Fallacies

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here is a link to a useful work on fallacies:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

It seems well organized and comprehensive, and it carries links to sites dealing with similar topics.

[Admin]

Logical fallacies - I did start a collection of my own to put up on the main site. I wonder where I have them stored?

I think understanding logical fallacies is a must for skeptics. It's not until you get a grip of things like post-hoc reasoning, arguments to authority, arguments to ignorance etc. that we can see where people's reasoning goes wrong.

Once you've studied logical fallacies, watching Question Time is never the same either. ;)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I positively dote on the little brutes. Finding a new one or, more likely, a variation of an old one, keeps me happy for days.

[Admin]

Have you come across the "argument to sanctimony"? ???

It's what psychics and mediums use to add weight to their claimed ability. Things like, "I would never charge for a reading" or "I only use my ability for the benefit of others" (often goes hand in hand with a refusal to take Randi's challenge ;)). The argument is that by only using their ability to do good means that the ability is more likely to be true.

I just wonder because I have never seen this particular fallacy named by anyone else or the same fallacy under another name being quoted.

I named this fallacy 8) but I suspect it's covered by something else so I haven't claimed it as mine (yet).

[Lord Muck oGentry]

It looks like a variety of Appeal to Emotion.

But you spotted it , so you can bags the right to name it :)


Here's an old one that I've always liked:

Only some dogs have floppy ears

My dog has floppy ears

Therefore my dog is some dog!

[Admin]

Well I did do a bit of searching and to my surprise there really isn't a named fallacy that addresses that particular instance.

I looked at the criteria for a fallacy and it does fit. People do use personal sanctimony as an argument to back up their claim to be genuine psychics (or whatever).

I'll have it as mine until someone shoots me down in flames. ;D

Anyway, back on topic...

It's surprising how even highly educated people have never heard of logical fallacies never mind being able to describe one yet they are a critical thinking tool and not particularly complicated!

[tkingdoll]

I wonder, though, if there's a fallacy of resorting to accusations of fallacy?

I notice some JREFers do that. Rather than counter an argument with a real example, they will simply list all the fallacies. Fine, except that does nothing to further your own side of the debate.

I love to send people the Love is a Fallacy story to introduce them to the basic concepts:

http://www1.asknlearn.com/ri_Ilearning/English/631/elang-ilearning/page3a.htm

[vbloke]

The problem I have with directly attacking fallacies is that people have usually invested a lot into their argument.

This is much like directly attacking someone's belief - they respond badly and get defensive and attack back.

Rather than just saying "ah, that's an argument from xxx", it might be better to make an example - much like in the Love is a Fallacy story - of the same fallacy, but so outrageous and unbelievable that they can recognise the fallacy for themselves and then explain to them how the fallacy works and point out the similarities to their own belief.

I know that this takes a bit more effort, but it can produce better results, as the person isn't instantly on the defensive, but you can draw them in gradually and point out their fallacious reasoning slowly so that they can see what they're actually doing.

[Mongrel]

I wonder, though, if there's a fallacy of resorting to accusations of fallacy?

I notice some JREFers do that. Rather than counter an argument with a real example, they will simply list all the fallacies. Fine, except that does nothing to further your own side of the debate.


I can sort of understand this, taking a look at the Loose Change threads where the same arguments are recycled time after time by the (now token) CTer. It's easier to sit back and list "yeah 3 Strawmen and an Ad Hom" than take the same arguments apart again. On the other hand some people seem to take a smug stisfaction in a drive by fallacy count without contributing anything to the discussion, they're the people who should be labelled as using the "appeal to fallacy, fallacy"

[Admin]

I must admit that I occasionally point out people's fallacies in their arguments. I normally only do this if the other person is likey to understand what I mean though.

I agree, rhyming off a list of fallacies to someone is usually futile.

It is worth explaining some of them. The argument to ignorance is quite common with conspiracy theorists for example. When they keep throwing the "you haven't disproved X" at you it's worth pointing out why you don't have to.

Fallacies are not just present in arguments though. They are also a major reason for faulty thinking and reaching false conclusions. The biggest contributor is probably the Post-Hoc fallacy.

Fallacies can also be used to your own advantage too. Think of how politicians and advertisers use them to influence people. ???

[Dr B]

John

Is it not a special case of 'special pleading'. I like your term for it - and you should keep it - but i think it exists as a special case and nice contextual example of special pleading

[Admin]

Is it not a special case of 'special pleading'.


No. And you're banned! :P

I want my fallacy. >:(

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It probably does come under a few categories, and special pleading fits the bill. I think I'm justified in using it though as it matches such claims precisely.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Is it not a special case of 'special pleading'.


No. And you're banned! :P

I want my fallacy. >:(

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It probably does come under a few categories, and special pleading fits the bill. I think I'm justified in using it though as it matches such claims precisely.


And you shall have your fallacy. What's more, like physicians who have syndromes named after them, you can have it without suffering from it. Can money buy that? :)

On a slightly more serious note, let me suggest that the discussion so far shows that there may be no taxonomy of fallacies that "cuts nature at the joints".

[Dr B]

John ;D ;D ;)

How about "a fallacy based on the Jacksonian principle..."

;D ;D O0

[Admin]

The "John Jackson appeal to sanctimony" fallacy. 8)

I'll have my name in lights one way or another. ;D

I have another one. ???

"Argumentum ad Testiculum" - or the "You're talking Bollocks" fallacy. ;D

To be used when you can't face deconstructing a silly argument.

[Dr B]

How about the "you have to have a paranormal experience in order to know what you are talking about" ;D :D

It seeks to get around the skeptics - by making them redundant in the debate

The idea that anecdotal experience leads to functional understanding. So by this logic, driving a car makes us all engineers!!!! ;D ;D

Is it a case of special pleading again? How would / should we classify it...?

[Admin]

How about the "you have to have a paranormal experience in order to know what you are talking about" ;D :D


Believe it or not, I've just been thinking about the same thing. Paranormal or what? I guess that makes me an expert on the paranormal now. 8) ;D

I was thinking about how in a debate on something when the skeptic will say "X doesn't work. It's been tried and tested and it simply doesn't work".

Then an opponent often butts in with something like, "have you tried it?" Which leads up to the inevitable, "if you haven't tried it, how can you say it doesn't work?"

I get around it by explaining that people lose money by joining pyramid schemes. They don't work; and you don't have to join one to accept the fact.

I think it depends on how it's being used, but it's based on the Appeal to Vanity: don't listen to what the experts say, try it for yourself; try it and it might work for you.

So many people believe in the infallibility of their senses that if something seems to have worked for them, they place more importance on their own experience than on the wealth of scientific knowledge that contradicts them.

[Dr B]

Sounds right to me ;)

However, i am seeing it in more and more debates as a way of saying that what skeptics say is nonsense because they have not experienced it. So they are trying to remove us, and our perspective from the debate (hence making us redundant).

I tackled it in the way i discussed above....I have never been to the north pole....but i would bet you would be in trouble pretty quick if you only packed your swimming gear ;D ;D

I also said - do medics and scientists have to have cancer in order to be in a position to cure it??? ;D The logic does not stand up......

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Off the top of my head, I'd go for illegitimate appeal to authority ( their own) or begging the question by assuming that what they have experienced is in fact paranormal. There may also be equivocation with the word "experience".

That's the trouble with the really daft fallacies: there are too many clubs to hit them with :)

[Dr B]

too many clubs.... ;D ;D :D

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yup. Spoilt for choice, spoilt rotten... :)

[Admin]

I guess we could always just say, "I'm entitled to my opinion." ;D

There's a few it could come under, but I like to see them named. It's a sort of false conclusion type:


You haven't tried X
Therefore you can't understand X


The false conclusion is used to justify the dismissal of valid opinion.

I'll have a look for a name.

[vbloke]

You could always counter with

"You haven't tried looking for a non-paranormal explanation, so how do you know there isn't one?"

[Admin]

Off the top of my head, I'd go for illegitimate appeal to authority ( their own)


I think that's what it boils down to in the end.

It's simply the Appeal to Authority fallacy with the special case of citing themselves as the authority.

The fallacy lies in assuming that experiencing something makes someone an authority on the subject.

[tkingdoll]

Off the top of my head, I'd go for illegitimate appeal to authority ( their own)


I think that's what it boils down to in the end.

It's simply the Appeal to Authority fallacy with the special case of citing themselves as the authority.

The fallacy lies in assuming that experiencing something makes someone an authority on the subject.


That's absolutely right, but I think time has shown that that approach doesn't work very well on woos.

I'm very keen on VBloke's "yes, actually I have tried it. In fact I am a qualified homeopath" and "yes, I have recently had a tarot reading and it was utterly inaccurate" approach.

If I'm debating religion with someone and they resort to "you just can't understand, you haven't felt the holy spirit", I can quickly whip out my "actually, I used to be a happy clappy Christian" credentials.

There is some value in having tried the thing we're criticising, I think, not least because it serves to silence the daft fallacy.

[vbloke]

My thoughts exactly.

If you can actually say "been there, done that", then it gives your arguments so much more weight.

[Dr B]

I suppose you all mean weight in the eyes of the woo as opposed objective weight. Because obviously, it commits the same fallacy back at them (that your experience has given you some fantastic insight)......fighting fallacy with fallacy......hhhhhmmmm

[Admin]

Yes agreeing with people who say "you have to try it to understand it" merely confirms the fallacy.

I would say that my qualifications in Chemistry give me a better insight into the 'memory of water' or 'water clusters' than being taught that these things are real by a homeopath.

Having said that, I think that understanding things from their perspective is very insightful.

People have erroneous beliefs becuase they've formed them for the wrong reasons.

Smart people learn from their mistakes; very smart people learn from other people's mistakes. You don't have to make the same mistake as someone to know they were wrong.

[tkingdoll]

I suppose you all mean weight in the eyes of the woo as opposed objective weight. Because obviously, it commits the same fallacy back at them (that your experience has given you some fantastic insight)......fighting fallacy with fallacy......hhhhhmmmm


Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The main problem when debating with woos is that they aren't using the same rules of debate you are. For example, if you say "that is a logical fallacy", they may very well say "so?". The most common occurence in my experience is when someone makes a claim, you ask them for proof, and they come back with "you prove it's isn't real". If you say "no, you are making the claim so you have to provide the evidence", often they will simply say "no I don't. If you can't prove ghosts/whatever aren't real then you don't have an argument".

If you really want to get through to someone who doesn't accept the scientific method, or even dislikes science, you need to communicate on their level. Otherwise it's just a battle of "my method is right".

What it boils down to is that if someone (a woo or anyone) is telling you that you can't or don't understand because you have not experienced the thing they are talking about, their entire preconception collapses if you can demonstrate that you have. Counter their anecdotes with more anecdotes, then bring on the hard data. If you start with the data, they often clam up because it's just too much of a leap.

I don't think that's the same as agreeing with them that you have to try it to understand it, it's just a simple way of eliminating their point so you can get back on track with presenting the evidence.

In fact, you are demonstrating that the experience doesn't give you any special insight, because you have been through it and didn't emerge a True Believer (or whatever).

An example that jumps to mind is the recent (ish) furor over Jerry Springer The Musical. I heard an interview (Jeremy Vine) with a guy from Christian Voice, who were loudly condemning the musical and demanding it be banned. The christian guy was saying how it was full of blasphemy, depicting Jesus etc. Jeremy Vine asked him if he had seen the musical. His defiant answer? "No, but I don't need to see it to know it's harmful".

Now, there is a difference, as John points out, between not experiencing something because your scientific training tells you it's bollocks, and not experiencing it because you don't want to believe, but one of the most inaccurate and annoying criticisms we skeptics get is that we're narrow minded (arrghh!). If we can demonstrate that we're not 'above' getting a tarot reading or whatever, it helps to soften the perception of us. It's one less obstacle to overcome when trying to engage people.

[Dr B]

I totally agree. Indeed, it seems over the years we have probably been having the same conversations with woo's (who knows maybe the same woo's !).

I have actually found many woo's do respond positively if you do point out fallacies in a nice way. One thing I do is frame it as "it appears to me....." - it makes it sound like it is a subjective opinion - then i provide the objective facts. They tend to forget the original qualification yet still be influenced by it.

In recent years I have found woo belief becoming more resistant to science full-stop. Even hearing that you are a scientist a woo will take offense at you breathing the same air. There is a real shift in the thinking of the recent woo and woo's from years ago. They are making the same fallacies - but there is far less room for engagement these days. With the one recent exception - i have never really had a major problem with woo's in informal debate.

Most members of my research team (on paranormal matters) are woo's in some way. But all of them are well aware of the skeptical interpretations and do consider them and acknowledge them. There is no repulsion to the information just because it challenges them. O0

[Dr B]

I would add, as teek hints, it is not enough to say to a woo you are worng. However, you should be able to explain to them why you have the view you do as opposed to theirs.

I have to use other tactics than anecdotes - as i have never experienced the paranormal in any way. However, i have seen how it affects other people. A kind of, second-hand counter anecdote maybe....

[Admin]

You can't logically argue out what was never logically argued in!

It's easy to forget that people form opinions for emotional reasons (90% of the time?) rather than logical ones so it's not easy to argue against them with logical argument.

People don't like to be shown to be wrong. One tactic is to give them a get-out clause like saying, "I can understand your position but are you aware of this new information...?" - by introducing some new info to them it gives them an excuse for changing their mind without losing face.

Says John the Pontificator. :-[

[tkingdoll]

You can't logically argue out what was never logically argued in!

It's easy to forget that people form opinions for emotional reasons (90% of the time?) rather than logical ones so it's not easy to argue against them with logical argument.

People don't like to be shown to be wrong. One tactic is to give them a get-out clause like saying, "I can understand your position but are you aware of this new information...?" - by introducing some new info to them it gives them an excuse for changing their mind without losing face.

Says John the Pontificator. :-[


That's a great idea.

It happens the other way, too. I was trying to explain to a client that there is no evidence supporting ESP. He said "oh, there is now. A university in America did a big study and proved it!".

It turns out he was referring to the PEAR study! Yikes! Anyway, I showed him some articles explaining why the study was flawed and luckily he conceded the point, but in truthfulness to many people the authority behind PEAR is more persuasive than the authority of, say Skepdic.

[Nettles]

Going back to the special pleading point (and taking on board the fact that the Woo World has different rules than ours):

If, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that one is not qualified to discuss paranormal issues without having experienced the paranormal, but if the paranormal world is all around us (if, as my local paper tells me, there is a haunting underneat the salon where I have my facials) then ...

... are they saying that the qualification for discussing paranormal issues is sensitivity to paranormal phenomena? That is, unless you are one of the Charmed Ones, keep your yap shut and let them get on with it?

Only those who are pure of heart can see the emperor's fine clothes, and only those who have sensitive souls can perceive and discuss the paranormal world?

The blind shouldn't talk about film?




Have I answered my own question?

[tkingdoll]

Going back to the special pleading point (and taking on board the fact that the Woo World has different rules than ours):

If, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that one is not qualified to discuss paranormal issues without having experienced the paranormal, but if the paranormal world is all around us (if, as my local paper tells me, there is a haunting underneat the salon where I have my facials) then ...

... are they saying that the qualification for discussing paranormal issues is sensitivity to paranormal phenomena? That is, unless you are one of the Charmed Ones, keep your yap shut and let them get on with it?

Only those who are pure of heart can see the emperor's fine clothes, and only those who have sensitive souls can perceive and discuss the paranormal world?

The blind shouldn't talk about film?




Have I answered my own question?






I think a lot of the woo world are saying that, yes.

[Admin]

It's simply circular reasoning though isn't it?

In fact, all they're really saying is that if you've (potentially) fallen for a fallacy of perception or reasoning you become qualified to explain to others why it's not a fallcy of perception or reasoning.

Surely, there's a fallacy in there somewhere. ;D

[Dr B]

I agree that the arguments they use are logically flawed or display some big leaps, see connecitons where there are none, reflect confirmation biases, and see the lack of evidence as a good thing :D

I have actually had some really good debates with older woos - there are still problems and biases but the arguments are of a higher standard (though still poor in many respects).

I also think explaining to woos the logicial consequences of their reasoning in other contexts works well - or has for me in the past.

[Jocky]

only those who have sensitive souls can perceive and discuss the paranormal world

I think you put your finger on it there, Nettles.

I suspect the same thing will turn out to be true with personal experience of woo - if you don't convert to believer on the spot then they'll say it's your fault for being "close-minded" >:(

Maybe I'll get the chance to try a bit of hands-on woo sometime soon ;)

[Dr B]

I held a woo-themed party once at my house (for friends who were both woo and non-woo).

The clocks in each room had a different time (so you time-travelled going from room to room), the TV remained untuned - in case higher-intelligence wanted to speak to us, and we all ate our lunch with bent forks, spoons, etc ( ;D). It was great fun and only meant as fun (the task for all guests was to spot as many paranormal references as they could and i gave a prize at the end).

Actually, one person did get mildly offended (a friend of a friend). :'( They just could not see the funny side of it.

[tkingdoll]

Dr B, that's a great idea!

It would be a pain if you had to reorganise your house according to the rules of feng shui though :o

[Dr B]

feng shui.....dammm forgot about that one.......

[Mongrel]

feng shui.....dammm forgot about that one.......

Or did you? ;) They don't need to know that

[Admin]

we all ate our lunch with bent forks, spoons, etc ( ;D).


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Great idea that.

So someone was 'offended'. Quelle surprise. ::)

[vbloke]

I always wondered if you gave Uri a bent spoon, would it magically straighten?

[Dr B]

I had an award - a 'paranormally straightened' spoon (you prove it ;D) - for the ones that spotted the most references in and around the house.

Even the evening toast had faces in it....bloody hard to do though..... ;D

Kitchen chairs on the table (i.e., poltergeist stlye) was one of the more obvious ones.... ;D

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Shocking bad form on my part to exhume a thread that seemed to be slumbering 'neath the sod. However, I thought people might be interested in this:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/bq.htm#validity

Suber is considering here not just the formal features of Begging the Question, but also the persuasive features. If there is anything to the notion that bad arguments make a living by mimicking good ones, his ideas may be worth a look.

[Dr B]

I dont know if this is the right place for this - but here goes.

In another discussion elsewhere on this forum, someone made the following statement while trying to imply (indirectly) that as consciosuness cannot be replicated by a computer - there must be something special about consciousness (special potentially meaning paranormal - though to be fair this was only implied).

The statement was;
"A mathematical proof from Professor Roger Penrose that consciousness cannot be replicated by machine, including the brain considered as a machine."

So here the reasoning goes like this. Penrose has proven that consciousness cannot be replicated by machine, so we cannot consider the the brain as a machine - so consciousness is special.

I have posted just some of my thoughts on this reasoning eleswhere - but what do others here think of this in the context of faulty reasoning / fallacious thinking (my comments to follow soon)?

Constructional comments only please. O0

for the Full context see here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,420.60.html

[median]

Seems like a bit of a circular argument to me. ???

The idea of consciousness not being a machine property which is then used as a justification for the brain not being defined as a machine and then using that as a basis of justifying consciousness as being the property of something of a non-machine nature.

Ermmm :-\

[Araneus]

For the sake of examining the logic, are we to assume that the "proof" is in fact valid (in itself unlikely, since "consciousness" is not mathematically defined and Penrose is a mathematician, not a psychologist).

In this case, it seems that the conclusion is a non-sequitur since all it would prove is that consciousness as we understand it cannot be replicated by machines as we currently understand them. This does not have any paranormal implications that I can see, it just expresses a limitation of our current concept of a machine.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I don't pretend to know much about Penrose, and it's been many years since I swotted up Goedel. However, as I understand it, Penrose's argument is a variant of of one first advanced, in the light of Goedel's discoveries, by John Lucas many years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lucas_%28philosopher%29

[Araneus]

That argument seems pretty bogus to me, particular this part:

# If a human m is a sufficiently skillful mathematical logician (equipped with a sufficiently powerful computer if necessary)then if m is given L(m)(s)he can construct T(L(m)) and
# Determine that they are true which L(m) could not do.
# Hence L(m) does not reliably predict m's actions in all circumstances.
# Hence m has freewill.

All it seems to be saying is that IF a mathematical logician can construct the Godel unprovable statements within a logical system, then this logical system cannot reliably predict the actions of this logician. It does not prove that there isn't ANOTHER logical system which can reliably predict the actions of this particular logician, which is too complex for this particular logician to construct Godel unprovable statements for.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

That argument seems pretty bogus to me, particular this part:

# If a human m is a sufficiently skillful mathematical logician (equipped with a sufficiently powerful computer if necessary)then if m is given L(m)(s)he can construct T(L(m)) and
# Determine that they are true which L(m) could not do.
# Hence L(m) does not reliably predict m's actions in all circumstances.
# Hence m has freewill.

All it seems to be saying is that IF a mathematical logician can construct the Godel unprovable statements within a logical system, then this logical system cannot reliably predict the actions of this logician. It does not prove that there isn't ANOTHER logical system which can reliably predict the actions of this particular logician, which is too complex for this particular logician to construct Godel unprovable statements for.


Crikey! It's just occurred to me that you might have mistaken my reference to Lucas for an endorsement. It certainly isn't meant to be. To the contrary: your objection is one that follows from Goedel's results, as I understand them ( not that my understanding amounts to much).

[Araneus]

Crikey! It's just occurred to me that you might have mistaken my reference to Lucas for an endorsement. It certainly isn't meant to be. To the contrary: your objection is one that follows from Goedel's results, as I understand them ( not that my understanding amounts to much).

Don't worry, I wasn't assuming that you believed this line of argument. I just thought it was worth raising the objection since a poster in the other thread seemed to be taking it as fact that Penrose had "proved" that machine consciousness was impossible.

[median]

All it seems to be saying is that IF a mathematical logician can construct the Godel unprovable statements within a logical system, then this logical system cannot reliably predict the actions of this logician. It does not prove that there isn't ANOTHER logical system which can reliably predict the actions of this particular logician, which is too complex for this particular logician to construct Godel unprovable statements for.

I have always thought that Penrose might have been a bit disingenuous in his use of mathematics. There is a big leap between the idea that 'within a system there are statements that exist that are unprovable by that system' and the idea that consciousness is a non-machine or indeed has non-algorithmic processes. ???

[Lord Muck oGentry]

There's certainly a big difference between:

1. For every S-type system, there exists a G-type statement

and

2. There exists a G-type statement for all S-type systems.

Classic quantifier-shift fallacy. I'm not sure it can be avoided if the "result" is to be generalised from the Lucas-Penrose case to the average bod like me. The Wikipedia article I cited seems to recognise the point in its wry observation that there isn't so much difference between mathematical logicians and the population at large.