Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies

[cleanhippie]

Now, no one will have an excuse.

Website--- http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Download full color poster here ----- http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

[skepticscott]

1. I'm sure some here will

regard this as a personal attack. Shame on you...

[RevStPatrick]

2. That's awesome!

Printing it out in A3 size right now, to hang over my desk!

[2on2u]

3. I'm pretty sure the great sky wizard doesn't like

having words put in his/her mouth.... as many persons of a religious bent are prone to do. Funny how a million people can be flicked off the planet by a natural disaster but the 2 who survive "had the lord with them". It's not that I don't believe, it's that I don't believe in twisting things to your liking or belief system so that it all makes perfect sense.

[Speck Tater]

4. Printing out a copy to hang on my wall.

I'm going to have so much fun using this against the "skeptics".

[ladjf]

5. Doesn't that mean that "I shall stop practicing religion"? nt

[rug]

6. You left out the mind projecction fallacy.

[skepticscott]

7. Who's "you"?

The OP didn't make the list, nor present it as exhaustive, now did they?

And compiling a list of every fallacy that you're capable of committing would be a career...why bother?

[rug]

8. If I was talking to you I'd have said ignoratio elenchi.

But I wasn't.

[skepticscott]

9. Yes, that would characterize

Your post #6 pretty nicely. But then, missing the point is your stock in trade. Keep it up.

[rug]

10. Actually, it fits #7 to a t.

[mr blur]

13. Ah, the irony. nt

[rug]

14. Speaking of ignoratio, you promised that you and the "we" you spoke of, will ignore me.

[cleanhippie]

23. Do you want that included because of your frequent use of it?

OTOH, you can just stop with the projection any time you want to.

[rug]

24. You also left out Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Then you will not have an excuse.

[cleanhippie]

25. The only ad hominem here is yours, as "I" left nothing out of anything.

I posted a poster created by someone else. I never alluded to anything other than that this is something I found. But you insist on making this personal by continuing to claim that "I" somehow left out something, thus making "me" responsible for something that you created to begin with.


Just stop already.

[saras]

11. They're exactly as applicable to faith as they are to love

Fundamentalism - the assertion that religion is literal truth about the physical world - is wrong, in all religions. Most of them agree.

Without fundamentalism, faith never encounters the arena in which logic and its fallacies operate.

[darkstar3]

12. Logig and its fallacies operate in the real world. That's a pretty big arena.

Now if you're saying that non-fundamentalist faith never encounters the real world, that's quite a stretch.

[struggle4progress]

16. Various logical fallacies can actually, under some conditions, represent very good reasoning:

the fact, that an argument-form is not invariably valid, does not always imply that the argument-form is never valid

[Jim__]

17. Can you give an example?

I realize that a conclusion drawn from a fallacious argument can be valid; but I wouldn't consider the fact that the conclusion is valid, makes the reasoning valid. If what you're saying is correct, then I believe we are falsely labeling some argument forms as fallacious.

[struggle4progress]

18. Argumentum ad ignorantiam provides numerous examples:

it has the form "we do not know X for certain; therefore infer not X"

The fact that this argument scheme does not represent an invariably valid form is easily seen by a reductio ad absurdum: for there are many situations in which we know for certain neither X nor not X; but if argumentum ad ignorantiam were in all cases a valid argument form, then in such situations a first application of argumentum ad ignorantiam would produce conclusion not X, while a second application would produce conclusion X, from which we should deduce both X and not X, in violation of the fundamental reasoning principle of non-contradiction

Thus argumentum ad ignorantiam represents a argument scheme that cannot be regarded as invariably valid: in other words, argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy

But careful thinkers should not conclude from the fact, that argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy, that an appeal, to argumentum ad ignorantiam, always represents unsound reasoning:

Q: Why are you being so careful with that Luger?
A: Unless I know for certain that a gun is unloaded, I always assume it is loaded

Here the answerer, in practice, accepts not just any use of argumentum ad ignorantiam, but a particular use of argumentum ad ignorantiam

[skepticscott]

20. Your example is fundamentally flawed

As it deals with the correctness or wisdom of a conclusion, not its logical validity. A conclusion can be logically invalid but still ultimately be correct.

Try again.

[struggle4progress]

21. According to the Chrysippian account of implication (namely, that A => B is synonymous with ~A v B),

an implication is valid if the hypothesis is false or if the conclusion is true

Thus, on the Chrysippian account, it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that "this implication is invalid even though the conclusion is correct"

[skepticscott]

22. Except that's not

The form of argument that you referred to previously. The fact that an argument is fallacious (as described in the OP) does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.

Try again. Or do you need help?

[struggle4progress]

19. A musical interlude

[Silent3]

26. That's true, and goes beyond the "fallacy fallacy" listed

The way that web site describes the fallacy fallacy they're only admitting that someone can argue for something that is correct in spite of the fallacies they employ.

Not all fallacies are poor arguments, however. Many arguments that might technically be classified as fallacies can nevertheless lend substantial weight to a particular position, even if they aren't air tight arguments.

Take for instance the genetic fallacy. I often want to know the source of a piece of information. The fact that a story comes from, say, Fox News, doesn't in and of itself make the story wrong, but it certainly increases my doubts about it. When someone warns me that something someone else told me came from Fox News, I'm not going to disregard that person for employing the genetic fallacy, I'll be happy for their warning.

Appeals to emotion are necessary in many arguments, even if they can be classified as a form of fallacy. There's certainly reason to be suspicious when appeal to emotion is overdone, when you can't find any factual substance to go with the emotional content of an argument, or when you discover emotions are being cynically played upon. On the other hand, however, good persuasive rhetoric requires recognizing that human beings aren't analytical robots. If you abandon emotional appeals completely, based on some misguided desire to avoid fallacy, you'll cripple your ability to connect with most people.