Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallicies

Since we are in the midst of an election cycle, debate and polarity are at the extreme. It's a fun time to read all the different viewpoints but it can also be frustrating as hell seeing the same arguments constantly repeating themselves.

While I enjoy reading good debates on this site, there are far to many logical fallacies in arguments that make many topics mundane as they rehash the same points over and over.

I, for one, enjoy an opposing argument - but only if it challenges my stance with logic.

With that said, I figured this would be a good time to post this little nugget that I like to refer back to occasionally when I'm in a debate. It's both a war chest and a guide on self-correcting one's argument;

Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallicies

It is a poster to all the different types of logical fallacies. From 'strawman' arguments to 'burden of proof' and 'no true Scotsman'. It outlines 24 total logical fallacies.

And IMHO, it should be the automatic link when a person types the ATS motto, Deny Ignorance.

Here is a screen shot of the poster(low res, website has high res):



They have done a nice job on identifying logical fallacies. Your political, social, racial, gender, or alien stance are irrelevant. Use it for self reflection on how you debate, or as a war chest on who you debate with - either way brings value.



Ghost

(FYI: I'm not affiliated with this site. The digital poster is free but they offer an option for purchasing a physical poster)

Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallicies

One person's logical fallacy is another person's illogical truth
Me

Yeah, but for most of the people who commit said fallacies to understand the fallacies in the first place, they would have to understand logic and its basis.

On a side note: I remember freshman logic class at Ole Miss. I proved Aristotle's square of opposition wrong using the square of opposition. Ask me to do it again, and I probably couldn't.

a reply to: ghostrager

Just dropping this vid on the subject that might help understand and could probably be used in conjunction with your chart .

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Your reply could fall under 'False Cause' as a fallacy.

Everyone commits fallacies on a daily basis, often even when they are using logic.

These are really just shortcuts to end the debate as soon as possible(or expidite it), with hopes that the opponent can't use another fallacy against them.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
On a side note: I remember freshman logic class at Ole Miss. I proved Aristotle's square of opposition wrong using the square of opposition. Ask me to do it again, and I probably couldn't.

Correct. I remember in my symbolic logic class it was possible to prove "A" and "Not-A" just by using different paths. If "A" implies "B" and "B" implies "C" then "A" implies "C" You know the drill. When you attach actual statements to each symbol, you can see that it is possible to "prove" anything using the rules of logic. I pointed this out to my professor. He told me with a grimace that it was considered "not fair" to do it the way I showed him. I couldn't do it today either, but it was a very fun class. I'm all in favor of using logical arguments, but I know that it is a form of rhetoric, and when mastered by lawyers, can be used to prove OJ is guilty--or innocent--depending on who can weave a better picture.

Long ago I developed a sort of little shortcut to mostly ensure avoiding committing logical fallacies, especially for people not totally familiar with the great many of them:

Absolutism Terminology: How to not sound like an Idiot.

Just because someone uses fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily mean the person is incorrect.

To conclude thus on such a basis alone would be, in itself, fallacious reasoning. People love to cry "fallacy!" to shut down discussion by using it as a means to invalidate someone's argument. And while the argument may indeed employ questionable logic, it doesn't mean the person is wrong.

Something to keep in mind the next time you go pointing your fingers at people you don't agree with, using anything and everything at your disposal to discredit them instead of considering their conclusions, which may be valid.

a reply to: NthOther

People also love to scream fallacies to shut down peoples arguments.

Sometimes the only way to shut them up is to start busting out the old LFL.

originally posted by: NthOther
Just because someone uses fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily mean the person is incorrect.

To conclude thus on such a basis alone would be, in itself, fallacious reasoning. People love to cry "fallacy!" to shut down discussion by using it as a means to invalidate someone's argument. And while the argument may indeed employ questionable logic, it doesn't mean the person is wrong.

Something to keep in mind the next time you go pointing your fingers at people you don't agree with, using anything and everything at your disposal to discredit them instead of considering their conclusions, which may be valid.

It's funny because what you're doing is describing the fallacy fallacy and discrediting their arguments based on their fallacious consistency to discredit fallacious behavior.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Exactly. One rarely called out on internet forums. As IgnoranceIsntBlisss alluded, the fallacy appeal is a favorite of anti-free speech advocates to deflect, mischaracterize and otherwise shut down open discourse.

In case my wording sucked, I meant some people love to scream in fallacies to deflect sound argument & issues.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Sort of; I see it happen, but it's not as prominent as people actually using fallacies and smugly thinking they have accomplished something. I personally see the Texas Sharpshooter a lot and then, when going to the cited source, find more information that was conveniently left out to support the nonsensical essay-structured argument.

The problem with arguing in fallacies is exactly what both of you are getting at (I think) -- it could be completely correct but you cannot use it to convince someone of a different persuasion. They will always find a way around it because it is not absolute. Not being absolute in a point of an argument, though, certainly does not mean that you are not correct.

Taking the crayon out of someone's hand that likes purple trees seems a bit controlling... sometimes I wish the term dictator only involved a hole in a potato in human history. Ironically both types are just as perverted...