Post by Oliveman on Oct 18, 2007 21:55:50 GMT -5
As a reference material for our site, I wanted to compose a list of fallacious arguements, or debating fallacies. So, from now on we can use this list in our own discussion practices, both calling eachother out on this and watching ourselves for such pitfalls of debate and logic.
There are two sites I found for this:
www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html This seems to be a comprehensive list, but is lacking in formal language.
www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html Seems to be more of the "official" list, with the fallacies listed, for the most part, under their latin names. But... this list IS meant to be a guide to USING fallacies, rather than combating them. The purpose of learning, however, is twofold. Don't use this site for the wrong reason.
I have openly used both their sites' information.
As an openner, the second site has a few good points to bear in mind with regard to logical fallacies:
List of fallacies:
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) - this arguement is saying, "it's always been done that way."
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) - The obvious usage of this example is not the only one, that is, a personal attack on the opposing debater. The more subtle usage to keep in mind is when it's used to discredit a cited source of information. For instance, arguing "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" is an arguementum ad hominem. The idea must stand, not the person making it.
It is still ok, however, to evaluate the truth of statements made if there's reason for the individual cited to lie about that subject, or if that individual is not qualified to be cited (though use that reason with caution- wisdom can come from unlikely sources).
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) - This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic) - This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity)- Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) - This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers)- Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public)- Same as above, but specific to the public, and trying to prove an argument by the public's agreement with it.
Ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) - This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. While what they may be saying is true, you must bear the burden of proof- you cannot rely on their opinion as sufficient proof.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) - Example: "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"
Complex question - A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
A more realistic example would be: "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" The first statement is false - the majority of black Americans do NOT live in poverty (or, so the site I got this example from says), but it could catch someone off guard, most likely with much more ease than the first question.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) - This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization) - This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.
Naturalistic fallacy - This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone.
For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."
Nature, appeal to - This is the fallacy of trying to prove an argument based on if something is "natural" it is somehow also good, and that "unnatural" things are wrong.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") - This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
Petitio principii (begging the question) - This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) - This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.
Red herring - This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
Slippery slope - A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. Example: "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine."
Straw man -This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.
Tu quoque ("you too") - This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"
Again, these definitions come from the second site, either directly taken or paraphrased. Some additions are my own. So, to read more about these, and to see more examples, visit the link provided above.
There are two sites I found for this:
www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html This seems to be a comprehensive list, but is lacking in formal language.
www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html Seems to be more of the "official" list, with the fallacies listed, for the most part, under their latin names. But... this list IS meant to be a guide to USING fallacies, rather than combating them. The purpose of learning, however, is twofold. Don't use this site for the wrong reason.
I have openly used both their sites' information.
As an openner, the second site has a few good points to bear in mind with regard to logical fallacies:
- "Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic."
- "...if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all."
- It is not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Here are a few strategies for pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner:
- State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy."
- Tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. But be careful -- you have to do this without sounding pedantic.
- Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect.
- Finally, point out why the logical fallacy matters to the debate round [or discussion].
- State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy."
- "The most important guideline for committing such fallacies yourself is to know when you are doing it, and to be prepared to justify yourself later if the opposition tries to call you down for it." [More importantly, try not to do it - if everyone knows their stuff, there's no hiding]
List of fallacies:
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) - this arguement is saying, "it's always been done that way."
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) - The obvious usage of this example is not the only one, that is, a personal attack on the opposing debater. The more subtle usage to keep in mind is when it's used to discredit a cited source of information. For instance, arguing "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" is an arguementum ad hominem. The idea must stand, not the person making it.
It is still ok, however, to evaluate the truth of statements made if there's reason for the individual cited to lie about that subject, or if that individual is not qualified to be cited (though use that reason with caution- wisdom can come from unlikely sources).
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) - This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic) - This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity)- Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) - This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers)- Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public)- Same as above, but specific to the public, and trying to prove an argument by the public's agreement with it.
Ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) - This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. While what they may be saying is true, you must bear the burden of proof- you cannot rely on their opinion as sufficient proof.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) - Example: "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"
Complex question - A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
A more realistic example would be: "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" The first statement is false - the majority of black Americans do NOT live in poverty (or, so the site I got this example from says), but it could catch someone off guard, most likely with much more ease than the first question.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) - This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization) - This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.
Naturalistic fallacy - This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone.
For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."
Nature, appeal to - This is the fallacy of trying to prove an argument based on if something is "natural" it is somehow also good, and that "unnatural" things are wrong.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") - This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
Petitio principii (begging the question) - This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) - This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.
Red herring - This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
Slippery slope - A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. Example: "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine."
Straw man -This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.
Tu quoque ("you too") - This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"
Again, these definitions come from the second site, either directly taken or paraphrased. Some additions are my own. So, to read more about these, and to see more examples, visit the link provided above.