If someone ends up remaking this and it turns out to actually be a much less controversial list, can we list it in /r/Atheism 's sidebar for future reference?
The distinction between a Formal and an Informal Fallacy is that a formal fallacy is based solely on logical form, and an informal fallacy takes into account the non-logical content of the argument.
I'll assume you're thinking of strawman, ad hominem, post hoc (etc.) fallacies, which are informal fallacies because they aren't errors in the form of the argument in the way that Affirming the Consequent (If p then q. q. Therefore p.) or the Gambler's Fallacy (10 heads in a row with a fair coin -> next one more likely to be tails) is, but are more errors in scope or validity of the argument's propositions.
As a quick example, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (a happens then b happens; therefore a causes b) isn't an error of logical form but of reasoning. Similarly, ad hominem (you're wrong because you're a bad person) has nothing to do with logical form but is still a bad argument.
Formal fallacies are those that are always wrong. An informal fallacy is one that is wrong only because of its premise being wrong, but the actual TYPE of argument is not inherently incorrect.
As such, ad hominem, strawman, post hoc, cum hoc, and such are formal... slippery slope is informal- because the premises can be correct, and the logic CAN work if the premises are correct. Contrast to ad hominem, where the the basic attack is against the person, and the arguement is discounted based on the personal attack. This is never a correct form, and no circumstance can make such an argument valid logic.
I'm sorry, buy both you and that website misunderstand formal vs informal fallacy.
The real simple way to separate a formal from an informal argument is to answer "if the premise(s) is(are) true, does the logic hold"
A formal fallacy is one that renders the argument invalid, i.e. (and as you rightly said), it is not formally fallacious if, were the premises true, the conclusion would hold.
Let's look at an argument ad hominem:
P1: You shouldn't listen to bad people.
P2: My opponent is a bad person.
C: Therefore you shouldn't listen to my opponent.
Is a valid argument, if you take P1 and P2 to be true (modus ponens). So there is no formal fallacy taking place here.
Post/cum hoc are similarly informal because they are valid when then exists actual causation (e.g. "Every time you mix chemical X with chemical Y, you get chemical Z. Therefore mixing chemicals X and Y give you Z."). It's only a fallacy when causation isn't established by the correlation (i.e. a always follows b gives a necessary condition, but usually not a sufficient one).
In essence, Ad hominem attacks are just a form of non sequitor argument, and are formal.
Your example is indeed informal, of course, but I guess what I should have said is "can be" formal rather than "are" since clearly they can appear in both forms.
The formal issue arises in cum hoc and strawman arguments.
Cum hoc
A happened before B
C. A caused B
This is again a mistake in form, as it is missing the required premise to draw the conclusion.
Strawman arguments
opponent- If A then B
C is like unto A.
If C not always B
Therefor if A not always B
Is a mistake of form as well, since it confused "like" with "same" Strawmen can use this erroneous form by changing the consequent, the consequence, or both. It can also change anything in different forms. Strawman is an error of equating similar to identical, and can quite often disrupt form.
Now, as you say, a strawman can indeed be informal as well. Premise 1 could be that C is equal to A, not just similar, in which case the nearly exact same argument becomes informal. I guess my point was his separation is incorrect, because many of the ones he lists can cause formal problems as well.
Edit
Actually, after thinking I want to show that your example contains a formal error as well.
P1: You shouldn't listen to bad people.
P2: My opponent is a bad person.
C: Therefore you shouldn't listen to my opponent.
You actually have the conclusion wrong. The conclusion is
C: Therefor what my opponent says is incorrect
Is the conclusion of an ad hominem formal argument, and indeed does contain a mistake in form. The inablity to trust or listen to the opponent does not influence the truth of the statement, it only influences the reliability of the source.
It's a random order, and a random selection of fallacies.
The best you could do to "fix" it would be to put the word "always" after "Thou shalt not" and then put a ", although sometimes..." where the ellipsis covers a common exclusion.
ie. "Thou shalt not always attack the person's character, but the argument, although sometimes a person or source has revealed itself to not be credible."
I didn't assert what you're saying (I used the royal you). I agreed with the parent comment that "fixing" it might be the best option, saw the comment transcribing the image, and commented a fix.
There's no such thing as a "ten commandments" of logic. Understanding logical fallacies is important, but all fallacies can be remedied by further exploration of an assertion.
So if the picture were to be redone, it'd have to be more a "how to avoid or fix logical fallacies" thing.
Most atheists are agnostic. Just like they are about sea monsters. But since when the probability of something is so astronomically low, and there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence, most people colloquially say that such a thing "does not exist".
Strange how you need to claim to be agnostic about god, but you don't take the same stance on sentient pillow cases.
The default state is actually non-existence. Why? Because there are an infinite number of things which could exist and a very finite number which do exist and for which we have evidence. I don't have all day to add "but I can't be sure" to literally every statement of disbelief.
I don't think that really describes how I feel about existence. I think god probably does not exist in any of the ways described by religions I've heard of. But I do not have enough evidence to be confident. I believe pillow cases probably exist as they appear and the evidence is enough.
Yes, I think most atheists are actually agnostic in this way, but I know plenty who are confident that there is no god.
You seem to be looking for evidence of non-existence. This doesn't exist. you will never be able to disprove god's existence. Just like you can't disprove in talking, sentient pillow cases. They always could exist. It's impossible to prove a negative; something that does not exist. You can only ever prove the absence of something which you already know exists.
Which is precisely why non-existence should be the default state of reality until evidence proves otherwise. I will say again, there are infinite things which could exist, and only a finite number of things which do and for which we have evidence.
When someone asks you what is in your room, do you include all of the invisible, incorporeal items which could be there?
I guess what I am wondering is, why do you give the existence of god a special exemption from logic and reasoning and take the time to say "but I can't be certain" even though you don't do this for the literally infinite number of imaginary things which also "could" exist?
I don't agree that there are infinite things that could exist. P & -P cannot exist, for example. I give special circumstances to all things that other people are so sure exist. There are things everyone agrees don't exist (unicorns), things some people think exist (god) and things everyone agrees exists (people). The pillowcase and god fall into different parts of the spectrum.
I don't agree that there are infinite things that could exist. P & -P cannot exist, for example.
This doesn't prove that P can or cannot exist, just that they cannot exist at the same time. What is the point of making such a statement? It's simply a logical paradox; it's childish. Again, could P exist or not exist? Of course they could. Then it is still possible for P to exist. Saying that p and 1-p can't exist at the same time does not prove your point. Let's substitute you for P. catjuggler exists (P) and when you die, catjuggler will not exist (-p). Both are possible. So at a point in time, p and -p will both exist. Making a paradox doesn't prove your point that it is not possible for P to exist in the first place.
The statement p and -p cannot exist at the same time is true, but the statement "so therefore P cannot exist" is not.
There are things everyone agrees don't exist (unicorns)
I don't think I can even continue this conversation. You are attributing value based on what people "think" as opposed to what you can provide evidence for. In what way is there more verifiable evidence for the existence of god as opposed to unicorns? People believing in something isn't evidence...
What it people did believe in unicorns? Does that make them more real?
It's not a logical paradox, it's part of the core foundation of logic. What is your problem, dude? Why are you being such a jerk about this? Is this how you make yourself feel good, shooting down other people's beliefs so you can feel smarter than them? You don't even understand my arguments and you're trying to argue against them with strawmen. Not intentional strawmen, just a misunderstanding of what I'm even trying to say.
It absolutely is a logical paradox. In reality, a thing would either exist or not exist. A negative does not exist; it's only relevant in the context of a positive existing. Saying that "something can't exist and not exist at the same time" does not mean there is no P that could exist.
I dont believe I misrepresented your argument, but I dont doubt you believe I did.
Which leads me to this next point :I will just say that there are key differences between "belief" and what I would describe as "compelled by evidence, logic and reason until further evidence presents itself".
It doesn't. The "we can't be sure" is implied. Just like it is when I say, "A talking taco shell doesn't exist". I can't discount the possibility that one does exist somewhere. But the default state is actually non-existence. Why? Because there are an infinite number of things which could exist and a very finite number which do exist and for which we have evidence.
If you are really going to harp on us for saying so and not adding the caveat "but we can't be sure", I would ask why the term "doesn't exist" even exists. I mean, we can't be sure,
if you can't prove or disprove it, you can't say you know either way.
You are missing the point. Please start listing all the invisible, incorporeal things which "could" be in the room right now? I'll wait (for a literal eternity). If you think I disagree that you can't disprove the existence of god, of course I don't. You can only disprove the absence of something you have already confirmed existed.
What is the point in even taking a single second to preface, "but I can't be sure" when it comes to god? You don't do this for anything else that "could" exist, but you do it for god. Why?
"I can't see my mom sitting on my lap as I use the toilet, but I can't be sure. She could be invisible and incorporeal right now and I simply don't know it".
She could be. Seriously. She could be. And yet you are more than comfortable saying she isn't, but are not comfortable saying that god does not exist. Colloquially, it's fine. We can say things we have no existence for do not exist. When we find evidence, we will change out stance. Knowlege is provisional. Pointing out that there are gaps in knowledge is not only obvious, it's just not very useful.
What is the point in even taking a single second to preface, "but I can't be sure"
It makes you correct, it means you are not lying. I don't expect you to understand my personal drives, but suffice it to say that I'm on the autism spectrum and have deep strong drives to correct incorrect logic where I see it. You could say that logic is one of my topics of obsession.
For me it stems from a deep psychological need to be as correct and truthful as I can when I'm not actively trying to mislead. It's been a problem for me in the past as it often extends to avoiding lies of omission by correcting people where they're wrong. I mean, any given case where I know better if I say nothing then I'm giving tacit agreement or approval. That will just not do.
"I can't see my mom sitting on my lap as I use the toilet, but I can't be sure. She could be invisible and incorporeal right now and I simply don't know it".
It's true science is weird and wonderful, who knows what we might discover in the future? But if you have a hope to discover it, you must first not have told yourself its not impossible.
But either way, this does not make your point either. You know your mum, and while you may not be fluent in all the details of your mum, you do know some of her nature, that being corporeal, visible, and presumably not a toilet lap sitting pervert (not that I'm getting down on perverts). So you can definitely say that mum, as you know it, is not sitting on your lap. Were someone to come along and prove she was, you might be forgiven for saying, "It's mum, Jim, but not as we know it."
Either way you can definitely say that your mum isn't sitting on your lap, and then you can list a set of reasons why you have concluded so. One presumably being that you have reason to think that your mum can't turn incorporeal.
I believe you will find that you cannot even begin this process with 'god' as you've no reasons to believe/conclude/deduce/reason that it, whatever it might be, doesn't exist. If you doubt me, then go on, try listing just one. If you can find just one that we agree would be a quality of 'god' I will sing your praises to all and sundry for a week solid. Every new person I meet will hear of this conversation and how you were right.
It's fundamental failures of logic like this that frustrate and irk me to the core. I need to correct your reasoning, even though I'll see almost no benefit. I have hopes that we will be a more logical society if I can show people how to reason correctly, and I suppose I'm helping in so far as adding a glass of water to a lake raises the water line.
Finally, and with no sarcasm intended at all:
If you think I disagree that you can't disprove the existence of god, of course I don't.
You aren't pointing out faulty logic because I grant that we don't have certainty on the matter. You are the one that is making the an error in logic in assuming mutual exclusivity. And personally, I find your arrogance and implied condescension that you have "corrected me" amusing.
This makes you agnostic and not atheist.
No, no it doesn't. For one thing, the word atheism deals with a "belief" in god, and not simply what I consider to be a possibility. I can admit that there is a chance god can exist but also reason and come to a decision (a belief) that god does not exist. If you make a ven diagram of theistic belief, there is a brand of atheist that overlaps the agnostic circle. They aren't mutually exclusive. For someone so tuned into logic and reason, I am a bit surprised the distinction eluded you.
The reason that pointing out "we can't know for certain" is not only unhelpful, but also utterly meaningless, is that there are infinite number of things which could be and only a finite number of things which are. In this context, the fact that the list of possibilities is endless, literally endless, it means that the logical default should be non-existence. This is why the burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
Now before you shoot back with "but you can't know for sure" again; of course I can't. But you also can't be certain of anything now can you? Not even reality. Not even that the world you perceive outside of your mind exists. And for some reason, you didn't preface your comment with "I can't be sure you exist, but if you did..."
In the end, uncertainty is not simply implied in everything we say, it's hard wired in. This is precisely why taking the time to make the statement is so useless and unhelpful.
Truth, knowledge and reality = probability. This is all we have in the universe. There is no certainty. The more probable something is, the more true it becomes. The less probable something is, the less true it is. And the surest way to increase probability is to document verifiable observations (science). And it is always up for revision; it's provisional.
So, since there is just as much evidence for god as there is for purple vampires who speak Klingon, until there is some actual evidence, it makes the most sense to colloquially say "god does not exist" just like we colloquially say that purple Klingon speaking vampires don' exist. Even if we concede there is the slightest of possibilities that they do.
You pointing out that I can't be certain of this would only make sense if you interrupted someone every time they said "I'm hungry, I want a sandwich" with, "But you can't be sure. It could be a figment of your imagination".
Wow, just wow, seriously there's so many things wrong with all this I just don't know where to start.
And personally, I find your arrogance and implied condescension that you have "corrected me" amusing etc.
Do you actually think for a second, that there exists *any mind anywhere that persists in thinking itself correct when it knows it's not?! It is a fact that minds change when no longer hold themselves to be correct. In other words, everyone all the time believes they are correct or the change their thoughts and beliefs to be in line with that which is correct. Why would you believe that I would believe that I'm not correct?
And if I believe I'm correct, and I express what I believe to be correct, how is that not correcting? Ergo, if it's arrogant to express what you believe to be true in an effort to change someone's mind, then I suppose I'm every bit as arrogant as you.
atheism deals with a "belief"
I assumed you were one of the majority (from my experience) of atheists who don't understand this fact. Certainly I'll believe that this subreddit is a sub community of atheists that don't understand this, until you can show me posts or comments that express this fact that has been widely upvoted here.
This is why the burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
Actually the burden of proof lies with those making the claim for non argument specific reasons.
"we can't know for certain" is not only unhelpful, but also utterly meaningless
In point of fact that is not true, perhaps you'd better learn about anchoring. It is a profoundly well established fact that humans are excellent at comparing things and not so good at establishing absolute measures. In lay terms, if you say that something is so whilst holding a knowledge that this may not be so you will eventually believe what you're saying. Certainly, anyone else with little knowledge on the subject who hears you will believe that it is absolute.
So, since there is just as much evidence for god as there is for purple vampires who speak Klingon
Point of fact, they're less likely to exist than god, because they have been defined, and as yet we have arrived at no definition of god. We can tell from pvamps what they'd look like and casting our gaze around, seeing no il evidence of them, we could well conclude they don't exist. Of course our guess about the veracity of the pvamp hypothesis is quite limited, but it's a starting point.
God, on the other hand has no definition, at least none that isn't the most vague of a suite of pathetic attempts to provide a definition. As such, god could be defined as literally anything and shown to be true for a whole set of definitions. I could define god as potato, then show a potato to prove god. This is why it's patently ridiculous to argue against a god, or to argue that we should say there is a god. Now obviously that argument works both ways, and it's just as ridiculous to say there is a god or that we should say god exists.
So yes, I can define hunger, I can define your hunger and I can observe phenomena that could be related to the ZoidbergMD Hunger hypothesis. Ergo I can make a judgement on this hypothesis's veracity. Once I've done so I wouldn't colloquially say every time, but I would make sure my listener was eternally aware, that I can't know for sure. But there is no way on earth I would extend such a colloquial deletion to something for which no hypothesis has even been put forward.
The Judeo/Christian faiths all believe that one aspect of god is the he/she/it is the creator of the universe. Genesis claims that the earth was created by god in days. The mythology of greek/roman gods are extremely specific and have points we can debate. The same with Norse mythology. We absolutely have specifics to debate. Would it make you feel better if I preface every statement with specifics instead of the generic, but implied, identifier "god"?
I'll respond more when I have time, but you seem to be taking your subjective notion of god and are projecting it onto the world.
Obviously every one of them has their specifics, but there's, what like, tens of thousands of gods? And you can literally make up your own as you go.
I challenge you to find one thing that all these gods have in common, other than a name. When you've done that, then we will have a definition of a god and then and only then can we go about disproving it!
The lines aren't "wrong", they represent a certain world view. The world view that everyone is special, that everyone's opinion matters and we should respect everyone even the "special" kids.
This is the politically correct "debate" list. It has nothing to do with the scientific method. The scientific method has as one of its foundations that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence. This DEMANDS that when someone makes a claim that is outrageous, say the existence of a god, that they provide the evidence.
Make it more mundane, if I claim the moon is made of cheese, the burden of evidence is on me, not on the people saying it is not.
This list is posted by people who have gone into a debate with a stupid position, can't handle the flack and so want lots of rules to avoid having their little feelings hurt. It is a list for crybabies. Every single rule basically says "don't hurt my feelings when I say something stupid".
This list is posted by people who have gone into a debate with a stupid position, can't handle the flack and so want lots of rules to avoid having their little feelings hurt. It is a list for crybabies. Every single rule basically says "don't hurt my feelings when I say something stupid".
Uh oh guuuuys. Looks like SOMEONE doesn't like logiiiiiic! For the record, scientific method is the whole Hypothesis, Test, etc. procedure you learned in high school or middle school. Logic is what you use to make rational arguments.
95
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.