Favorite Fallacies

alan polk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Okay, I love this site because we all can argue and fight. But I also love it because most of us use fallacies in our arguments. When I read the posts here, I keep my old Logic book from Ole Miss to reference. I try to know when I'm using fallacies on purpose, or when I am using them but am unaware. I just thought I would give you my favorite fallacies used on this site with examples from my old text book. Anyway, here are my favorites. I will give the name of the fallacy, and then an example of such fallacy from my old textbook:

1. Appeal to Authority - Dr. Bradshaw, our family physician, has stated that the creation of muonic atoms of deuterium and tritium hold the key to producing a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room tempature. In view of Dr. Bradshaw's expertise as a physician, we must conclude that this is indeed true.

2. Appeal to Ignorance - People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonesense.

3. Hasty Generalization - After only one year the alternator went out in Mr. O'Grady's new Chevrolet. Mrs. Doodson's Oldsmobile developed a transmission problem after 6 months. The conclusion is obvious that cars made by General Motors are just a pile of junk these days.

4. Slippery Slope - Attempts to outlaw ****ography threaten basic civil rights and should be summarily abandoned. If ****ography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magazines is only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind control by the central government will be the inevitable result.

5. Weak Analogy - Harper's new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets excellent gas mileage. Crowley's new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas mileage, too.

NOW FOR MY FAVORITES

6. Begging the Question - (This gets pushed into the Slavery issue).

Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitmate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.

7. Suppressed Evidence - (We see this form a lot) The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be unconstitutional.

8. Equivocation - (I've seen this lately on this site. In the below example, the word "law" -- in its first use -- is statutory law. In its second usage, it is natural law. Anyway, here is the example): Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
 
Since I have little formal education, I've seen examples of fallacies but didn't know what to call them. Thanks for the education.
 
Perhaps I should have posted this on "Camp Fire Chats" or some other thread. I apologize in advance.
 
Since I have little formal education, I've seen examples of fallacies but didn't know what to call them. Thanks for the education.

Well, education is just a "word." Some folks need an education to make a go of it. Some don't -- they can make it on their own. But it is helpful to recognize fallacies in ourselves and in others. Just because you don't have formal education doesn't mean ****! It's all about how we use our minds. The study of logic can come from books and universities or from the University of Hard Knox!!
 
A widely used fallacy here

  • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
 
A widely used fallacy here

  • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Yeah, I've seen it, too. Unfortunately, I think I've used it unkowingly. Anyhow, here are som examples of the fallacy you posted:

You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered "yes." Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.

You were asked where you hid the cookies you stole. You answered "nowhere." It follows that you must have stolen them and eaten them.

Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased? (Leading -- part-and parcel of many question fallacy).
 
Great post. Being aware of fallacies helps people recognize them and avoid falling into those traps.

1. Appeal to Authority - Dr. Bradshaw, our family physician, has stated that the creation of muonic atoms of deuterium and tritium hold the key to producing a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room tempature. In view of Dr. Bradshaw's expertise as a physician, we must conclude that this is indeed true.

That one has a lot of subtle nuances on a site like this, because the fallacy is appeal to false authority. "Red mittens were rare, because Dr. So-and-so's new book on mittens in the Civil War says 90% of the mittens that soldiers wore were green" is an appeal to authority, but it's not necessarily an appeal to a false authority; it could be a legitimate answer to a question.

If someone really cared about the answer, they'd expect to be able to go to Dr. So-and-so's book, turn to the passage on green mittens, go to the footnote, and look up the primary sources to see exactly how the author came to his conclusion, and discuss the evidence further.

Where it becomes a logical fallacy, and frustrating, is if the poster naively trusts the authority of a secondary source that offers no footnotes or sources, and expects everyone else to also, so that there's no underlying evidence that can ever be discussed. "Suzy Homemaker in Popular Knitting Magazine said Civil War soldiers wore green mittens" is an appeal to false authority, if the article has no footnotes and provides no evidence.

Other posters can choose to blindly trust Suzy Homemaker's opinion or not, but those are the only choices; it's a dead-end for discussion.

On the contrary, after following Dr. So-and-so's footnotes, someone might point out that he didn't use any trans-Mississippi sources so his conclusion might not apply there, or that he based his opinion on surviving mittens in museums but what about these soldiers saying they mailed green mittens home because they never wore them, or any other possibilities for discussion based on evidence, rather than blind trust in the author.
 
Yup. Appeals to authority and appeals to ignorance are not fallacies at all if they're logically supportable and aren't just hung out there on their own. It stands to reason that if Shelby Foote or Craig Symonds make a statement about the Civil War, it bears careful consideration because they're clearly knowledgeable in the field. On the other hand, if they make a statement about particle physics, it's not supportable without additional evidence that they know anything about the topic.

Likewise, if Snooki and JWoww weigh in on either the Civil War or particle physics, then it's reasonable to assume that, if they happen to be right, it is probably entirely accidental.

(I'm ashamed that I even know who Snooki and JWoww are. :redface: )
 
On the contrary, after following Dr. So-and-so's footnotes, someone might point out that he didn't use any trans-Mississippi sources so his conclusion might not apply there, or that he based his opinion on surviving mittens in museums but what about these soldiers saying they mailed green mittens home because they never wore them, or any other possibilities for discussion based on evidence, rather than blind trust in the author.

This is a major reason why I almost immediately flip to the back of a book to check for annotations and to look at the bibliography before beginning to read it. :thumbsup:
 
Yup. Appeals to authority and appeals to ignorance are not fallacies at all if they're logically supportable and aren't just hung out there on their own. It stands to reason that if Shelby Foote or Craig Symonds make a statement about the Civil War, it bears careful consideration because they're clearly knowledgeable in the field. On the other hand, if they make a statement about particle physics, it's not supportable without additional evidence that they know anything about the topic.

Likewise, if Snooki and JWoww weigh in on either the Civil War or particle physics, then it's reasonable to assume that, if they happen to be right, it is probably entirely accidental.

(I'm ashamed that I even know who Snooki and JWoww are. :redface: )

Even knowing who both of 'em are is questionable. ;)
 
How about Straw Man arguments? The following is taken from today's Washington Post:
"Republicans say they don't believe in government." The writer then goes on to refute the idea, which was simply never her opponent's position in the first place! I see this technique used in the forum all the time.




(Mods: This is emphatically not a political argument, it is an example of faulty logic for illustrative purposes only! Posters please do not use this as an opportunity to start a prohibited modern political discussion!)
 
Some cannot abide the slightest criticism of long cherished and dearly held beliefs. For example:
Poster #1: I believe that based on period documents, the South seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
Reply: Y'all are insultin' my ancestors! (I have actually seen this statement made on this forum, more than once) Why, if you wasn't digital, I would administer a sound thrashin'!
What???
non sequitur conclusion does not follow the premise
 
How about Straw Man arguments? The following is taken from today's Washington Post:
"Republicans say they don't believe in government." The writer then goes on to refute the idea, which was simply never her opponent's position in the first place! I see this technique used in the forum all the time.




(Mods: This is emphatically not a political argument, it is an example of faulty logic for illustrative purposes only! Posters please do not use this as an opportunity to start a prohibited modern political discussion!)

Yes, I was going to mention this one. It's the one that gets us into the most trouble, especially on the slavery/POW issues. (And thanks to the moderator for the caution - this falacy is used far to frequently in society as a whole today, and politics in particular. Let's leave those issues for other websites - there are plenty of them).
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top