Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[OzSpen]

One issue I have with fallacies, is that it seems that more and more they are brought up as an excape from what the other person says. For example both Ad Homminin and Red Herring are fail cavies that deal with a change in subject matter. However when I see a complaint to the use of these kinds of rationelle, it seems to me too often that the other person didn't follow the subject matter in the same way the other person thought was relevant. But instead of addressing the issue (if it was a sincere point) the point is ignored because the subject was changed, or the question of trust to the first person is brought up. In almost all of these fallacy catogeries I know of at least a few examples where the fallacy had merrit, but is ignored because it was in the form of a fallacy.

NNS,

I can assure you that when I draw attention to a person's use of a logical fallacy, it has to do with the way that person has avoided dealing with the issues. It has nothing to do with my not dealing with the subject matter of the person who used the fallacy. By labelling a logical fallacy with a proper name, I have shown what error of reasoning was used and how that detracts from logical discussion of the subject matter.

Oz

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

NNS,

I can assure you that when I draw attention to a person's use of a logical fallacy, it has to do with the way that person has avoided dealing with the issues. It has nothing to do with my not dealing with the subject matter of the person who used the fallacy. By labelling a logical fallacy with a proper name, I have shown what error of reasoning was used and how that detracts from logical discussion of the subject matter.

Oz

The experience that has a bad taste in my mouth about fallacies stems from a set of conversations a while ago, before coming to CFnet. But the conclusions from those conversations are still in me. It wasn't meant to be aimed at you OzSpen (or anyone else here), but just that sometimes our perspectives have merrit even when they are a fallacy. And also sometimes in debates it gets easy to try and find faults in another person's arguments instead of addressing their points. A focus on fallacies after a heavy debate in my opinion is a red flag that something is off in the conversation. (Regardless if it was intentional or not.)

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you or do you not consider it is legitimate to point out a person's use of a fallacy?

If someone is posing an argument and it is illogical, it would be expected that the person to whom the argument is posed would respond to it. If the person's argument contains a logical fallacy, it would be polite to explain how the fallacy makes his argument illogical.
It is completely legitimate to say "your argument fails because it contains the (XYZ) logical fallacy.
One would hope that the person would learn something from having the error pointed out (as a coach would do for an athlete) and not get offended because of it.

I'm interested in how you go about correcting a person's fallacious reasoning in person or on a forum.

In person, I would state that the argument fails because of the specific logical fallacy. People constantly use Red Herrings and Straw Men without being aware that they are doing so.
In this forum, I would have to walk on egg shells so no one would think I was being "snarky" or "flaming" when all I was doing was explaining why I did not accept the argument posed.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Me too Oz!
I can't get books written in English here.
Will be checking out the link.
Defending the infallibility of scripture. Wouldn't that make a good thread?

W

W,

There are droves of books in English that can be purchased online from what seems like thousands of booksellers. The cheapest books I purchase come from Book Depository in the UK. My daughter-in-law is a librarian and she recommended this organisation as the one being able to provide the cheapest books for purchase for her library. Buying from the USA is way too expensive with postage to Aust. Book Depository offers 'free' delivery worldwide. This means that the cost of postage is built into the cost of the book, but I land it here in Brisbane at a reasonable price.

Why don't you start a thread on the infallibility of Scripture?

Back to the topic: What kind of instruction have you ever received in a church on how to deal with illogical teaching in church or a university classroom? For me, it is zero. The only teaching I've ever received has been through self discovery - checking it out for myself. I still find it difficult to identify a logical fallacy on the spur of the moment. I often think of it later.

I'll give a recent example of a poisoning the well fallacy that was used against me. A new Christian in my church has moved to another suburb so he's attending a new church. He approached me before leaving: 'Will you be able to teach me the Bible? I'd like to know more about John's Gospel'. I agreed and we meet fortnightly (that's every 2 weeks). We met this morning. But before he left my church, the Calvinistic pastor warned him against my understanding of John 3:3 (ESV), 'Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"'. The pastor is a Calvinist who believes one needs to be regenerated BEFORE one can be born again. He warned my friend that I do not believe this because I'm a Classical/Reformed Arminian. I challenged the pastor on his use of a poisoning the well fallacy against me. I've since discussed this issue with the person being discipled and shown him how the pastor used a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacies are dangerous reasoning techniques in discussion/teaching because they divert attention away from the teaching or topic being discussed into something that sounds like on topic - but it isn't.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Logical fallacies are dangerous reasoning techniques in discussion/teaching because they divert attention away from the teaching or topic being discussed into something that sounds like on topic - but it isn't.

I find that manipulative, controlling people will use them on others who are unaware of the fraud that is being perpetrated against them.

 

[OzSpen]

If someone is posing an argument and it is illogical, it would be expected that the person to whom the argument is posed would respond to it. If the person's argument contains a logical fallacy, it would be polite to explain how the fallacy makes his argument illogical.
It is completely legitimate to say "your argument fails because it contains the (XYZ) logical fallacy.
One would hope that the person would learn something from having the error pointed out (as a coach would do for an athlete) and not get offended because of it.

In person, I would state that the argument fails because of the specific logical fallacy. People constantly use Red Herrings and Straw Men without being aware that they are doing so.
In this forum, I would have to walk on egg shells so no one would think I was being "snarky" or "flaming" when all I was doing was explaining why I did not accept the argument posed.

jim

Thanks, Jim. That's helpful.

Too often I think that moderators consider correction of a logical fallacy is a personal attack - which it is not. If I were using a logical fallacy on this forum, I would count it a blessing if someone would point it out so that I would be better in presenting my argument.

When I lived in our capital city of Canberra in the early 1990s, one of the local politicians was promoting euthanasia. I was a local pastor and I tacked him in letters-to-the-editor. This led to my debating him in an auditorium that attracted 500 people. I do wish I had been more conversant of the logical fallacies he used against me at that time. I was rated as winning the debate, but I should have addressed his erroneous reasoning as an extra point of refutation.

It was an incident in a 1984 university classroom that sparked my pursuit of the use of logical fallacies. I can't use the language that the professor used against me on this forum. He swore at me when I made a comment in class on a certain topic he was teaching. He later apologised to me in private, but not before the class where he had attacked me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I find that manipulative, controlling people will use them on others who are unaware of the fraud that is being perpetrated against them.

Jim,

See how this was done by a comment to the article in the Brisbane Times, April 7, 2016, 'Queensland law should reflect public support for abortion'. The comment:

Mike Brisbane, Apr 7 2016 at 11:50am

3-2-1, cue the religious nut-cases comments saying a bunch of cells must be given human-rights, that abortion is evil, and that god's words must be followed without question.​

This is an example of a genetic fallacy mixed with an appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The experience that has a bad taste in my mouth about fallacies stems from a set of conversations a while ago, before coming to CFnet. But the conclusions from those conversations are still in me. It wasn't meant to be aimed at you OzSpen (or anyone else here), but just that sometimes our perspectives have merrit even when they are a fallacy. And also sometimes in debates it gets easy to try and find faults in another person's arguments instead of addressing their points. A focus on fallacies after a heavy debate in my opinion is a red flag that something is off in the conversation. (Regardless if it was intentional or not.)

NNS,

I agree that there can be valid points when a fallacy is made. However, it would be best - for the sake of correct reasoning - not to use logical fallacies and start another thread to deal with your topic. When we use logical fallacies, it prevents our dealing with the content of what the other person was saying.

Fallacies cause us to spin off into our own agenda. It can sound like the content of what the other person is saying, but it is not because it engages in the use of illogic. A better approach is to comment directly on the content of a person's post.

Oz

 

[WIP]

I have a question. I am certainly no scholar or learned debater but would it not be correct to say that defining an argument as one or more of the various fallacies are in fact a matter of one's interpretation? In other words, what I view as a red herring may not be viewed as a red herring way by another.

 

[smaller]

You have got to be kidding.
Really. I hope you are joking.

I'll give you a pertinent logical fallacy that exists in orthodox christianity, if you can bear it.

God in Christ gave us "all truth." This "all truth" is given to the church of orthodoxy, therefore the church of orthodoxy is the only church that has "all truth."

Why is this a logical fallacy?

Because all of us see only in part and as through a glass, darkly, no different than Paul himself admittedly saw.

Therefore the delivery of "all truth" includes the very solid truth that none of us individually or collectively see any different than Paul, meaning we see individually or collectively only in part.

Therefore the logical conclusion that orthodoxy claims it has (and most christian sects suffer from the same logical fallacy) can not possibly be true, and they do not and CAN NOT have all truth because they have not submitted to what is conveyed in "all truth."

Logic lesson 101.

 

[smaller]

I have a question. I am certainly no scholar or learned debater but would it not be correct to say that defining an argument as one or more of the various fallacies are in fact a matter of one's interpretation? In other words, what I view as a red herring may not be viewed as a red herring way by another.

The various charges listed get thrown about quite a bit. Most of the charges themselves are false. What we deal with primarily are what are called arguments from exclusion, which is itself a logical fallacy, meaning we simply don't have "all" the information on the table and there are therefore exclusions of information in the arguments themselves.

It is only when it can be determined that all, every last bit of information can be proven to be on the table, does anyone have a claim and in reality that can't happen. Most logical arguments are faulted on the surface by the excluded middle logical fallacy because of the lack of full and comprehensive encompassing information. This is a general fault of logic itself, and relegates man's logic only to what man himself knows and discovers which logically is NOT everything and/or all things.

In this formula then there are two forms of logic. Man's logic, which is logically lesser in nature. And Gods Logic which is Perfect and beyond finding out.

Ask me how good man's logic can then be? It can only be lesser logic by nature. Logic dictates this to be the case of man's reality.

Some call arguments from the excluded middle logical fallacies. Some call the excluded middle argument a law. I believe it is a law. I might even call it a Divine Law.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 

[reba]

I have a question. I am certainly no scholar or learned debater but would it not be correct to say that defining an argument as one or more of the various fallacies are in fact a matter of one's interpretation? In other words, what I view as a red herring may not be viewed as a red herring way by another.

What you are forgetting WIP is only the other guys view point is important. There is no other correct view then theirs.

 

[Free]

I have a question. I am certainly no scholar or learned debater but would it not be correct to say that defining an argument as one or more of the various fallacies are in fact a matter of one's interpretation? In other words, what I view as a red herring may not be viewed as a red herring way by another.

While it is possible there is a misunderstanding, fallacies are generally easy to spot for those who know what to look for. In the case of someone calling out a red herring, they could ask how the subject is relevant to the topic, or the one positing the "red herring" could show why they think it is relevant.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

What you are forgetting WIP is only the other guys view point is important. There is no other correct view then theirs.

Sometimes that's the case, but I don't think that's true as often in these forums. For the most part I think I see people handle themselves well. It becomes more that way though when there's a heated debate, and both sides of the subject matter are looking for faults in the other person's arguments, statements, and perspectives. In that sitution I see it's more likely that a person will use a fallacy of one find or another that discredits the other person, OR a person focuses on how what the other person is saying is a fallacy instead of addressing the points and subject matter they bring up.

For the most part I think I see the members of CFnet respect eachother, and at least listen to each other or at least move on afterwards, and don't hold a grudge from conversations ago.

 

[reba]

Where is the like button agree

 

[Edward]

Do you think when people use fallacies that they do it unconsciously? I think so, reflexively probably because they're engaged in conversation. I wonder what would make one prone to using fallacies?

Good thread btw...

 

[Free]

It becomes more that way though when there's a heated debate, and both sides of the subject matter are looking for faults in the other person's arguments, statements, and perspectives. In that sitution I see it's more likely that a person will use a fallacy of one find or another that discredits the other person, OR a person focuses on how what the other person is saying is a fallacy instead of addressing the points and subject matter they bring up.

But if a fallacy has been committed, then pointing it out is addressing the point and subject matter. A fallacy is an error in reasoning and as such shows that the point being made is false. Fallacies need to be dealt with in the pursuit of truth.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[Free]

Do you think when people use fallacies that they do it unconsciously? I think so, reflexively probably because they're engaged in conversation. I wonder what would make one prone to using fallacies?

I think that most do, especially among the general public, but some use them on purpose as they can be quite powerful as rhetoric.

 

[reba]

No wonder i dont post much..

 

[jasonc]

I won't lie ,I have used them.