|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:44 am
ipse dixit: Any claim that is made without a supporting cite. Also, any axiom.
appeal to authority: Any claim that is made with a supporting cite. Especially wikipedia.
straw man: Any attempt to point out what your argument implies.
burden of proof: What the other guy has. If he attempts to ask you to substantiate your claim, accuse him of "shifting the burden of proof"
poisoning the well: Any criticism of the sources you cite. Especially wikipedia.
tu quoque: Any attempt to build an argument you disagree with on claims you have asserted
"argumentum ad errorum": Any attempt to call _you_ out for a logical fallacy. Related to shifting the burden of proof.
Now - I do have a point here. "Crying wolf" - i.e. accusing someone of a fallacy just to win an argument, makes meaningful discussion impossible. There are unsupported claims at the heart of any argument - in more civilized debating circles, they're called axioms. While in some fields there is a genuine disagreement as to what axioms should be accepted, accusing someone of a fallacy just because someone's arguing from a basis that you happen to not agree with [prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics, utilitarianism vs other ethical systems, zero one or infinity parallel lines through a given point, whatever] and declaring victory is insulting, and it drives reasonable people away from ED.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:01 pm
These terms are definitely useful. biggrin
I got accused of using a logical fallacy once. I really didn't see how it was a fallacy, so I ended up having to defend my reasons why I didn't consider my argument a fallacy. It was pretty pointless.
The person said that appealing to tradition was a logical fallacy. Is it? If it is, I don't want to continue bringing that up in other debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:04 pm
Missy Wyvern These terms are definitely useful. biggrin I got accused of using a logical fallacy once. I really didn't see how it was a fallacy, so I ended up having to defend my reasons why I didn't consider my argument a fallacy. It was pretty pointless. The person said that appealing to tradition was a logical fallacy. Is it? If it is, I don't want to continue bringing that up in other debates. Well - my post was meant as an example as humour and a way of pointing out that it's easy to accuse someone of a fallacy. (I actually am working on a longer piece along the same lines, as an example of all the "clever" tactics that are often used by certain elements in ED to drive off dissent and "win" arguments) Now - for a serious discussion of fallacies - wikipedia is a good place, but its articles on fallacies aren't IMO particularly well-organized but individually are a decent resource. I googled and found http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ - it seems like a decent resource. My original post in this thread was, again, mostly for laughs but it does hilight a serious problem - it's easy to accuse someone of a fallacy, whether or not that accusation is warranted. Appeal to tradition, for example, is a fallacy, but that is too often misinterpreted as "Tradition must be ignored, any mention of it is unwarranted and irrelevant". Whereas actually wiki Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way." Most "fallacies", to be actual fallacies require that the person supposedly making a fallacy is actually declaring victory, rather than just offering tradition (or whatever) as evidence to be weighed. now, there are exceptions - appeal to force, for example - threats and intimidation have no place in a serious debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:45 pm
Random832 Missy Wyvern These terms are definitely useful. biggrin I got accused of using a logical fallacy once. I really didn't see how it was a fallacy, so I ended up having to defend my reasons why I didn't consider my argument a fallacy. It was pretty pointless. The person said that appealing to tradition was a logical fallacy. Is it? If it is, I don't want to continue bringing that up in other debates. Well - my post was meant as an example as humour and a way of pointing out that it's easy to accuse someone of a fallacy. (I actually am working on a longer piece along the same lines, as an example of all the "clever" tactics that are often used by certain elements in ED to drive off dissent and "win" arguments) Now - for a serious discussion of fallacies - wikipedia is a good place, but its articles on fallacies aren't IMO particularly well-organized but individually are a decent resource. I googled and found http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ - it seems like a decent resource. My original post in this thread was, again, mostly for laughs but it does hilight a serious problem - it's easy to accuse someone of a fallacy, whether or not that accusation is warranted. Appeal to tradition, for example, is a fallacy, but that is too often misinterpreted as "Tradition must be ignored, any mention of it is unwarranted and irrelevant". Whereas actually wiki Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way." Most "fallacies", to be actual fallacies require that the person supposedly making a fallacy is actually declaring victory, rather than just offering tradition (or whatever) as evidence to be weighed. now, there are exceptions - appeal to force, for example - threats and intimidation have no place in a serious debate. The debate that I was involved in was whether or not we thought that sexual relations between a father and daughter was acceptable. I can't exactly remember what the person wrote, but my reply was something like, "Look at cultures all around the world and tell me how many of them think it's acceptable for a father to sleep with his daughters." I assume the person I replied to probably said something about such incest being something that societies will sooner or later accept, but I can't remember. All I remember is another person said that my reply was an appeal to tradition and a logical fallacy. I told the person that I didn't consider cultures not accepting incest as an appeal to tradition, kind of like murder being considered a crime. I wasn't trying to say that tradition should rule over common sense or anything. I was trying to say that acceptance of father/daughter sexual relations wasn't as common as some of the people in debate were saying they were. It wasn't exactly a debate based on facts since there are no facts on the matter (besides genetic reasonings that people are split half-and-half on). BUT all of that aside, I see what you mean. People use the nastiest, dirtiest, cheapest ways to "win" arguments that, might I add, don't even matter in the end. My favorite part is when the people come in and start throwing around, "You're wrong because my information is right!" and their "information" isn't even correct. Some twats (excuse the expression) even went as far as claiming a person was a troll because he disagreed with them. How ridiculous do you have to be? Whenever you have your final piece done, post it because I want to read it. It sounds like it will be hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:20 am
Random832 appeal to authority: Any claim that is made with a supporting cite. Especially wikipedia. appeal to authority is only a fallacy when someone cites a source as being infallible without proving as such. if someone cites someone who has legitmacy in that field and doesn't represent it as infallible, it is legitimate. for example, as it comes to catholic doctrine, i can cite preist's opinion as evidence, as long as i don't preclude that he is always right. Quote: straw man: Any attempt to point out what your argument implies. no, straw man is when a person misrepresents your arguement. i can paraphrase your argument, i just can't misrepresent that argument when i paraphrase it. Quote: burden of proof: What the other guy has. If he attempts to ask you to substantiate your claim, accuse him of "shifting the burden of proof" burden of proof is only a fallacy if you set the level of evidence to a ridiculously high level, if you make a claim and he asks for evidence you are obligated to cite evidence. Quote: poisoning the well: Any criticism of the sources you cite. Especially wikipedia. no, poisoning the well is when you say someone is bad, and therefore everything they say is wrong, you can criticize a source if you feel like it, and it only becomes a fallacy if you deny what they say because of the criticism, and it's unfounded. Quote: tu quoque: Any attempt to build an argument you disagree with on claims you have asserted tu qouqu is the "NO U!" argument on a side note, i'd like to note that any ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy if their argument hinges on it. if someone calls you a retard it's only a fallacy if they say, your point is irrelevant, because you are a retard. if they say, you are a retard, this evidence shows you're wrong, they are not commiting ad hominem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:19 am
Well, here's one for you. One time I was arguing against Creationism, and somebody said I must be wrong, and I must know I'm wrong, because I have Genesis in my name and the book of Genesis is the creation story. What sort of logical fallacy would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:13 am
Genesis51 Well, here's one for you. One time I was arguing against Creationism, and somebody said I must be wrong, and I must know I'm wrong, because I have Genesis in my name and the book of Genesis is the creation story. What sort of logical fallacy would that be? Possibly association fallacy, most likely just simple stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:52 pm
I don't know what this would go under, but their is a major flaw in any argument that states that you're perfictly safe if you have enough protocalls in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:14 pm
John Wesley based his reasoning upon four things: reason itself, authority (scripture), personal experience, and tradition (by which he meant the received teaching of the church, and the recognized luminaries of antiquity).
i see nothing wrong with using tradition for guidance.
it is done in courts of equity all the time.
it is different than stare decisis, in which the reasoning in a previous case determines the outcome of a subsequent one.
it is an influence, a teaching tool, a guide and nothing more.
i would hate to throw out Cicero and Augustine, Maimonides and Emerson, because they represented the voice of the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:12 pm
Ozy and Millie, the fount of all wisdom 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:27 pm
Some of you may be familiar with lists of writing rules which go something like this: Quote: Each pronoun agrees with their antecedent. Just between you and I, case is important. Verbs has to agree with their subject. Watch out for irregular verbs which has cropped up into our language. Don't use no double negatives. A writer mustn't shift your point of view. When dangling, don't use participles. Join clauses good like a conjunction should. Don't write a run-on sentence it is difficult when you got to punctuate it so it makes sense when the reader reads what you wrote. About sentence fragments. Remember subject, verb, object. In letters themes reports articles and stuff like that we use commas to keep strings apart. Sentences without verbs -- bad idea. Don't use commas, which aren't necessary. Its important to use your apostrophe's correctly. Don't abbrev. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used. Kill all exclamation points!!! Check to see if you any words out. One word sentences? Eliminate. In my opinion I think that the author when he is writing should not get into the habit of making use of too many unnecessary words which he does not really need. Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. And don't use conjunctions to start sentences. As far as incomplete constructions, they are wrong. Check for speling. (Spell checkers aren't always write.) Try to not ever split infinitives. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is. The passive voice is to be avoided. Do not use hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it effectively. Who needs rhetorical questions? Mixed metaphors are a pain in the neck and should be thrown out with the bath water. Eschew ostentatious erudition. Do not use a foreign term when there is an adequate English quid pro quo. If you must use a foreign term, it is de rigor to use it correctly; to do otherwise is a compositional fox pas. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." Also, always avoid all awkward and affected alliteration. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague. I've thought of something similar, but germane to the topic of this thread: Arguments from authority are wrong, because I said so. There's no evidence that arguments from ignorance are valid. Therefore, they must be all fallacious. Making a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument in a thread will create later posts accusing you of making a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument. If we allow one person to get away with slippery slope arguments, pretty soon nobody will make any valid arguments whatsoever. "Straw man" arguments are not valid, since men made out of straw aren't even alive in the first place, let alone can reason. Can anyone think of more of 'em?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:59 am
azulmagia I've thought of something similar, but germane to the topic of this thread: Arguments from authority are wrong, because I said so. There's no evidence that arguments from ignorance are valid. Therefore, they must be all fallacious. Making a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument in a thread will create later posts accusing you of making a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument. If we allow one person to get away with slippery slope arguments, pretty soon nobody will make any valid arguments whatsoever. "Straw man" arguments are not valid, since men made out of straw aren't even alive in the first place, let alone can reason. Can anyone think of more of 'em? Lol. This is good. How about "Burden of proof is a fallacy, because you can't proof that it isn't".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:47 am
Here's one:
You have no authority to say ad hominem arguments are fallacious, you haven't got a 2004 account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:48 pm
SilverDratini Here's one: You have no authority to say ad hominem arguments are fallacious, you haven't got a 2004 account. LMFAO rofl heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
