RF The Argument Fallacies

[Unveiled Artist]

Informal and formal fallacies I often see on RF by non-believers and believers alike in all subjects religious and political. Rhetological Fallacies – A list of Logical Fallacies & Rhetorical Devices with examples — Information is Beautiful

Appeal to Anonymous Authority
Using evidence from an unnamed 'expert', 'study' or generalized group (like 'scientists') to claim something is true.

Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an 'expert', whether qualified or not, says it is.

Appeal to Ignorance
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).

1. Appeal to Incredulity
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.

2. Appeal to Popular Belief
Claiming something is true because the majority of people believe it.

3.Appeal to Probability
Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen.

4. Appeal to Tradition
Claiming something is true because it's (apparently) always been that way.

5. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe.

6. Composition
Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some or all of a group applies to the entire group.

7. Confirmation Bias
Cherry-picking evidence that supports your idea while ignoring contradicting evidence.

8. Unfalsifiability
Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is no way to check if it is false or not.

9. Affirming the Consequent
Assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you're making.

10. Circular Logic
A conclusion is derived from a premise based on the conclusion.

11. Appeal to Common Practice
Claiming something is true because it's commonly practiced.

12. Appeal to Ignorance
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).

13. Appeal to Incredulity
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.

14. Appeal to Wishful Thinking
Suggesting a claim is true or false just because you strongly hope it is.

15. Division
Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of a group automatically apply to any individual member.

16. Jumping to Conclusions
Drawing a quick conclusion without fairly considering relevant (and easily available) evidence.

17. Ad Hoc Rescue
Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatedly revising the argument to explain away problems.

18. Red Herring
Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion.

19. Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship. (Correlation = cause).

20. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it.

21. Circumstance Ad Hominem
Stating a claim lacks credibility only because of the advocate’s interests in their claim.

22. Straw Man
Creating a distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent's argument, and then arguing against that.

Just because.

Enjoy.

 

[Stevicus]

Informal and formal fallacies I often see on RF by non-believers and believers alike in all subjects religious and political. Rhetological Fallacies – A list of Logical Fallacies & Rhetorical Devices with examples — Information is Beautiful

Appeal to Anonymous Authority
Using evidence from an unnamed 'expert', 'study' or generalized group (like 'scientists') to claim something is true.

Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an 'expert', whether qualified or not, says it is.

Appeal to Ignorance
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).


Just because.

Enjoy.

22. Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship. (Correlation = cause).

23. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it.

The ones with Latin phrases tend to throw me.

 

[Viker]

Confirmation bias and circular arguments tend to be the most common. But I've seen nearly every fallacy and critical thinking error in action on this and other forums. Shoot, I've stumbled a few times myself.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Viker]

Don't get me started on picking apart Vulcan logic.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[sun rise]

Logic is fine in its place but it needs to know its place.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Confirmation bias and circular arguments tend to be the most common. But I've seen nearly every fallacy and critical thinking error in action on this and other forums. Shoot, I've stumbled a few times myself.

Yah, this has pretty much been my experience as well... Well, except for the stumbling part, though. Sounds like something a LHP person would do with their baby eating and all; at least, that's what the experts say.

 

[McBell]

Logic is fine in its place but it needs to know its place.

Logic is a tool used by humans.
Thus it is not that logic "needs to learn its place" so much as it is humans that need to learn when and how logic works in order to use it correctly.

As for fallacies, it seems to me that there are an awful lot of members who like to cry fallacy, but do not understand fallacies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because. Enjoy.

Thanks. Good list.

Other very common informal fallacies found on RF include:

• Burden of proof fallacy - prove there's no God.

• Special pleading - that cell looks too complicated to exist undesigned, so let's posit something even more complex to explain it, but give that thing a pass regarding explaining its existence undesigned.

• Non sequitur - the conclusion is not supported by what preceded it. I think this is the case whenever a fallacy occurs, but I'm referring to when people just drop viable candidate hypotheses from lists of possible explanations without cause, as when the creationist tells us that creationism occurred without eliminating the possibility of abiogenesis, or that God created the universe without ruling out the competing multiverse hypothesis. His conclusion should have been both of these are possible, which would be sound, but he goes one step too far, commits a faith-based logical fallacy, and suddenly, his conclusion no longer follows from what preceded it.
• 
  
• Argument to the stone - "That's ridiculous, too silly to dignify with an answer"

But you've covered the other very common fallacies seen here, like appeal to common belief (Well, there are gods in most cultures, and most humans believe in one or more, and they can't all be wrong), circular logic/begging the question (God wrote the Bible. It says so), appeal to incredulity (I just can't see how therefore it didn't happen; possibly the fallacy described above in going from a supernaturalistic and a naturalistic hypothesis to just the supernatural one without justification), and appeal to ignorance (nobody has ever seen life come from nonlife, so it didn't happen).

I don't know what to call claims like macroevolution doesn't occur, just minor changes. Maybe an ignorance fallacy. Or claiming that evolution isn't evolution, it's adaptation, as if evolution weren't a type of adaptation. Or nobody has ever seen a human not born of humans or parent to a nonhuman, while true, irrelevant.

These seem to me to be the most common fallacious arguments we see here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Informal and formal fallacies I often see on RF by non-believers and believers alike in all subjects religious and political. Rhetological Fallacies – A list of Logical Fallacies & Rhetorical Devices with examples — Information is Beautiful

Appeal to Anonymous Authority
Using evidence from an unnamed 'expert', 'study' or generalized group (like 'scientists') to claim something is true.

Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an 'expert', whether qualified or not, says it is.

Appeal to Ignorance
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).


Just because.

Enjoy.

I think its an appeal with a rock and a hard place. =0]

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ones with Latin phrases tend to throw me.

Aah, a Tu quoque fallacy . . .

Naah, just jerking your chain. That was the first one that came to mind.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe RF admin have an AI system in the pipeline to check and discard all posts failing any of the many fallacies - but they didn't get this one!

 

[Kooky]

AKA the Emotional (or rather, anti-Emotional) fallacy AKA the Pathos Gambit

One thing that definitely needs to be added is the Fallacy Fallacy.
Another I've seen quite often around here is the On the spot fallacy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Confirmation bias and circular arguments tend to be the most common. But I've seen nearly every fallacy and critical thinking error in action on this and other forums. Shoot, I've stumbled a few times myself.

That is what I was thinking too. I try to avoid them, but recognize that I have employed some ignorantly.

No true scientist would do that.

 

[Kooky]

That is what I was thinking too. I try to avoid them, but recognize that I have employed some ignorantly.

No true scientist would do that.

In my opinion, it's not particularly important to adhere to these stringent principles in a regular discussion or chat on a topic - after all, an argument isn't necessarily false simply because it is incoherent or fallacious.

Personally I find these lists of fallacies mostly relevant in an actual, formal debate, where consistency and coherency of argumentation is important and considered a principle all sides ought to adhere to; in that case, using fallacious arguments would be a detriment to one's side, and indeed the debate as a whole.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ones with Latin phrases tend to throw me.

Try selling "Mens sana in corpore sano" to Bruce Banner.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my opinion, it's not particularly important to adhere to these stringent principles in a regular discussion or chat on a topic - after all, an argument isn't necessarily false simply because it is incoherent or fallacious.

Personally I find these lists of fallacies mostly relevant in an actual, formal debate, where consistency and coherency of argumentation is important and considered a principle all sides ought to adhere to; in that case, using fallacious arguments would be a detriment to one's side, and indeed the debate as a whole.

Within the rules, responses generally trend to the informal around here and that setting may promote application of fallacies more readily perhaps. But I think that we should know them, recognize them and their use by ourselves and others and seek to minimize their occurrence.

I would rather be humbled by good argument than to falsely win with fallacies. Not that I want to be humbled as a rule, but it does tend to make me work harder and learn more.

 

[Viker]

That is what I was thinking too. I try to avoid them, but recognize that I have employed some ignorantly.

No true scientist would do that.

Nor would any true Scotsman.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nor would any true Scotsman.

And sometimes I have employed them not so ignorantly.

 

[Yerda]

I recall a time when you couldn't post on here without some angry eejit accusing you of some fallacy or another. Then I chilled out a bit.