It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Rhetological Fallacies -- Errors & Manipulations Of Rhetoric and Logical Thinking

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:31 AM
So I found this lovely gem while stumbling the internet last night.

Although I have seen pages similar to this, I find that this one has a far better layout than it's other known incarnations as well as better examples, that are easier understood.

We are all guilty of using one or more of these fallacies in order to win a debate, especially here on ATS. I was surprised to have learned a few new fallacies that I have used quite recently in fact.

I will do my part to minimize the use of these and make it so that I have better debate skills and appeal to less fallacies.

The Manipulating Content & Faulty Deductions are among my favorites and IMO the most seen here on ATS.

Let's begin the discussion about these, all of them or some of them. I would like members to pick those they've used and those they hate being seen used.

edit on 8/22/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:12 AM
That would make a cool poster.

If only everyone understood logical fallacies (most people have never even heard of them) there would be no such thing as advertising and or marketing, among other things!

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff

You make a great point.

I had no thought of marketing and advertising, but you are right. There would be absolutely nothing like that if people understood how easy it was to be fooled using these.


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:18 AM
Slippery Slope is my favourite fallacy

A fire cracker was set off in Tehran today --> Injuries reported from firework --> Injuries from explosion -->Iran suffering from internal explosions ---> Iran bombing its own citizens


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:32 AM
Great find Tenth, you have me looking into this a lot more.

Here is another good one which is common place here on ATS

False Cause Fallacy:

False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of "false cause."


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by MDDoxs

Yeah the list of applicable fallacies found in our community is astounding, then again, it's far less than I see at other forums I frequent.

Perhaps having more information about these will make this place even that much better?


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

It will help for sure. It will enable ATS members to think critically about the sources they read, before they post and someone else tears into them for fallacy errors.

Again the list of Fallacies can go on and on. Your chart provided is a very good way to view some common categories.
edit on 22-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Loved it! Thanks....

It took me back to a million and one arguments. Recognized them all.

Call me ignorant, but what it the flip side of this? How on Earth does one present an argument then? How do possibly avoid these pitfalls?

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:19 AM
In advertising people do understand that they are looking at a paid message.

But things we learn at news, editorials and documents are more connive. The message comes right after some disturbing event, accessing penetration to the mind.


log in