Arguing: logical fallacies to avoid

There are a number of logical fallacies that one ought to watch for when they make their point. There are a few I see quite often these days, and they also happen to be the most well known (which baffles me): red herring, straw man, and ad hominem (which, as one may well guess from my sig, is the one I despise the most.)

You can make your argument go a long way when you recognize and weed out such fallacies within your arguments.

Here are a few links that list such fallacies:

• Wikipedia: Logical Fallacy
  
• Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files
  
• Mission: Critical - This one isn't just about logical fallacies, it's also a good guide on constructing an argument.
  

Those fallacy files are so good.

Difficult to search but thorough if you have time to read them all.

I'm still looking for what I describe as arguing from within a system, to prove the system (since I've long since forgotten the Latin), but this is close...

Card Stacking

It's most common in Religious debates.

"Eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness!"

Great post!

I must at admit I fall prey to some of those fallacies every now and then when debate gets emotional load, for wich I like to apologise, so, having said that who wants to be next on my ad hominem list ?

Originally posted by RANT
Those fallacy files are so good.

Difficult to search but thorough if you have time to read them all.

I'm still looking for what I describe as arguing from within a system, to prove the system (since I've long since forgotten the Latin), but this is close...

Card Stacking

It's most common in Religious debates.

I would call it circular reasoning.

Originally posted by supercheetah
I would call it circular reasoning.

True true.

Begging the question and circular argument
A circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive.

I think, therefore I am. (and God made me).

Here's the grand-daddy:

Argument from ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that because something is currently inexplicable, it did not happen, or that because one cannot conceive of something, it cannot exist. This assertion is often summed up by the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


That's the most common form of fallacious argument at ATS, maybe even more so than stupid ad hominem attacks.

You can read "ignorance" from people all day long in relation to creationism vs evolution, or in towing the official line on what happened on 9/11.

Isn't the site motto something to do with this for some reason?

Those are interesting sites.

Rant,

Petitio principii , may be the one you speak of.

www.infidels.org...

Deep