The Fallacy Thread

[Corax_1990]

So it seems barely a day goes by without some politician somewhere basing an opinion or an argument on a logical fallacy. It i the recognition of such failures of logic that allows us to call people on this bullshit. So I ask you, my Escapist chums, which logical fallacy really burns you up and makes you want to tear a new expletive in something?

For me, it is the good old fashioned Slippery Slope, asserting that if 'A' happens, then 'Z' will subsequently happen, therefore 'A' should not be allowed to happen. Gay marriage opponents are big fans of this one.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

I hate those ads too, what gets me with the first one is that British American Tobacco lobbies heavily in favour of keeping Cannabis banned. Hypocrites much?

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

 

[AJvsRonin]

Probably for me is "begging the question" where the premise is the conclusion.

Also arguments from authority.

As a scientist and somebody who majored in Ecology I get stuck in stupid evolution debates a lot where those two are used where the other person says something along the lines of:

Which evolved first, males or females and how long apart were they?

Or they quote Darwin or some other biologist/scientist (usually a misquote or cherry picked from a broader statement). Specifically one comes to mind where Darwin mentioned the evolution of the eye and says it Ridiculous to think it evolved. But in the very next sentence goes on to explain how it could have happened, but they conveniently leave that part out.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I hate those ads too, what gets me with the first one is that British American Tobacco lobbies heavily in favour of keeping Cannabis banned. Hypocrites much?

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

Of course you would not get that, just like Hitler you would not understand the comparison.

EDIT: It was a joke, of course Hitler would get the comparison.
EDIT2: That was another joke.


For me it's not understanding what a scientific theory is.
As in: "Evolution is just a theory"

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I guess I would say that Composition and Division fallacies often prompts me to sigh in...well, let's say a negative manner for diplomatic reasons. I also have a major pet peeve against people making one of the False Cause fallacies.

People mistaking an appeal to authority for an appeal to misleading authority are quite annoying too.

 

[Vault101]

and the second is the slippery-slope fallacy.

I just want to ask a geniune question....

but why is the "slippery slope" thing a fallacy?...becase...it kind of seems like a "thing"

first Homosexuality was decriminalised...then it was slowly accepted...then we *may* one day (hopefully) get gay marrage..

from the veiwpoint of some homophobe bigot that seems like a slippery slope

and not just homosexuality but other taboos and Ideas seem to get broken down over time...

 

[Vegosiux]

The "fallacy fallacy" is the one that gets my goat. Making a logical fallacy does not mean you're wrong, it means you've not argued your case well. Nothing more, nothing less.

Slippery slope, appeal to emotion, appeal to obscure or irrelevant authority, and strawmen of all kinds are all close seconds.

 

[AJvsRonin]

and the second is the slippery-slope fallacy.

I just want to ask a geniune question....

but why is the "slippery slope" thing a fallacy?... because...it kind of seems like a "thing"

If I understand correctly it's when there's several steps in the slope and it's the validity of the probability of those other steps that defines as a fallacy/not a fallacy.

i.e. if a tree falls in the woods, it will knock over another tree which will knock over another tree and so on. Ergo, one tree falls over they all do.

This logic is flawed because it assumes all trees are easily knocked over and have the same probability of falling and knocking over other trees and that all it takes to knock over a tree is having a tree near it fall. When in reality there are a lot of variables to consider, like how sparse are the trees (too tight and fall does nothing as the fall has no momentum, too far and they miss each other) also tress aren't lined up one beside the other.

In the case of say dominoes lined up, then it wouldn't be a fallacy as the odds of each one knocking over the next is high and their order is not random (or as random as a forest anyway) and doesn't have the same number of variables...

 

[FrostyChick]

I just want to ask a geniune question....

but why is the "slippery slope" thing a fallacy?...becase...it kind of seems like a "thing"

first Homosexuality was decriminalised...then it was slowly accepted...then we *may* one day (hopefully) get gay marrage..

from the veiwpoint of some homophobe bigot that seems like a slippery slope

and not just homosexuality but other taboos and Ideas seem to get broken down over time...

Not quite right there. The slipery slope argument is more along the lines of one action causing another, where the later action has only a vague similarity to the first. Generally it's one small action leading to a disproportionate action.

In the case of homosexuality. Gay marriage would logically be the next step after decriminalising homosexuality. So it wouldn't really be a good example of that kind of fallacy.

An example of a better (or is that worse?) slipery slope would be: decriminalising homosexuality will lead to decriminalising bestiality.
Not to judge. But can you see how bizarre it sounds to compare an act between 2 consenting adults and something that would require a massive rewrite of consent laws?

 

[johnnyLupine]

I hate those ads too, what gets me with the first one is that British American Tobacco lobbies heavily in favour of keeping Cannabis banned. Hypocrites much?

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

Of course you would not get that, just like Hitler you would not understand the comparison.

EDIT: It was a joke, of course Hitler would get the comparison.
EDIT2: That was another joke.


For me it's not understanding what a scientific theory is.
As in: "Evolution is just a theory"

It is/was/may be. After all none of this may be real, demons, brains in jars and mad scientists, the matrix and all that jazz. I do not mean to direct this at you or anyone else in this thread so far, I just believe that this may be a good way of moving onto my next point. I think its quite funny when certain people are so hellbent on proving their scientist credentials that they become just as zelous as some of the religious people they have been trying to discredit. (I rather liked the episode of southpark which delt with this)

an example would be those who claim faith is pointless or redundant because faith, by its very nature, requires you to believe in something with little to no quantifyable evidence while they themselves believe, with little to no concrete evidence, that the world around them even exists at all. Of course numbers are nice and logical and since they can be mostly delt with in the mind they can be quantified, I would assume, its when you try to apply them to the world outside of the mind when things become complicated, not that measuring things is pointless, we can see a world out there (even if it does not exist, even if it does exist but we do not see it as it really is..etc..etc.) and no matter where it comes from or how our senses may have twisted it it still has rules and we can make measurements and try to work out how those rules work, all im saying is that there is still an element of faith behind believing in our own senses as we do and it seems daft to condem others for having faith in another idea.

I also expect that this sort of reply is likely to be on someones hated fallacy list, or has at least made me out as pretentious or somesuch. there probably isnt much I can do to undo that, I probably wont bother trying.

 

[lacktheknack]

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

You didn't Godwin the thread, you pointed out that Godwin's Law is a fallacy. Which it is.

OT: Chewbacca Defenses are fun, but infuriating.

 

[lacktheknack]

The "fallacy fallacy" is the one that gets my goat. Making a logical fallacy does not mean you're wrong, it means you've not argued your case well. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is also true.

For example, if someone says "The Earth is demonstrably flat", and I say "No, the Earth is demonstrably spherical, and you're just too stupid to see it", I've just invoked Ad Hominem, but does that make me wrong?

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

The "fallacy fallacy" is the one that gets my goat. Making a logical fallacy does not mean you're wrong, it means you've not argued your case well. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is also true.

For example, if someone says "The Earth is demonstrably flat", and I say "No, the Earth is demonstrably spherical, and you're just too stupid to see it", I've just invoked Ad Hominem, but does that make me wrong?

Technically, you haven't made an ad Homninem; you have made a personal attack, because the hypothetical person making the the statement that the Earth is flat might actually be too stupid/close-minded to see it is wrong. For it to be an ad Hominem, intelligence would have to be irrelevant (though one may argue it is).

One might say it wouldn't be terribly mature, though.

 

[Vegosiux]

OT: Chewbacca Defenses are fun, but infuriating.

What, I ask, would a wookie - an 8ft tall wookie! - be doing on Endor with a bunch of 2ft ewoks!?

It's actually one of my favorite fallacies when played for irony.

Also, technically it's the best strategy you can use in Tali's trial in ME2, since it both acquits her and gets you her loyalty...without addressing the charges against her at all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The Just World Fallacy. If someone has something bad happen to them, it msut be somehow their fault, and anyone who is successful deserves to be.

Pisses me off no end.

 

[Bobic]

I hate those ads too, what gets me with the first one is that British American Tobacco lobbies heavily in favour of keeping Cannabis banned. Hypocrites much?

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

Of course you would not get that, just like Hitler you would not understand the comparison.

EDIT: It was a joke, of course Hitler would get the comparison.
EDIT2: That was another joke.


For me it's not understanding what a scientific theory is.
As in: "Evolution is just a theory"

It is/was/may be. After all none of this may be real, demons, brains in jars and mad scientists, the matrix and all that jazz. I do not mean to direct this at you or anyone else in this thread so far, I just believe that this may be a good way of moving onto my next point. I think its quite funny when certain people are so hellbent on proving their scientist credentials that they become just as zelous as some of the religious people they have been trying to discredit. (I rather liked the episode of southpark which delt with this)

an example would be those who claim faith is pointless or redundant because faith, by its very nature, requires you to believe in something with little to no quantifyable evidence while they themselves believe, with little to no concrete evidence, that the world around them even exists at all, that anything, besides the idea of numbers or the idea of a measurement, done inside our own mind, can be quantified with certainty.

Yes, but those scientific laws we find can be proven to work and be quite useful in our current system, be it simulation or not. Praying can be proven to do jack shit. It doesn't matter if the universe is simulated or not, for all intents and purposes, it does exist (even a simulation exists), and these scientific laws are our way of understanding the thing we live inside, regardless of whether we happen to be a sub-routine or not. It is not the same thing as blind faith.

As for mine, I'm not sure what the technical term would be, but when people use emotional arguments as proof against scientific theory. The specific example I'm thinking of is when people argue against global warming with such compelling arguments as 'It just seems arrogant for man to assume he can affect the globe like that'. Now, I'm not going to state where I stand on the debate, and don't want to get in a discussion about how it's caused. But that is not an argument. You can't dismiss scientific evidence with 'yeah, that doesn't seem to fit my philosophy', you dismiss it with actual conflicting evidence. The universe doesn't care if something doesn't feel right to you, it just does what it does.

 

[Burnswell]

and the second is the slippery-slope fallacy.

I just want to ask a geniune question....

but why is the "slippery slope" thing a fallacy?...becase...it kind of seems like a "thing"

first Homosexuality was decriminalised...then it was slowly accepted...then we *may* one day (hopefully) get gay marrage..

from the veiwpoint of some homophobe bigot that seems like a slippery slope

and not just homosexuality but other taboos and Ideas seem to get broken down over time...

It's a fallacy because you haven't shown why it would lead to another, you're making a baldfaced assertion with no logic or evidence and then try to justify it using association it with something bad. "You can't let kids have medicine, next thing you know they'll be on drugs!"

The reason why its false is that you're skipping the reasoning behind getting to your conclusion. You could say something like you can't let x = 5, because y will = 7!. You've just changed the subject halfway between the two and given absolutely no reason to believe its linked at all.

As for your comment that other taboos and ideas seem to get broken down, I'd say that's not correct either. In the past century we've made lots of things illegal which never used to be. My dad used to tell me how he could go down to the general store when he was 8 and buy some dynamite and some tobacco for his dad. Now they've put in all the age restriction, the food safety, the work safety, the gun safety... etc. There are so many things that are taboo solely because they're illegal. The real question can a good case be made for them to be illegal in the first place? In the case of gay marriage its a case of some religions pushing their practices onto people who arn't members of their religion using what is supposed to be secular law. There's no more reason to ban gay marriage than there is to ban shellfish or cloth made from multiple fabrics.

 

[WoW Killer]

Vacuous and purposefully general statements. This covers the majority of what politicians will tell you. They'll say things like "we want to reduce unemployment". What a fucking great idea. I bet the opposition never thought of that. In fact, I bet the opposition actually wants unemployment to remain high. Right? Fuck it, no more explanation needed; I'm voting for you.

 

[Realitycrash]

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

You didn't Godwin the thread, you pointed out that Godwin's Law is a fallacy. Which it is.

OT: Chewbacca Defenses are fun, but infuriating.

And the correct name for said fallacy would be Equivalence Fallacy.

 

[Realitycrash]

The Just World Fallacy. If someone has something bad happen to them, it msut be somehow their fault, and anyone who is successful deserves to be.

Pisses me off no end.

And in equal sense, The Mean World Fallacy.
Since the majority of news are about negative, horrible things, the majority of the world must be negative and horrible.

I feel it's responsible for a whole lot of people thinking the world is grim and hopeless.