We need to bring back logic and rhetoric...badly.

Since ancient times logic and retroric have been a cornerstone of any good education, but in modern times it has been relegated to a one or two class elective (debate) that almost no one takes seriously. When it is literally one of the most useful and important skills you will ever have. It not only can help you win a debate, but can far more importantly stop you from being duped by logical fallacies and other debate no nos that are constantly used in propaganda against us.

"Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.
In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.
In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.
In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.
In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.
In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families.
In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may effect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals."

owl.english.purdue.edu...

How many of the things we hear every day perfectly fit this list???

A list that would have been known by heart by anyone educated before the modern era...

Logical fallacies are the mainstay of illogical people. Expecting childish adults to use reason and logic is a fallacy. They rule thru childish antics, emotions and chaos. Their logic is denial, accusation, lies, innuendo, etc.

You can try all day to convince these kinds of people with your reason and logic, lol.

They only understand,

nuh-uhh!

uh-huh!

Is not!

Is too!

Nuh-uhhh !

Ummm, I'm telling!

No thank you. I'll agree on the logic part but we have all the rhetoric we could possibly want.

a reply to: jtma508

No thank you. I'll agree on the logic part but we have all the rhetoric we could possibly want.

Well how about a more modified version of rhetoric called articulation ...

how much rhetoric do we really need

I didn't learn logic in school. Reducing logic to a set of rules is fine. However, I've never witnessed anyone being logical because of a set of rules. I've only ever seen people call eachother out on their logical mistakes using the names of those rules while at the same time possessing logical errors in their own arguments.

I think that teaching our children to be unbiased and honest and loving of other people will teach them to become adults with integrity. Integrity is what contributes to internal and external consistency.

Then being wrong is merely a matter of innocent ignorance, which every single human possesses with ail.

I see your complaint as being illogical. Unless someone wants to be right, that one will never spend the time to be right. But if someone doesn't want to be right, your course merely gives those people the tools to justify their unrightness, if they're even clever enough to take it that far.

My humble opinion is that much education has actually made people arrogant and foolish. Knowledge is power only to those who would abuse it. It Is slavery to those who realize that the world's body of knowledge is a book of truth intermingled with lies.

The people that I can stand to hear the least are philosophers. There is a peculiar stupidity inherent in most philosophers. It's not their thinking that bothers me. It's their ideas, their speech. It always makes me feel like handing them a mop and saying, "Do something useful."

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jtma508

No thank you. I'll agree on the logic part but we have all the rhetoric we could possibly want.

Well how about a more modified version of rhetoric called articulation ...

How bout throwing in Truth.Take out the rhetoric BS. (that just means something articulated (spoken well) .

originally posted by: jtma508
No thank you. I'll agree on the logic part but we have all the rhetoric we could possibly want.

Retoric is the ability to express logic, not the common layman term.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I didn't learn logic in school. Reducing logic to a set of rules is fine. However, I've never witnessed anyone being logical because of a set of rules. I've only ever seen people call eachother out on their logical mistakes using the names of those rules while at the same time possessing logical errors in their own arguments.

I think that teaching our children to be unbiased and honest and loving of other people will teach them to become adults with integrity. Integrity is what contributes to internal and external consistency.

Then being wrong is merely a matter of innocent ignorance, which every single human possesses with ail.

I see your complaint as being illogical. Unless someone wants to be right, that one will never spend the time to be right. But if someone doesn't want to be right, your course merely gives those people the tools to justify their unrightness, if they're even clever enough to take it that far.

My humble opinion is that much education has actually made people arrogant and foolish. Knowledge is power only to those who would abuse it. It Is slavery to those who realize that the world's body of knowledge is a book of truth intermingled with lies.

The people that I can stand to hear the least are philosophers. There is a peculiar stupidity inherent in most philosophers. It's not their thinking that bothers me. It's their ideas, their speech. It always makes me feel like handing them a mop and saying, "Do something useful."

This is taking the opposite approach from philosophy and instead looking at logic like it were math..

Where you lose points for making a logical fallacy argument or the point doesn't count.

Where anytime some one make a slippery slope or over generalization, everyone notices and either disregards that point or points it out and expects more evidence.

If you look at the criteria in the op it really covers all propaganda.

You could sit there watching Fox News with a logical fallacy check list and never skip a box..and prob not have any material that doesn't fit one of the boxes.

a reply to: Gothmog

How bout throwing in Truth.Take out the rhetoric BS. (that just means something articulated (spoken well)

Well putting a kind of ambiguous word like "Truth" into the equation will always make it muddy for some . I think a quick look at even the scientific field will have multipal theorys and models , in the search for "Truth" ...A lot of their own papers have words and phrases like could be ,or might be , with many if's along the way to their because conclusions .

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jtma508

No thank you. I'll agree on the logic part but we have all the rhetoric we could possibly want.

Well how about a more modified version of rhetoric called articulation ...

How bout throwing in Truth.Take out the rhetoric BS. (that just means something articulated (spoken well) .

Retoric doesn't mean the laymans definition of "some stuff you say you don't mean or don't actually know about."

Retoric in the classical sense is the ability to debate without using logical fallacy arguments.

We really, really need bigly rhetoric, believe me! It's very very very sad. This is so sad and not good believe me.

"Make LOGIC great again"

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Rhetorical questions can serve a valid and useful purpose in rational public dialogue.

a reply to: Salander

never mind , it was ...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


How many of the things we hear every day perfectly fit this list???

A list that would have been known by heart by anyone educated before the modern era...

Nearly everything discussed on a conspiracy-driven site can fall under any one of these (or the many more logical fallacies that exist) on any given day or topic. The problem is, though, that many people are so used to using said fallacies because of their (often) propensity to 'want to believe' that this become their normal mindset.

I know that you and I butt heads often on this topic, but take the AGW argument as an example: It is oft-cited that there is a 97% consensus amongst scientists that the AGW theory is valid, yet all that does is subscribe to the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Yet, many pro-AGW theorists out there still spout off that fallacy as if it proves something concerning the actual science (it doesn't).

Or the Slippery-Slope argument, or the PHEPH (correlation/causation fallacy), or Ad Hominem attacks, or Ad Populum, or any of the others that are commonly used are always brought up in a debate by pro-AGW theorists. And if it gets called out by one of us skeptical of the theory, the Ad Hominem attacks arrive in full force.

And I'm not excusing "denialists" from culpability, either, but I tend to see a broader spectrum of logical fallacies employed by the pro-AGW side when I choose to watch the debates rather than participate.

But the bottom line is that, in such a politically divided country/world (and it's sad that many topics such as science have become politicized), I don't see the use of logical fallacies dying any time soon, and I blame the media and politicians for that--the ones with the biggest bullhorn focused at the apathetic public are destroying what it means to have a logical, civil, rational debate. Facts are accused of being opinions and opinions are being hoisted on a pedestal as if they're facts.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think we were living in an episode of the twilight zone, or living in bizarro world or something.

I'm not pretending to be immune to using logical fallacies intermittently, but I at least try damn hard to avoid them in debates and in my comments. But I think that I am a proverbial unicorn in the mist, hard to find and basically non-existent.

The funny thing is (and I've been a victim and participant in this a couple times), people often call others out on logical fallacies at inappropriate times, when it isn't even happening--in some discussions, it's become tantamount to calling someone a racist to try and shut them down because someone disagrees with them. In those instances, it's impossible to continue any fruitful discussions.

Regardless, I feel your pain, JC, but you and I will probably continue to butt heads--but seriously, if I ever blatantly make claims without backing them up and you think that I'm using a logical fallacy, by all means, let me know. If I disagree, I'll either attempt to prove my claim, admit my mistake, or as I've done before, let you know that I'm tired of proving the claim and I'm not going to look it up for the millionth time for an ATS thread.

Good post, regardless--it truly is a lost means of appropriate communication.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Retoric doesn't mean the laymans definition of "some stuff you say you don't mean or don't actually know about."

Retoric in the classical sense is the ability to debate without using logical fallacy arguments.

That is a case in point--if someone is going to comment in this thread, they should at least know the definitions of the words that you're using, right?