(April 11, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Can anyone else taste the rich, creamy irony of the massive Tu Quoque fallacy in this sentence?

I was asked to explain why I said that this thread is an example of confirmation bias. My response was perfectly valid. Sometimes I think there should be a name for the fallacy of improperly applying a fallacy. Maybe there is, but I've never heard it.

(April 12, 2014 at 9:39 am)alpha male Wrote: I was asked to explain why I said that this thread is an example of confirmation bias. My response was perfectly valid. Sometimes I think there should be a name for the fallacy of improperly applying a fallacy. Maybe there is, but I've never heard it.

The Tu Quoque fallacy involves avoiding actually addressing an issue in favor of simply attempting to label the arguer a hypocrite. The fallacious point being that this does nothing to mitigate the Quoque-ers involvement in the same problem.

A confirmation bias, on the other hand, involves a tendency to favor information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs to the exclusion of competing information. In order for this thread to be an example of confirmation bias, there would need to be a position asserted to be confirmed, and there simply isn't; the thread is asking for an opinion about what fallacies have been presented to the posters by theists that frustrate them the most. There's no possible way to construe that as a position that could even fall victim to a confirmation bias, unless you're saying that there's some form of evidence out there that these fallacies don't actually frustrate us when we hear them?

When pressed on your erroneous claim, you went with "you guys do it too!" which is the very definition of a Tu Quoque fallacy as it doesn't address the argument you were making, made worse by the fact that it was a baseless assertion at that.

(April 12, 2014 at 9:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: The Tu Quoque fallacy involves avoiding actually addressing an issue in favor of simply attempting to label the arguer a hypocrite. The fallacious point being that this does nothing to mitigate the Quoque-ers involvement in the same problem.

Exactly. I have in no way attempted to excuse theists for use of fallacies, so I didn't commit a tu quoque.

Quote:A confirmation bias, on the other hand, involves a tendency to favor information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs to the exclusion of competing information. In order for this thread to be an example of confirmation bias, there would need to be a position asserted to be confirmed, and there simply isn't; the thread is asking for an opinion about what fallacies have been presented to the posters by theists that frustrate them the most. There's no possible way to construe that as a position that could even fall victim to a confirmation bias, unless you're saying that there's some form of evidence out there that these fallacies don't actually frustrate us when we hear them?

No possible way to construe...seriously? I disagree. It's very easy to construe this as a claim that theists are more prone to fallacious arguments than atheists, and that would be confirmation bias.

Quote:When pressed on your erroneous claim, you went with "you guys do it too!" which is the very definition of a Tu Quoque fallacy as it doesn't address the argument you were making,

No, it's spot on the point I was making regarding confirmation bias.

You're correct that I did read between the lines. Maybe your strict reading of the OP is all there is to it. So, if you and some other atheists come out and say that theists are no more likely to make fallacious arguments than atheists, I'll concede that the conrfirmation bias charge was incorrect.

(April 12, 2014 at 10:53 am)alpha male Wrote: So, if you and some other atheists come out and say that theists are no more likely to make fallacious arguments than atheists, I'll concede that the conrfirmation bias charge was incorrect.

I won't say they're no more likely to,
but I will say that I don't know whether they're more likely to.

(April 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(April 12, 2014 at 10:53 am)alpha male Wrote: So, if you and some other atheists come out and say that theists are no more likely to make fallacious arguments than atheists, I'll concede that the conrfirmation bias charge was incorrect.

I won't say they're no more likely to,
but I will say that I don't know whether they're more likely to.

I'd say the entirety of Alpha Male's post was a good indication.

Claiming theists are not more likely to use fallacious reasoning by stringing together a bunch of fallacies. Brilliant!

(April 12, 2014 at 9:35 am)alpha male Wrote: Yes, seriously.

Do tell.

That's an invitation to elaborate.

The atheists I know on this forum will jump all over you if you write something that's not true or logically invalid, regardless of whether or not you agree with them on everything else. That's as it should be.

The most common tactic they use is:

"I'm-so-fucking-stupid-that-I-believe-2,000*-year-old-horseshit-and-so-should-you."

There are many variations but it all comes down to that.


*For muslims, subtract 600 years - for jews add 500 years.

Here's a fallacy I've used. I don't know which it is.

If part of your brain is deactivated, you lose some of your mental capacities.
Therefore, if your entire brain is deactivated, you lose all of your mental capacities.

(April 13, 2014 at 10:56 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Here's a fallacy I've used. I don't know which it is.

If part of your brain is deactivated, you lose some of your mental capacities.
Therefore, if your entire brain is deactivated, you lose all of your mental capacities.

It's pretty true

It's a case of: good conclusion, bad argument