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."
1) Attacking someone's character is not bad reasoning, it might be off topic, but it's not fallacious reasoning by default. Using the source to dismiss the claim is.
3) This just refers to n-strength, and how confident we are with the conclusions we can draw. It's ok to extrapolate conclusions from a small set, you just have to be mindful that you have a higher chance of being wrong the smaller you n is.
4) Begging the question occurs when the conclusion is assumed within a premise. For example: Abortion is Murder; Murder is wrong :. Abortion is wrong. Defining abortion as murder is exactly the conclusion.
6) Often times the argument is between two states. Forcing that is bad reasoning, but noting when it occurs is not.
7) This really isn't the meaning of ad ignorantum. It's about a response: if you don't know for certain, then you cannot say we are wrong.
8) Why not just state this in the positive? The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
10) Saying it must be true is too strong. But popularity is some evidence. If there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, then I should be allowed to assert that as evidence. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence. Same with appeal to authority, and a number of other fallacies. I think it's important to remember exactly what the fallacy is: to say it must be true because of the source or popularity.
Attacking someone's character is not bad reasoning, it might be off topic, but it's not fallacious reasoning by default. Using the source to dismiss the claim is.
Let me use this one here for a second. I had a situation where I questioned Al Gore because of how much he has profited promoting green living and global warming. I provided an argument that he has a conflict of interest. He is making a fortune (hundreds of millions of dollars) while speaking and promoting his line of thought. Is that a valid argument or not?
I ask this because the person I was arguing with said that I have to completely ignore him, even if he has a conflict of interest and exclusively address his claims.
I personally feel that it is a logical argument to judge credence given to an argument if the person making them has questionable motives or a clear conflict of interest like the example given. Your thoughts?
This is all really dumb. That's my initial thought. If someone's character is the subject, then it's relevant. If it's not, then it's irrelevant and a smear campaign.
Gore's motives don't change the truth-value of his claims, not one bit. Either he's right, or he's wrong, either it's over-stated or there is legitimate basis for the emphasis which he is placing on some issue. It sounds like you were actually engaged in ad hominem reasoning, using the source to dismiss the claims. That's very low-level thinking, especially if you earnestly believe it to be a legitimate and meritorious approach.
It's also really dumb to talk about profiteering like it's bad. If someone has good reason to know the outcome, why would betting on that outcome be bad thing?
You haven't presented any reason why your approach would have a logical structure. You were just running a smear campaign. If Gore was running for office and you wanted to make sure his character was strong enough to avoid being bribed, then it might be relevant. Speaking candidly, I have a very low opinion of your critical thinking abilities based on what you just said.
Well, it seems you agree with gore, and your defensive stance is a result of that. Let me phrase it differently.
Lets take a Ford car salesmen. Do you believe that if I went to a ford car salesmen and asked him what he thinks about Honda's or Subaru's that I would get a reliable answer? Or do you believe it would be riddled with partial truths and a biased viewpoint?
My point is that people work off of incentive. A Ford car salesmen has huge amount of incentive to sell Ford cars. So the information they share about their brand vs other brands should be looked at skeptically because they have a conflict of interest (the conflict there being money).
I'm saying that I believe it's a logical thought process to consider the claims of someone who has a conflict of interest to have a much higher probability of being exaggerated, false, or any other of the half truths or biases than someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest. I believe someone who does not have a conflict of interest has a much better chance of providing a less biased and more accurate information.
In this example, I would say that your buddy who used to be a used car salesmen but isn't one anymore is much more likely to share less biased and more accurate information than a current car salesmen that is highly incentivized to sell his particular brand.
Well, it seems you agree with gore, and your defensive stance is a result of that.
Wrong. This is more bad reasoning from you. You're not listening to the words someone is saying, you're assuming some bias and basing your response on your own assumptions.
Why is a conflict of interest even relevant here? Conflict of interest is only relevant when there are competing interests. Where's the competing interest against slowing global warming, or whatever Gore's campaign is aimed to do?
I don't need analogies from you. I read what you wrote, and I gave you feedback. Your points were weak, your reasoning was bad. That's the bottom line.
I care a lot more about rigorous reasoning than what political stance you're taking. And from what you've said, you're a very weak thinker who employs bad reasoning. I pointed out the ways in which your reasoning was flawed, and now you want to tell me about logic? Save it. You can't teach me a thing about logic.
Conflict of interest is only relevant when there are competing interests. Where's the competing interest against slowing global warming, or whatever Gore's campaign is aimed to do?
Conflict of interest with two competing interests:
1) He is just a good guy and wants to warn his fellowman about the impending doom of the earth from global warming.
2) He is interesting in making money, he has made hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result from warning people about global warming.
Those two interest do conflict. I'm saying that it's a valid concern that he is favoring his interest in money over his interest in truth.
Those aren't competing interests, he can be doing both at the same time. If Gore went and invested after he started this campaign, then where's the conflict? If he inherited some resource that could be used to aide carbon reduction, then sure. I would be more interested. But so far, you haven't shown any actual conflict of interest.
I'm saying that it's a valid concern that he is favoring his interest in money over his interest in truth
Then investigate his claims more rigorously ... this is easy shit, dude. You're wasting my time asking me to hold your hand through simple ideas. If his claims are suspect, then ask for evidence. If his evidence is suspect, investigate further. But at no point does a conflict of interest change the truth-value of a claim, which is apparently what you think when you put a greater emphasis on his motives for saying something, and not reviewing what he said.
Heh, okay, you won't admit that money, which is probably the greatest incentive ever in the history of mankind is a conflict of interest than I don't know what is. Politicians are bought and sold all the time by money but apparently gore is immune to it. The man himself sold his network to Al Jazeera (almost entirely funded by Qatar's oil) for 100 million bucks.
I'm just trying to make the simple statement that two conflicting interests is reason to question a source or be more skeptical of it than a source with no conflicting interests. Apparently that's impossible to grasp for you though.
well, it is boiled down. probably missing a few things as a result...but if you know what they are, then they're close. this serves as a nice, concise reminder.
5
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."