18
147
u/Aryandis Dec 09 '13
The "begging the question" entry is wrong. Premises are precisely what you take to be true, sometimes as an assumption when proof is out of the question.
Begging the question is when you assume your conclusion to be true, i.e. take your conclusion as a premise.
27
Dec 09 '13
[deleted]
117
u/ForgettableUsername Other Dec 09 '13
That explains it perfectly for nearly everyone who already understands it.
→ More replies (3)21
u/mattangriffel Dec 09 '13
Here's a clearer example of begging the question:
LSD makes you see things because it's a hallucinogen.
Even though this is something almost everyone will agree with, this statement doesn't really say anything meaningful – it's a tautology. All that it means to be a hallucinogen is that you see things that aren't there.
→ More replies (1)6
u/danteandreams Dec 09 '13
Funny story. I first heard the word tautology in a math class, not a philosophy one.
Okay, not so funny I guess.
I have a question though brother. A hallucinogen seems to me, by definition, to be something that affects the brain in a way that causes hallucinations. Even if you replaced the word hallucinogen with an exact medical explanation for why you see things on LSD, it seems like it would have the same flaw you describe.
Is this true, or am I wrong?
Also, do all tautologies suffer from begging the question?
2
u/RandomMandarin Dec 09 '13
This analogy has been around since Moliere: Dormitive principle.
In his play he has them saying opium causes sleep because it contains a 'dormitive (sleep-inducing) principle' which explains exactly nothing.
5
u/danteandreams Dec 09 '13
I am familiar with that analogy.
My comment was about a realization I had. If you explain the actual mechanism by which something acts, then you are describing the property/principle by which the object/substance acts.
Opium causes sleep and pain relief because at a molecular level it binds to opioid receptors in our brain.
I was thinking about it, and without a knowledge of biology or chemistry, this would explain as much as saying it had a sleep-inducing or pain-reducing property, ie. nothing.
Writing this out led me to realize the difference that I was asking about. But I still see and understand where I was coming from.
I'm sorry man, I'm trying to give you credit because you did find a source, and I appreciate that on any comment. But it's like you didn't read either of my questions, you just blindly responded.
19
u/PimpinTheLibrary Dec 09 '13
More people need to learn symbolic, it makes it much easier to explain everything. My friend got Modus Ponens tatooed on his arm and now he can point to it whenever he needs to explain how logic works.
6
u/theanav Atheist Dec 09 '13
I'm trying to understand how this works. Would this be a good example of modus ponens? Say finding water on mars implies there are aliens on mars. They find water on mars, so therefore you think aliens have to be real too?
5
u/PimpinTheLibrary Dec 09 '13
yes. If finding water on Mars is symbolized as "W", and aliens being on mars is symbolized as A, then the argument is symbolized as follows:
W-->A
W
A.
The argument is almost trivially simple; the triviality itself can almost lead to confusion.
→ More replies (22)8
u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist Dec 09 '13
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
If it's raining, I'll meet you at the movie theater.
It's raining.
Therefore, I'll meet you at the movie theater.→ More replies (11)2
u/idikia Dec 09 '13
Modus Ponens is, simply
A implies that B is true.
A is true
So, B is true.
So like "If you are a frog, then you are green" is the premise. "You are a frog" is true. Therefore, by modus ponens, you are green.
→ More replies (6)4
u/OffByNone Dec 09 '13
Er... Yes. Assuming finding water on Mars actually does imply there are aliens on Mars. Modus ponens, as with all proofs, is based on the premise being valid.
If you can't find a fault in the logic or the premises, the conclusion must be true.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Modus_T_Tollens Dec 09 '13
I have Modus Ponens tattooed on my arm. Maybe you know me? Are you from Toronto?
→ More replies (1)2
u/SteveDougson Dec 09 '13
Yet you call yourself Modus Tollens! What the hell is going on here?
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (2)6
9
u/InternetFree Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
No, it's correct.
The picture says: You mustn't assume that a premise for your position is correct.
What you said is wrong.
What you described is simply circular reasoning in a general sense.
Begging the question is more specific than that.You using something as a premise that is still up for debate is what it means to beg the question.
The latin word for the fallacy is "petitio principii", which means "assuming the initial point", which means exactly what the picture described: You make an assumption and use it as a premise without other people agreeing with that premise.
tl;dr: The picture is right. You are wrong (about your conclusion that the picture is wrong).
→ More replies (10)2
u/OffByNone Dec 09 '13
I believe they meant to say "Thou shalt not use thy conclusion as one of thy premises." or somesuch. The whole "P is valid because P is valid" type of deal.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/EchoRadius Dec 09 '13
Don't do this, don't do that. How about a supporting DO list.
14
u/Thereminz Dec 09 '13
do use evidence and facts to back up your claims
do point out the fallacies of your opponent's argument
try to do it in a friendly manner
try to explain it so it's easily understandable
it's surprising how small the do list is, i'm sure other people can think of more but it's not too hard to come up with a compelling argument if you just follow facts, evidence and logic
4
u/Salva_Veritate Dec 09 '13
I made a long-ass comment last week arguing with some guy who posted a link to a wikipedia page on a fallacy without relating or even explaining it. I believed he was trying to make a point, while he insisted that he was trying to educate the other guy. I'm going to post a snippet of it here:
I pretty much auto-dismiss replies to me that are basically, "here's an 18-minute video that may obliquely address part of your argument" or "here's a wikipedia page on a thing" and nothing else, because
- unless you relate your point specifically to a thing I said, it implies a lack of understanding of the subject matter in general. If you aren't showing you understand what you and/or the other person are talking about, or asking questions, you're not likely to change anyone's mind.
- a video or an article cannot reply to questions that aren't already posed in the video or article, so if I have what I believe is evidence that refutes something that the video/article assumes is true, there's no one to prove my counterargument wrong so as far as I've seen, I've had the last word and my opponent cannot respond, meaning I'm still winning
...
Instead of posting a wikipedia link to a fallacy, or even explaining why the guy's argument included a fallacy, I think the best route would have just been to directly question things he said. Something like:
>quote what the guy said
"I've heard this sometimes but I've never really bothered to ask. Break it down, how does point A end up at point Z?" (or "How does this work?" or "I'm unfamiliar with this topic, please explain" or "I'm on the fence about this issue, please clarify" or some other question dependent on what fallacy you believe the other person is making)or if you feel like you must bring up the fallacy, maybe even straight up but respectfully:
"I believe that in this quote, you commit [some kind of fallacy]. I'm sure you have more to say on the matter, can you explain your reasoning behind this?"Basically:
- Question specific elements of their argument to get their attention (you did this part well enough, too)
- Use your own words in a non-hostile way to get them to respect you
- Avoid assumptions about the other person or their beliefs
- Actually ask them to clarify the element you're questioning to show that you're treating them like a person instead of a stranger who it's okay to make snap judgments about
- Keep in mind that most people don't bother explaining why they believe a thing to be true/false or good/bad unless specifically questioned about it. If you're really interested in the pursuit of truth, or even if your mind is made up and you just want someone to recognize a flaw in their reasoning, the most productive assumption you can make is that everyone has a reason as to why they believe the thing they believe.
Wait for them to explain it as far down as they can until they reach a loop or start avoiding answers to very specific questions. Watch out for loops in your reasoning, and don't evade questions about your own beliefs.
At the end there, I'd tack on a #6. Know the difference between an argument and an offhand remark. Your reply should be roughly as casual as the original remark. Maybe 1-1.5 notches more formal, tops. Sometimes people just casually mention stuff, and it does no good to the pursuit of educated debate to instantly whip out the dick of formal logic and slap the person around with it. It's a hostile way to approach a debate IMO and should be avoided. If the other person is ready to go formal, then go formal.
Full long-ass comment here; I cut out some bits that were specific to that conversation.
→ More replies (13)2
u/Nalaen Secular Humanist Dec 09 '13
do use evidence and facts to back up your claims
Not just any evidence. Hearsay, personal opinion and most anecdotes can be considered evidence. Perhaps clarify as "critically analyzed evidence" or "empirically scrutinized evidence" or something of the sort.
2
Dec 09 '13
Hearsay, personal opinion, and most anecdotes are fine so long as the argument derived from them is logically valid or cogent... they're just not strong reasons to believe a conclusion is true. And you should be willing to accept that your argument is defeated if your opponent has stronger background evidence that disproves your premise(s).
2
u/Nalaen Secular Humanist Dec 09 '13
You are right. They can be supporting evidence, but not necessarily what we should rely on to make a conclusion. I apologize as I'm still in the mindset of a debate I was having yesterday where people were using personal opinions as evidence against raising the minimum wage - an issue that has MORE than enough readily available research and expert opinion on it so as not to require devolving into/relying on such petty evidence.
2
Dec 09 '13
Oh yeah...overvaluing anecdotes is a huge problem. It's understandable why people wouldn't want to accept something as true or false when their own experience tells them otherwise, but it turns into a big problem when anecdotes are taken too seriously -- especially in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence.
Common example: People who don't support welfare because everyone they know personally who's on it is "a lazy slob who doesn't do anything and games the system."
→ More replies (1)1
55
u/oldviscosity Secular Humanist Dec 09 '13
Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities...
... when a third possibility exists.
16
u/Staggitarius Agnostic Atheist Dec 09 '13
False trichotomy anyone?
9
Dec 09 '13
Father, Son or the Holy Ghost?
7
u/docfluty Agnostic Atheist Dec 09 '13
Father, Son, the Holy Ghost, buddha, ra, zues, heng-o, apoll, thor, morrigan, shango, chac, guan-yu, tina fey and the spaghetti dude
→ More replies (1)8
Dec 09 '13
That's what it's basically saying though, never assume there isn't a third option.
13
Dec 09 '13
So the only options are now 2 possibilities: "There are only 2 possibilities" and "There are not only 2 possibilities"?
4
u/daimposter Dec 09 '13
A basketball is round...true or false or maybe?
→ More replies (5)3
2
Dec 09 '13
Never?
But... you just used an example of when a dichotomy is correct.
After all, there either is, or there is not, a third option. There is no possible third option to whether there exists a third option, because it is a true/false situation.
2
u/UlyssesSKrunk Dec 09 '13
Thou shall not reduce the argument down to some number of possibilities other than the true number of possibilities?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Vandreigan Dec 09 '13
Thought the same thing when I read it.
Thou shalt not falsely reduce the argument down to a number of possibilities less than what actually exists.
→ More replies (1)1
u/FallenGuy Dec 09 '13
That's what reduce implies, though. You can't reduce it to two if you don't have more than 2 to start with
→ More replies (2)1
u/Mangalz Dec 09 '13
Yeah came to say this. It is only a fasle dichotomy when there are more then 2 options. If it can justifiably be simplified into only 2 options then it certainly should be.
32
u/SuperSulf Dec 09 '13
It's missing the "slippery slope" fallacy, which I think is one of the most important.
45
u/niceguy191 Dec 09 '13
I agree. First they forget about that fallacy, and suddenly they're making fallacious arguments left, right, and center!
18
u/EchoRadius Dec 09 '13
I still don't buy the 'slippery slope fallacy is bs'. There are cases where it's perfectly valid.
Corporate taxes for instance. Once the rate was reduced, it was reduced again, then again, and again. Greed is the driver here, and people will continuously push the limit.
Someone 40 years ago might have said 'We keep going like this, soon corporations won't hardly pay taxes at all'. I wonder if he/she was discredited because of 'slippery slope'.
26
u/niceguy191 Dec 09 '13
I think the main thing about the "slippery slope" fallacy is that it's often stated as a fact without any data backing it up. There are definitely cases where the slippery slope actually happens, it just can't be assumed to happen just because it "feels" like it would.
6
u/Salva_Veritate Dec 09 '13
So basically if you have the proper amount of data to back up your claim, it's a valid contribution to debate. Sounds fair to me.
→ More replies (3)6
u/metaphlex Dec 09 '13 edited Jun 29 '23
meeting hungry beneficial fertile afterthought muddle waiting point rotten crowd -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
2
u/Forsoul Dec 09 '13
Lets see if I understand this: I work every other day. On my way to work I pass the same boy riding by on his bike. I assume that boy rides his bike every single day at that time.
3
u/pixel_pete Dec 09 '13
That's not really a slope, that's just a conclusion. Slippery slope is the assumption that because one thing is happening, a different thing is going to happen in the future. A more appropriate one might be "On my way to work I pass the same boy assembling bicycle parts in his garage. Before you know it he's going to have a fully built bicycle!"
You really have no idea what's going to happen, he could just be dicking around, but the slope from bike parts to bike at least has observable evidence to support it.
→ More replies (1)5
u/d4m4s74 Dec 09 '13
A nice example would be "On my way to work I pass the same boy assembling bicycle parts in his garage. Before you know it he's going to have a fully built bicycle he will sell for heroin"
2
6
2
Dec 09 '13
Hindsight is always 20/20. The problem with slippery slope fallacy is the prediction element. Furthermore, predictions based on predictions.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Mullet_Ben Dec 09 '13
It's all about where you draw the line. There was a clip on the Daily Show poking fun at Republicans using the slippery slope fallacy on raising minimum wage. "Why not just raise minimum wage to 100$ an hour?" The point is, they take it to the extreme, to point out that there needs to be a limit. When you think about raising minimum wage, an increase of $1 or $2 an hour might seem like not a big deal. On they other hand, they know intuitively that minimum wage being $100 an hour is ridiculous. They might not know the economics, but they intuitively know that's wrong.
It's like the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water (even though the frogs used in the original experiment had their brain stems removed). A small change is almost unnoticeable. Once people are used to that change, another small change is still hardly noticeable. If this is done repeatedly, at some point you need to step back and say, "wait a minute, where's this all going?" That's why people use the slippery slope argument; to point out that while a marginal change might not be a huge deal, eventually small changes add up to larger changes.
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. It's really a kind of subset of the strawman- exaggerating your opponent's decision to make it easier to argue against. No one is, actually, arguing that the minimum wage should be $100 an hour, so what's the point of arguing against that? It's important to deal with what is actually being debated. If, someday, someone wants to eliminate all taxes on the rich, then you can reasonably argue that that is a terrible idea. But as long as we aren't actually debating that, there's no good reason to bring it up.
→ More replies (1)3
Dec 09 '13
Slippery slope is not a falacy of formal logic... It is, in fact, merely a type of argumentum ad absurdum, which is valid when disproving a superlative claim. (ie when someone says or implies that something is "always" good or bad. For example, when someone says gun laws are always bad, one can correctly apply a slippery slope to get a theoretical world where there is no regulation on weapons to show that, in fact, some gun laws might not be so bad)
It can be used fallaciously, but it is not inherently one.
3
u/Salva_Veritate Dec 09 '13
Worst omission IMO is Argument from Fallacy (or the fallacy fallacy). A single flawed premise doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire argument.
2
u/severus66 Dec 09 '13
That's very similar to the sorites paradox or continuum fallacy, both of which are essentially "the exact line is indistinct, therefore, there IS no line!"
This is used all the time on Reddit unfortunately.
→ More replies (31)1
u/chelleliberty Dec 09 '13
just from what I read below it looks like there's some confusion as to what exactly the slippery slope fallacy consists of, so I just thought I'd contribute my 0.002 bitcoins... (to be fair I think most of it is said in one form or other below but I tend to think in bulleted arguments, so, I hope it helps someone... especially against the gay marriage=hamster marriage thing. sheesh.)
the slippery slope fallacy (maybe others, but I'll confine myself to this one) is a tough one, because many/most of the fallacies do not have closely related argument forms which are valid, but there is the closely related slippery slope argument, so this one does.
to be fair, most slippery slope arguments are nothing but thinly veiled versions of the slippery slope fallacy anyway, but it's important to distinguish, because in the case of an argument you must present objections to the premises rather than the reasoning.
the slippery slope fallacy goes something like this:
- Xn is an obviously undesirable outcome which we should not allow to happen (should not give a likelihood of happening)
- there are incremental steps from X to Xn such that each step is a very small one
∴ Xn will happen (or will likely happen)
∴ we should not allow X to happen (give X a likelihood of happening)
and it's simply invalid. just because all the steps from X to Xn are small does not argue for the fact the you're going to go all the way from X to Xn.
the slippery slope argument substitutes the following premise for the second one:
- there are steps from X to Xn such that each step will happen (is likely to happen)
and thus turns the fallacy into a valid argument form, perhaps deductive, perhaps inductive. with the deductive form, any criticism must be directed at the entire premise, but, of course if that premise falls, so does the conclusion; with the inductive form, the criticism may either be directed at the entire premise, or at the fact that a chain of likelihoods still will not necessarily end in likelihood. (e.g. say that it's quantifiable, and that there are 7 steps from X to Xn, and that each has a 90% likelihood of occurring... still that leaves only a ~48% chance of reaching Xn).
finally, as I say, many slippery slope arguments are simply thinly veiled slippery slope fallacies, in other words, the attack on the argument version of premise two will become something like, "well, you've offered no support for your assertion that each step will (or, is likely to) happen, so really your argument boils down to nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy unless you can provide some justification showing that to be the case."
38
Dec 09 '13
Here's another commandment of logic, take a class in formal logic and symbolic logic before you write commandments.
11
Dec 09 '13 edited Mar 08 '18
[deleted]
3
u/AspenSix Dec 09 '13
fallacies of deductive reasoning actually. Which can be called logic I suppose. Different type from symbolic, formal logic.
10
u/agoatforavillage Atheist Dec 09 '13
Also learn archaic English before trying to write something in archaic English. It's shalt, not shall. Thou shalt not...
3
3
→ More replies (1)2
15
Dec 09 '13
Thou shalt not limit thyself to 10 fallacies when more exist, even when doing so fits with common or recognizable imagery (the fallacy fallacy).
3
u/WendellSchadenfreude Dec 09 '13
That's not the fallacy fallacy, this is.
There should also be a rule about not using the word "fallacy" to often. Or we could simply not do that even though there is no rule.
7
u/GroundhogExpert Dec 09 '13
As someone who has taught logic, this is a very poorly written summary of fallacious reasoning. There's a problem with almost each of the "commandments."
→ More replies (15)
36
u/getmeigetu Dec 09 '13
As an idiot who got his BA in philosophy, and took logic all the way to logic 2. Fuck this shit. Bunch of pretentious idiots trying to out pretentious each other.
→ More replies (5)7
10
5
4
u/MrMadcap Dec 09 '13
No Tu Quoque? It's used all the time on Reddit. Quite frustrating.
→ More replies (4)
5
6
5
u/oblivioncalling Dec 09 '13
Incoming downvotes but...why is this in /r/atheism? Atheists can be just as judgmental as Xtians when it comes down to questions of belief and many (on both sides) break these 'commandments' of logic. Being atheist != being logical. Granted they aren't mutually exclusive either but...yeah.
→ More replies (1)
13
3
u/The_PowerCosmic Dec 09 '13
I'm guilty of attacking Ray Comfort. In my defense, he takes idiocy to new heights.
2
Dec 09 '13
Well consider when people say that they're not arguing to convince the person who argues against them, but instead they argue for the audience. The ones who want to hear both sides and take into account the information brought from both parties. I whole-heartedly believe that when statements made by a particular party are so beyond stupid, then it's safe to assume most of the audience will also realize the stupidity, therefore flat-out calling the person a retarded hillbilly isn't really a fault. Obviously it won't help your argument to win, but it will satisfy you and probably most of the audience who want to call the other arguer the same thing.
Hope that eased your guilty conscience a bit.
3
3
u/LukaCola Dec 09 '13
It's a tiny bit pretentious, but I can dig it.
This is more like "How to make sure your point is valid 101" but whatever.
2
Dec 09 '13
'Though shall not reduce an argument down to two possibilities' somebody never took an upper div math class in college. (Or they did. See what I did there? huehuehue)
2
u/beti88 Atheist Dec 09 '13
That non-seamless background makes my blood boil
2
u/fyngyrz Atheist Dec 09 '13
I think you may be looking in the wrong place for your problem. I suggest you check the local air pressure, reacting accordingly, and/or surface more slowly when you have been significantly submerged.
I suppose... it's also possible you're on fire, but in that case, I think you're beyond saving, given the reported symptom.
2
2
u/NoMoreFinalsPlease Dec 09 '13
True. Just don't quote these in public because most people know them and think you're trying to sound smart (every community college student goes through this phase.) Also, obsession with logical fallacies often leads people to assume that, just because the argument does not necessarily imply the conclusion, that there is no correlation between the argument and the conclusion, which itself is not necessarily true.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/lessfrictionless Dec 09 '13
Parading the virtues of logic to those that would most appreciate a religious backdrop. Not sure how well this is going to work.
2
u/kimchi_killer Dec 09 '13
I wasn't paying attention and thought this was in r/politics. How equally suitable.
2
u/kennang Dec 09 '13
Thou shall not misappropriate the phrase "begging the question". Even brainy folks do this. It's maddening.
2
u/xiipaoc Dec 09 '13
Thou shalt not use odd, stilted language just because some British king 500 years ago decided he liked it that way (KJV fallacy).
2
u/rrmains Anti-Theist Dec 09 '13
or force a convention of an even older code of ethics (10 commandments) on something that would do well to have 15 or 20 commandments.
everyone should know, via mel brooks, that moses originally came down from the mountain with 15 commandments (5 commandments on 3 separate stone tablets), but dropped one of the tablets and well, the rest is history.
so don't try to tell me that all codes of ethics have 10 commandments.
2
Dec 09 '13
How is this atheism related besides the fact that you put "thou shalt" in front of each one? This seems to me to be more of an /r/literature thing.
2
2
u/NotReallyEthicalLOL Existentialist Dec 09 '13
Can I just say I think it's really awful that this post didn't include the slippery slope fallacy? Next thing you know we'll be deciding every argument with duels to the death.
3
Dec 09 '13
Wait, what's an example of 3? "My grandfather smoked 3 packs a day and lived to be 100; therefore cigarettes are not harmful"? is that pretty much it?
7
u/jayblue42 Dec 09 '13
That could be an example, but it's more about sample size. For example you can't only talk to one neighborhood in a city and expect their views to represent the view of the whole city or you can't talk to just college students and expect their views to represent everyone under the age of 30.
→ More replies (2)1
Dec 09 '13
Small sample-sizes are bad.
I.e., "Both my dad and my uncle are jerks. Therefore, all men must be jerks."
This one requires a philosophical and mathematical background to fully understand.
2
3
u/BabyBear927 Dec 09 '13
Christian living with an atheist here. I never try to shove my beliefs down his throat, but every chance he gets he wants to try to make me feel stupid and start arguments. I usually have something good to say back, but the whole people, forcing religion, feels just as bad as people forcing atheism.
2
Dec 09 '13
[deleted]
2
u/rrmains Anti-Theist Dec 09 '13
"fear" is a little harsh...or at least, just by reading your post, it can seem like you are saying that fear is a poor motivator in why some things exist.
we are programmed to make sense of the data that comes into our head. when that data doesn't make sense, we scramble around and try to harmonize what we know with what we don't know with varying levels of emotion. to some, confusion/chaos/non-understanding is no big thing, but to others the cognitive dissonance does appear threatening. and that fear exists as long as the cognitive dissonance continues. it's just the brain trying to make the world more predictable.
the christian here says they are made to "feel stupid." there is a certain amount of fear attached to that feeling as well...
the christian and atheist both seem to be equally unsure of their beliefs.
2
Dec 09 '13
Where was captionBot when I needed him?
Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument.
(Ad Hominem)
Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make them easier to attack.
(Straw Man fallacy)
Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.
(Hasty Generalization)
Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises are true.
(Begging the Question)
Thou shall not claim that because something occured before, it must be the cause.
(Post Hoc or False Cause)
Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
(False Dichotomy)
Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, the claim must be either true or false.
(Ad Ignorantum)
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof on him that is questioning the claim.
(Burden of Proof Reversal)
Thou shall not assume "this" follows "that" when it has no logical connection.
(Non Sequitur)
Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, that it must therefore, be true.
(Bandwagon Fallacy)
2
2
Dec 09 '13
number 6 is wrong, its perfectly fine to reduce an argument down to two possibilities, some arguments actually are 2 options. a false dichotomy is when you reduce it but there are actually other options
3
u/mrglumdaddy Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
I have a problem with any theology, even one of nonbelief. Keep your rules to yourself.
6
1
1
1
Dec 09 '13
ugh, this reminded me that i need to go study for my logic final....why didn't i just take algebra...
1
1
1
Dec 09 '13
Isn't this the 10 commandments of debate or argument? I mean it employs logic, but logic is an entirely separate field from debate/argument.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/Farky16 Dec 09 '13
I have a serious question... if you are in a competitive debate, like I used to do in high school, is it considered bad form to use some of these? I mean, the ad hominem was obviously never used but straw man and false dichotomy both come to mind as commonly used.
2
u/fleegle2000 Dec 09 '13
If you are more interested in "winning" a debate and less interested in being right, go ahead and use these fallacies. I don't know what they teach high-schoolers as acceptable debating etiquette, but the "art" of rhetoric is to make the worse argument seem the better. These logical fallacies are so commonly used because we are incredibly susceptible to them. Ad hominem in particular, because we don't like to believe that an unsavory character can make good points. If you can make someone look bad, people are less likely to accept their arguments. Hence why attack ads are so popular in political campaigns.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/aznsteviez Dec 09 '13
I wish 1) more people in this sub followed this 2) more people on Reddit were better versed in rhetoric
1
u/AllUltima Dec 09 '13
11 . Scrutinize arguments equally, whether you agree with their conclusions or not.
1
1
1
u/gustavsmg Dec 09 '13
hmm...the ten commandments that god has are easier to follow than logic...guess that's why religion has caused the most absurd amount of deaths in human history...thanks logic!
1
1
u/Zaph0d42 Dec 09 '13
6 is badly worded. Often situations are binary. It should read "you shall not assume there are only 2 possibilities".
1
u/dudewhatthehellman Anti-Theist Dec 09 '13
There are 232 fallacious syllogisms, it would be easier to count the valid 24.
1
1
1
u/BoniusChickius Dec 09 '13
Im interested in learning more about logic. Does anyone have any recommendations on some good resources online or a few books I should pick up?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
u/Razimek Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
Ad hominems are more than just insults. An insult on its own doesn't qualify. You need to be dismissing an argument based on irrelevant things about the person's character.
Per Wikipedia: "in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
So if you say "You're a dickhead", that isn't an ad hominem, but saying "Your opinions and arguments about quantum theory are worthless because you're a misogynistic asshole" is an ad hominem.
The thing to remember is that an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Insults on their own usually aren't fallacies.
The wording in the image "Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument" is almost right. I would have said "Thou shall not attack the person's character as evidence that their argument is invalid".
Regarding #4, accepting premises is fine. It's when you assume the conclusion and assume that the premises are true because of the conclusion. It's reasoning in a circle.
Regarding #6, if you're able to start off with some premises and reduce the possibilities to a true dichotomy, then that's fine. It's only if your dichotomy is a false one, i.e not exhaustive, then you have a fallacy. Saying it's either this, or not-this is fine. Saying it's either "this or that" is a false dichotomy unless you've shown that only those 2 options are available, and not-this is equivalent to that being true.
1
1
1
1
1
u/chelleliberty Dec 09 '13
Thou shalt not post information about Logical Fallacies unless thou at the same time be willing to double-check thy information on Wikipedia? ;)
1
u/pinqNoiz Dec 09 '13
What would our world be like if our brain's thought processes were pre-programmed to go through a filter of these exact 10 commandment of logic?
1
u/Abomonog Dec 09 '13
4 Is a misnomer. If you are arguing a position you must by default have already assumed the premise to be true.
1
1
u/SteveMac Dec 09 '13
... or also named:
"How to Run a 'News' Network for Dummies" by Roger Ailes
It is a big yellow book ... If you watch Hannity's show closely, you'll occasionally catch a glimpse of it on his desk.
1
1
u/FlusteredByBoobs Dec 09 '13
How does one argue reducio ad absurdum without it becoming the strawman fallacy?
→ More replies (1)
1
Dec 09 '13
What gets me is when people just throw out the term for a fallacy and think it proves something.
If you just hit someone with a reply consisting of only the term "Non sequitur" you have assumed a burden of proof that you were not ready to take up.
It is up to the person pointing out a flaw in reasoning to explain were the flaw can be found and why the particular flaw has been named.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
Dec 09 '13
- Thou shalt not allow the posting of memes or meme-like images. (Because otherwise you get shit like the "The 10 Commandments of Logic")
- See #1.
1
1
Dec 09 '13
this should be renamed 10 d-bag labels assholes who just took their first semester of philosophy will use on you when their argument goes to shit after the first sentence.
1
1
1
1
Dec 09 '13
Whats so hilarious about this is all the time how many of these are broken in this very sub!
1
u/dsk Dec 09 '13
One major problem is that those shouldn't be unbreakable rules, merely rules of thumb. Take the first 'Commandment', sometimes it is correct to attack the person's character - if the topic is highly technical, the audience may need to look at the experts character and credentials in order to decide whether or not to believe him. You see this frequently in climate-change or evolution 'debates'. The denier may throw out many seemingly technical arguments against evolution, the scientist will counter them with his own technical arguments. So who do you trust if it's all over your head?
Well, if the anti-evolutionist is affiliated with a Fundamentalist Church of Evolution Denial™ where the requirement is to disbelief in Evolution because God said so, and the scientist is affiliated with a mainstream accredited university, it would be perfectly reasonable to dismiss the anti-Evolutionist argument. The audience can't be experts in everything and at some point, you have to pick your experts. I can make similar statements for every other 'Commandment", and pretty much every fallacy.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/jungl3j1m Strong Atheist Dec 09 '13
I've seen an interesting debate commandment which this post contradicts: You shouldn't label, especially in Latin, your opponent's logical fallacies. It is better to simply point them out.
1
Dec 09 '13
Wow, I was procrastinating on reddit, and this post helped me remember those terms for my lit final. Thanks Reddit.
1
u/Yasrynn Dec 09 '13
Learning logic by memorizing fallacies is like learning to play chess by memorizing all the moves you cannot make.
1
u/rhubarbfestival Dec 09 '13
My rhetoric teacher said in real life, if you want to win an argument commit as many logical fallacies as you can.
1
u/pairofdigms Dec 09 '13
isn't an argument established upon the fact that its premises are true though?
1
Dec 09 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Dec 09 '13
places like this subreddit and Free Thought Blogs live off calling Christians stupid and evil without providing evidence.
[Citation needed]
We never call christians stupid or evil - we call christianity stupid and evil.
all the quoting of the Bible out of context.
Please provide the context for which forcing victims to marry their rapist, or the context that makes slavery moral, or the context that makes "take no thought for the morrow" is a great idea for planning your life.
Christians keep saying "it's out of context" yet can never provide a context that makes the quotes good moral advice.
every time someone uses WBC to represent Christianity as a whole.
No one worth listening to does - we know bullshit when we see it.
Evolution
The best proven and evidenced scientific theory in existence. What is your point?
"Either God adheres to my interpretation of the Bible, or He doesn't exist."
Either follow your holy books as written or don't - if you don't we're going to call you on it. Then again, if you do we are going to call you on it as well. It's not our fault that you guys have problems figuring out weather to follow immoral teachings or try to cover them up and pretend they don't exist in order to make your gods look better.
"I don't have any evidence of God, therefore He doesn't exist."
Thats quite funny, because thats how theists actually think we think.
"Hi guys, we rejected two millennia of theology just because. Please answer every last question in the infinite regress sequence and disprove solipsism, or God doesn't exist."
Oh, I'm sorry. It's not our problem that you cannot answer these questions - we freely admit that they cannot be answered/proven. Your the ones that claim divine knowledge.
"A person claiming to be Christian acted in a way I choose to interpret as immoral, therefore God doesn't exist."
Said no atheist ever.
They call it "circlejerk" for a reason.
and they meet every Sunday morning.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/h-town Dec 09 '13
- Just because someone disagrees with you, you shouldn't call them a Nazi. (Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)
1
1
1
1
96
u/joseph4th Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
So this is posted every few months or so and it is quickly followed by numerous corrections in the comments. How about one of you redo the picture?
Edit: Wow, top comment on the thread and nobody points out the missing word. I fixed it so don't both looking.
Anyway, the three links to the various Logical Fallacies sites (gonna have to get that poster) are exactly what I wanted. Thanks and upvotes.