Posts: 1108
Threads: 33
Joined: June 4, 2013
Reputation:
18
Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm
(This post was last modified: November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm by Walking Void.)
I am somewhat confused regarding 3 of the logical fallacies. The ones I am talking about are Special Pleading, Cherry Picking and Red Herring.
Maybe someone with professional experience  on these 3 fallacies is available to help?
To summarize, the Red Herring fallacy is about covering for faults in an argument, mainly using distractions. The Special Pleading fallacy is about ignoring faults in arguments, whereas Cherry Picking concentrates on only proper logic in an argument.
Is this all correct? And if so is this not redundant to refer to slightly different variations of same attitude towards a bad argument in much the same way?
I mean, can I not just reference 1 of the 3 and the other 2 should be implied, correct?
Posts: 10411
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Some fallacies are specific cases of broader fallacies, yes. If you're really a lumper, they're all non sequiturs.
Posts: 117
Threads: 2
Joined: October 20, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 8:50 am
(November 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Walking Void Wrote: I am somewhat confused regarding 3 of the logical fallacies. The ones I am talking about are Special Pleading, Cherry Picking and Red Herring.
Maybe someone with professional experience on these 3 fallacies is available to help?
To summarize, the Red Herring fallacy is about covering for faults in an argument, mainly using distractions. The Special Pleading fallacy is about ignoring faults in arguments, whereas Cherry Picking concentrates on only proper logic in an argument.
Is this all correct? And if so is this not redundant to refer to slightly different variations of same attitude towards a bad argument in much the same way?
I mean, can I not just reference 1 of the 3 and the other 2 should be implied, correct?
Special Pleading is making a supposedly universally applicable statement, then exempting something from it, as in:
"Everything has a cause! The first cause must be God!"
"What caused God?"
"God has no cause!"
"So when you said EVERYTHING has a cause you meant everything EXCEPT God."
Cherry Picking is selecting evidence which backs up your claim while ignoring evidence from the same source which challenges it. As in citing Leviticus to condemn homosexuality while ignoring the verses which condemn the eating of shellfish or shaving one's beard off ...
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 11:54 am
Mitch covered Special Pleading and Cherry Picking, so I'll cover Red Herring.
If someone is losing an argument, one tactic they often like to try is to derail the discussion by throwing out something that leads the discussion elsewhere. Like, say for instance you're losing the argument over gay marriage so you inject comments about abortion into the discussion so everyone will start talking about that and forget how weak your stance on gay marriage is. It's often used if the person thinks they have a better chance at winning a different argument.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 1108
Threads: 33
Joined: June 4, 2013
Reputation:
18
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 11:57 am
Hmmm, I see. So as Mister Agenda puts it: non-sequitur. Thanks for the answers everyone. :thumbs-up:
Posts: 3432
Threads: 102
Joined: November 13, 2013
Reputation:
59
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm
(November 14, 2013 at 11:54 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Mitch covered Special Pleading and Cherry Picking, so I'll cover Red Herring.
If someone is losing an argument, one tactic they often like to try is to derail the discussion by throwing out something that leads the discussion elsewhere. Like, say for instance you're losing the argument over gay marriage so you inject comments about abortion into the discussion so everyone will start talking about that and forget how weak your stance on gay marriage is. It's often used if the person thinks they have a better chance at winning a different argument.
No, it's not that.
You only think that because you're American.
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
Posts: 350
Threads: 18
Joined: October 23, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm
I'm completely confused by your comments, Jacob(smooth).
No, it's not what exactly?
Or rather, No, what's not what, exactly?
What's my place of residence got to do with it? Blah. Being lumped under the grouping of a nation is rather like being lumped into an ignorant christian's belief of atheism (they burn babies, have orgies all day long or they worship satan .... whatever).
![[Image: CheerUp_zps63df8a6b.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FArt%2520Vault%2FCheerUp_zps63df8a6b.jpg)
Thanks to Cinjin for making it more 'sig space' friendly.
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm
(November 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: (November 14, 2013 at 11:54 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Mitch covered Special Pleading and Cherry Picking, so I'll cover Red Herring.
If someone is losing an argument, one tactic they often like to try is to derail the discussion by throwing out something that leads the discussion elsewhere. Like, say for instance you're losing the argument over gay marriage so you inject comments about abortion into the discussion so everyone will start talking about that and forget how weak your stance on gay marriage is. It's often used if the person thinks they have a better chance at winning a different argument.
No, it's not that.
You only think that because you're American.
But at least we don't eat crappy things like jellied eel!
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm
(November 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm)Owlix Wrote: I'm completely confused by your comments, Jacob(smooth).
No, it's not what exactly?
Or rather, No, what's not what, exactly?
What's my place of residence got to do with it? Blah. Being lumped under the grouping of a nation is rather like being lumped into an ignorant christian's belief of atheism (they burn babies, have orgies all day long or they worship satan .... whatever).
It was a joke...
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Requesting Info on a Couple Fallacies
November 14, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Both Jacob's post and my response are examples of red herrings.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
