Categorizing Beliefs as Fallacies

[Slapstick]

I think most beliefs, whether they are religious or nonreligious can fall under one of two categories.

The first is Argumentum ad populum or appeal to people. This is a fallacy, because it concludes that a proposition is true because other people also believe it to be true.

Example: Someone believes in A, other people believe in A, therefore A is believable, but doesn’t mean it is justifiable.
Example continued: Jain believes in political correctness, other people believe in political correctness, therefore political correctness must be the only viable option.

The second is Argumentum Ad Verecundiamor the appeal to authority. This is a fallacy, because those who are not experts in a particular field have to rely on legitimate sources for information regarding a subject without fully understanding how that information was obtained.

Example: Someone believes in A because B says A is true.
Example continued: Jain tells Prof. Dias she will take his word on it. Even if it isn’t rightfully justifiable.

I think belief can fall into one of these two categories regardless of what that belief is. I just gave some random examples. So the question for debate, do you think they can fall under one of these two categories too?
If you think so, you will be falling to one of the two previously stated fallacies otherwise you would have to stay why they do not or what other fallacies beliefs may fall under.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy in informal logic, although it is always a fallacy in formal logic. In informal logic, it is not a fallacy if and when the authority appealed to is a legitimate authority in a field or subject relevant to the argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In informal logic, it is not a fallacy if and when the authority appealed to is a legitimate authority in a field or subject relevant to the argument.

If only someone had written a thread on this! [he said shamelessly self-promoting while drunk: The Fallacy of using classical fallacies; in my defense, Sunstone had pretty perfect commentary]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think most beliefs, whether they are religious or nonreligious can fall under one of two categories.

The first is Argumentum ad populum or appeal to people. This is a fallacy, because it concludes that a proposition is true because other people also believe it to be true.

Example: Someone believes in A, other people believe in A, therefore A is believable, but doesn’t mean it is justifiable.
Example continued: Jain believes in political correctness, other people believe in political correctness, therefore political correctness must be the only viable option.

The second is Argumentum Ad Verecundiamor the appeal to authority. This is a fallacy, because those who are not experts in a particular field have to rely on legitimate sources for information regarding a subject without fully understanding how that information was obtained.

Example: Someone believes in A because B says A is true.
Example continued: Jain tells Prof. Dias she will take his word on it. Even if it isn’t rightfully justifiable.

I think belief can fall into one of these two categories regardless of what that belief is. I just gave some random examples. So the question for debate, do you think they can fall under one of these two categories too?
If you think so, you will be falling to one of the two previously stated fallacies otherwise you would have to stay why they do not or what other fallacies beliefs may fall under.

So if we could possibly fall under Argumentum Ad Verecundiam by saying that Slapstick is the authority on this subject?

 

[Sunstone]

If only someone had written a thread on this! [he said shamelessly self-promoting while drunk: The Fallacy of using classical fallacies;

That thread's OP is well worth re-reading.

 

[Slapstick]

So far as I know, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy in informal logic, although it is always a fallacy in formal logic. In informal logic, it is not a fallacy if and when the authority appealed to is a legitimate authority in a field or subject relevant to the argument.

True, although even authoritative claims can turn out to be false. For example, someone is an expert in the dark arts and Jain doesn’t believe in the dark arts. Should Jain appeal to authority on a subject matter she has no expertise or knowledge?

 

[Slapstick]

So if we could possibly fall under Argumentum Ad Verecundiam by saying that Slapstick is the authority on this subject?

Ah yes, I should have said may. It is all part of my cleverly deceptive scheme to falsify all beliefs. :devil:

 

[Willamena]

If only someone had written a thread on this! [he said shamelessly self-promoting while drunk: The Fallacy of using classical fallacies; in my defense, Sunstone had pretty perfect commentary]

I had looked at that thread and turned away because it was too onerous to read, fervently wishing for a Clipnotes version.

Then I realized that the subject line is the Clipnotes version (yay).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I had looked at that thread and turned away because it was too onerous to read, fervently wishing for a Clipnotes version.

That was the Cliffsnotes version. The full version will be released in 10 years with a volume on each fallacy.

[Yes, I am tedious and verbose, and that's putting it kindly. But I admitted this and I gave my reasons for this in the thread]

 

[Slapstick]

I found something a little better than cliff notes a while back. It is the "Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies" poster and pdf. I plan to get the poster one day to hang on my wall. I might even get a nice poster frame for it.