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.
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.
.
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.
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
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).
.
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!
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.
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!
.
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_Ilearni...ing/page3a.htm
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.
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"Originally Posted by tkingdoll
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. ???
.
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
No. And you're banned! :P
I want my fallacy. >:(
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? :)No. And you're banned! :P
I want my fallacy. >:(
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.
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".
John
How about "a fallacy based on the Jacksonian principle..."
The "John Jackson appeal to sanctimony" fallacy. 8)
I'll have my name in lights one way or another.
I have another one. ???
"Argumentum ad Testiculum" - or the "You're talking Bollocks" fallacy.
To be used when you can't face deconstructing a silly argument.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks