Thought this might be of assistance

#4 and #6 aren't well described.

#4 - Begging the question involves assuming the truth of one's conclusion in one of the premises (also known as circular reasoning or petitio principii); one generally grants the truth of uncontroversial premises unless there is specific reason to doubt them (or insufficient reason to assume one of them).

#6 - It is not a fallacy if there are in fact only two possibilities. More generally, it is a fallacy to reduce the number of cases, or enlarge the number of cases beyond that which there actually are. (This is generally known as misapplication of the law of the excluded middle, and it is just as fallacious to argue that there are only 20 cases when there are 21 as it is to argue that there are 2 when in fact there are more.)

And just because I love Latin, here is #8 from Wikipedia:

Quote:Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

(May 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I don't use reason as it applies only to logic... seems shortsighted, and horribly myopic of the process as it obsesses over the subject I'd first have to know why something being illogical means it's unreasonable to judge your argument on it's merits... and I'm willing to use your definition to do it (though expect it to be critiqued) if you should feel up to providing it

Yes, I also don't use reason as if it applies only to logic. Reason is a bigger concept and logic is a part of it. That's why I said that if something is not reasonable, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is illogical as well.

However, if something is reasonable, then it cannot be shown/proven to be illogical. And if something can be proven to be illogical, then it can't be reasonable.

I guess the proof and the method one goes about establishing it is the hardest part.

(May 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Because I'm being reasonable, and not logical. Logically, you're both equally capable of writing me an essay that I will consider 'good'... but I have cause to believe (faith, btw) that Tiberius would do a better job of it than you.

And the cause for your belief that Tiberius would do a better job at it is that he has more knowledge on the particular topic than I have - is that right or wrong? If that is right, then that means you agree that people who are more knowledgeable in a particular field (authorities) are more likely to be correct, though not necessarily.

(May 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Doctor, if I'm looking for information. Lawyer if I think getting information is secondary to telling people what to do with my shit

So ... you believe that a doctor is more likely to give you more helpful information about your health than a laywer would (which is not incorrect).

Then, would it be a true claim to say that you have a greater confidence in authorities (though not always) to a certain extent, at least?

Rayaan Wrote:Yes, I also don't use reason as if it applies only to logic. Reason is a bigger concept and logic is a part of it. That's why I said that if something is not reasonable, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is illogical as well.

However, if something is reasonable, then it cannot be shown/proven to be illogical. And if something can be proven to be illogical, then it can't be reasonable.

I guess the proof and the method one goes about establishing it is the hardest part.

Logic can be a part of it, but one is easily capable of reasoning with anything (as we can observe in the usage of fallacies by people). I can, at any time, generate an argument from emotion, and use it as my foundation for something I believe (you might observe that recently in all of the pedophilia threads, there are a great amount of arguments to the effect: 'because it's disgusting/horrible/unnatural!'). That is to say: the person is clearly reasoning, but at the same time: they are also clearly not using logic as a part of their reasoning

Yes, that's pretty difficult @_@ I, personally, disagree that logic is a necessary part of reason... but I would agree that it is a necessary part of logical reasoning

Rayaan Wrote:And the cause for your belief that Tiberius would do a better job at it is that he has more knowledge on the particular topic than I have - is that right or wrong? If that is right, then that means you agree that people who are more knowledgeable in a particular field (authorities) are more likely to be correct, though not necessarily.

Actually, it's because I think he's sexier than you.

More likely to be *considered* correct. I still hold to the belief that everyone is wrong about everything.

Quote:So ... you believe that a doctor is more likely to give you more helpful information about your health than a laywer would (which is not incorrect).

Then, would it be a true claim to say that you have a greater confidence in authorities (though not always) to a certain extent, at least?

Really, it's that I have greater confidence in those I believe to be authorities... in their field. I certainly have more faith in the scientific method than I do in any particular scientists. Wasn't always that way, I'm proud of myself ^_^ I'm really a pretty trusting person, though: if anyone tells me something, and it seems reasonable or true to me... I'm like to believe them.

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Logic can be a part of it, but one is easily capable of reasoning with anything (as we can observe in the usage of fallacies by people). I can, at any time, generate an argument from emotion, and use it as my foundation for something I believe (you might observe that recently in all of the pedophilia threads, there are a great amount of arguments to the effect: 'because it's disgusting/horrible/unnatural!'). That is to say: the person is clearly reasoning, but at the same time: they are also clearly not using logic as a part of their reasoning

Yes, that's pretty difficult @_@ I, personally, disagree that logic is a necessary part of reason... but I would agree that it is a necessary part of logical reasoning

Sorry, your verbose explanations are starting to make this a little too complicated for me to understand you now.

I'll pass on that.

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Actually, it's because I think he's sexier than you.

I don't believe that is the actual reason.

You wrote "... but I have cause to believe (faith, btw) that Tiberius would do a better job of it than you." So, you believe that TIberius would do a better job in the essay than me.

Now, what exactly makes you believe that one being sexier than me should imply that he or she would write a better essay than me as well? What is the connection?

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: More likely to be *considered* correct.

And, again, please explain how one's superior sexiness suggest to you that he or she is more likely to be considered correct.

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I still hold to the belief that everyone is wrong about everything.

Of course, man. Everyone is wrong about everything.

(May 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Really, it's that I have greater confidence in those I believe to be authorities... in their field.

"In their field" ... Well, duh. That's what I already had in my mind when I said that you have a greater confidence in authorities.

Thanks for confirming my point once again.

If I attack someone's character, that's not an ad hominem. If I were to say "You're an idiot. Nothing you say can be right because you're dumb." instead of addressing their argument, that would be an ad hom.

(May 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: If I attack someone's character, that's not an ad hominem. If I were to say "You're an idiot. Nothing you say can be right because you're dumb." instead of addressing their argument, that would be an ad hom.

Yes. If you attack someone's character in place of making an argument, it is an ad hom. If the attack comes in addition to making a reasoned argument, it's just an insult.

Ad hom: "Cthulhu is an immoral asshole (*), pay him no mind."

Not an ad hom: "Cthulhu's argument fails because of X, Y, and Z. Oh, and BTW, he's an immoral asshole (*)."

(*) True.

(May 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: If I attack someone's character, that's not an ad hominem. If I were to say "You're an idiot. Nothing you say can be right because you're dumb." instead of addressing their argument, that would be an ad hom.

You are quite correct.

Here is a quote from DeistPaladin where he explained the ad hominem fallacy in clear and simple terms:

(October 1, 2011 at 11:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ad Hominem is probably the most misunderstood of the logical fallacies. It's classification as a logical fallacy is sometimes taken to mean that you have to play nice.

Not every insult is an ad hominem. Not every mean comment is an ad hominem. Not every bit of mockery is an appeal to ridicule.

It becomes an ad hominem when insults are used in place of an argument. It's where you attack the person and not the argument.

Ad hominem: "Oh yeah, well, you're stupid, so there"
Not ad hominem: "In your argument, you missed X, Y, and Z and here's A, B, and C to show that you're wrong, you blithering idiot."

In the second example, the insult, while perhaps a bit harsh, is not an indicator of fallacious reasoning. The insult is in addition to the argument, as a by the way, not a replacement for an argument.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-8833.html

Here's another nice little fallacy from one of our members that I wanted to post here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18861-po...#pid447171

(May 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Well, you're from the US, so your opinion about this doesn't really matter to me.

Genetic fallacy.

Quote:The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

(May 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Here's another nice little fallacy from one of our members that I wanted to post here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18861-po...#pid447171

Genetic fallacy.

Quote:The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

But it's true though! It literally does not matter, I mean it has no effect whatsoever on UK politics, how can a yank affect UK politics? In what possible way can a yank do anything at all about gay marriage legislation in the UK? It makes no difference what they think...right? right? I'll just go hock: