparaging the character of a person rather than attacking his argument
Bandwagon appeals - Suggesting that everyone is doing it, so why shouldn't you
Begging the question - Restating the claim and passing it off as evidence
Either-or - Suggesting that only two choices exist in a complex situation
False analogies - Assuming without sufficient proof that if objects or processes are similar in some ways, then they are similar in other ways as well
Hasty generalization - Making a broad claim made on the basis of a few occurrences
Name calling - Linking a person, or idea, to a negative symbol
Non sequitur (it does not follow) - Tying together two unrelated ideas-using irrelevant proof to buttress a claim
Oversimplification - Reducing multiple causes to just one or a few
Polarization - Exaggerating positions and groups by representing them as extreme and divisive
Post hoc fallacy - Assuming that things that follow in time have a causal relationship
Rationalization - Coming up with excuses or weak explanations for behavior that avoids actual causes
Slippery slope - Assuming that if the first step is taken, other steps necessarily follow -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Mon, May 19, 2008 - 9:00 PMFallacies: alphabetic list (full list)
Disciplines > Argument > Fallacies alphabetic list
Fallacies are statements that are logically false, but which often appear to be true. Here are most of the known fallacies, in alphabetic order (see also the unique list of fallacies, which is shortened by removing the alternative names):
* Absurd Extrapolation: see Slippery Slope
* Abusive Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
* Accent: Emphasis that changes the meaning of the sentence.
* Accident: A general rule used to explain a specific case not covered by it.
* Ad Absurdum: see Appeal to Ridicule
* Ad Antiquitatem: see Appeal to Tradition
* Ad Baculum: see Appeal to Fear
* Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
* Ad Hominem Abusive: see Attack the person
* Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: See Personal Inconsistency
* Ad Ignorantium: see Argument from Ignorance
* Ad Metum: see Appeal to Fear
* Ad Misericordiam: see Appeal to Pity
* Ad Nauseum: see Repetition
* Ad Novitam: see Appeal to Novelty
* Ad Numeram: see Appeal to Common Practice
* Ad Populum: see Appeal to Common Belief or Bandwagon
* Ad Verecundiam: see Appeal to Authority
* Affirming the Consequent: If A then B. B is true, so A is true.
* Alleged Certainty: see Assertion
* Amphibology: see Amphiboly
* Amphiboly: A sentence has two different meanings.
* Appeal to Authority: Referencing an 'expert'.
* Appeal to Belief: see Appeal to Common Belief.
* Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.
* Appeal to Common Practice: If others do it, it must be ok to do it too.
* Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: see Wishful thinking
* Appeal to Emotion: If it feels good, it must be true.
* Appeal to Fear: Gaining compliance through threat.
* Appeal to Force: see Appeal to Fear
* Appeal to Ignorance: see
* Appeal to Majority: see Common Belief
* Argument from ignorance
* Appeal to Novelty: Newer is better.
* Appeal to Pity: Going for the sympathy vote.
* Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking the other person's claim.
* Appeal to Sympathy: see Appeal to Pity
* Appeal to Tradition: It has always been done this way, so this way is right.
* Argument from Ignorance: Accepting circumstantial evidence.
* Assertion: What I say is true.
* Attack the Person: Distracting them from their argument.
* Bandwagon: see Appeal to Common Belief
* Begging the Question: Circular reasoning to prove assumed premise.
* Biased Sample: see Unrepresentative Sample
* Bifurcation: see False Dilemma
* Black and White Thinking: see Excluded Middle
* Burden of proof: see Argument from Ignorance
* Canceling Hypotheses: see Conspiracy Theory
* Chicken and Egg argument: see Begging the Question
* Circular Definition: see Begging the Question
* Circular Reasoning: see Begging the Question
* Circulus in Demonstrando: see Begging the Question
* Circumstantial Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
* Complex Question: two questions, one answer allowed.
* Composition: Generalizing from a few to the whole set.
* Consequences: see Appeal to Fear
* Conspiracy Theory: Reframe refutation as further proof.
* Converse Accident: see Hasty Generalization
* Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: see False Cause
* Denying the Antecedent: If A then B. A is false, so B is false.
* Destroying the Exception: see Accident
* Dicto Simpliciter: see Accident
* Discredit: see Poisoning the Well
* Division: Assuming the parts have the characteristics of the whole.
* Double Bind: see Complex Question
* Ecological fallacy: Conclusion about individual from group data.
* Exception fallacy: Conclusions about group from individual data.
* Either/Or: see False Dilemma
* Emphasis: see Accent
* Equivocation: A single word with more than one meaning.
* Excluded Middle: Only extreme views are valid.
* Fallacy of Exclusion: see Unrepresentative Sample
* False Analogy: X has property Y. Z is like X. So Z has property Y.
* False Cause: A causes B (but no proof).
* False Compromise: Extreme views are wrong. The middle way is right.
* False Dichotomy: see False Dilemma or Excluded Middle
* False Dilemma: Choice is A or B. Rejecting A is selecting B.
* False Division: see Division
* False Effect: A is assumed to cause B. B is proven wrong, so A is wrong.
* False Metaphor: see False Analogy
* False Question: see Complex Question
* Faulty Induction: see Composition
* Faulty Deduction: see Division
* Four Terms: All A is B. All C is D. So all A is D.
* From Ignorance: see Argument from ignorance
* Gambler's Fallacy: Chance can be predicted.
* Generalization: see Composition
* Hasty Generalization: Generalizing from too-small a sample.
* Hasty Induction: see Hasty Generalization
* Ignorance of Refutation: see Missing the Point
* Ignoratio Elenchi: see Missing the Point
* Illicit Major: All X is Y. No P (which is a subset of Y) is X. Therefore no P is Y.
* Illicit Minor: All X are Y. All X are P. Therefore all P are Y.
* In a Certain Respect and Simply: Extending assumed boundaries too far.
* Inconsistency: see Logical Inconsistency
* Inductive Generalization: see Hasty Generalization
* Insignificance: Making a minor cause seem major.
* Insufficient Sample: see Hasty Generalization
* Insufficient Statistics: see Hasty Generalization
* In Terrorem: see Appeal to Fear
* Irrelevant Conclusion: see Missing the Point
* Leaping to Conclusion: see Hasty Generalization
* Loaded Question: see Complex Question
* Logical Inconsistency: Arguments that contradict one another.
* Lonely Fact: see Hasty Generalization
* Many Questions: overloading them with lots of questions.
* Missing the Point: Drawing the wrong conclusion.
* Nagging: see Repetition
* Non Causa Pro Causa: see False Effect
* Non Sequitur: See Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent or Missing the Point.
* Petitio Principii: see Begging the Question
* Personal Inconsistency: Past words or deeds do not match claim.
* Plurium Interrogationum: see Many Questions
* Poisoning the Well: Discrediting the person before they speak.
* Polarization: see Excluded Middle
* Post Hoc: X follows Y. Therefore X is caused by Y.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: see Post Hoc
* Questionable Cause: see False Cause
* Reasoning in a Circle: see Begging the Question
* Red Herring: Distracting with an irrelevancy.
* Reductio ad Absurdum: see Appeal to Ridicule
* Repetition: Repeating something makes it more true.
* Scare Tactics: see Appeal to Fear
* Secundum quid et simpliciter: see In a Certain Respect and Simply
* Slippery Slope: Loosely connected statements with ridiculous conclusion.
* Social Conformance: Agree with me or be socially isolated.
* Splitting the Difference: see False Compromise
* Statistical Generalization: see Hasty Generalization
* Strawman: Attack a weak argument used by the other person.
* Style over Substance: An attractive presentation makes it more right.
* Sweeping Generalization: see Accident
* Undistributed Middle: All A is B. All C is B. Therefore all C is A.
* Unrepresentative Sample: What is true about any sample is also true about the population.
* Value of Community: see Appeal to Common Belief
* Weak Analogy: see False Analogy
* Wishful Thinking: A is true because I want it to be true.
* You too: See Personal Inconsistency
changingminds.org/disciplin..._alpha.htm -
-
Re: Logical Fallacies
Mon, May 19, 2008 - 9:01 PMndex
1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right
-
-
-
-
-
-
-