That's a logical fallasy!

[robvalue]

It's true that some people have no idea what fallacies mean and just throw them out as accusations seemingly at random. That becomes very obvious very quickly, and again if you point it out its up to them if they can be bothered to learn.

I'm more than happy to elaborate on any logical fallacy I have pointed out, or to argue whether it is indeed a fallacy at that point. Unfortunately, the level of logic and reason being applied is often so low by certain members that they have no interest in coherent arguments. They just want to keep spamming things until you get tired, so they can "win". And they have convinced absolutely nobody, except themselves. Maybe.

Anyone claiming a fallacy should be prepared to go into detail. If they can't, they are either just being difficult or don't know what they're talking about. Either way, you can ignore them at that point.

[Faith No More]

Perhaps there should be something like a Fallacy 101 thread.

That's actually a good idea.

[FatAndFaithless]

Perhaps there should be something like a Fallacy 101 thread.

That's actually a good idea.

I'd be happy to play the idiot in it.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I have considered trying to put a big list together. I wondered whether this has already been done on here.

The most common ones I saw are:

Bullshit fallacy (ok I need a proper name)- unsupported assertions

Straw man- attacking a position that is not the one being held

Tu quo/deflection- trying to prove your point by undermining a different point; "my point may not make sense, but neither does yours!"

Irrelevant conclusion- the argument may or may not make sense but does not prove the claim being made

Ad hominem- using an insult in place of an argument

Argument from ignorance- claiming your position is true because another explanation has not been established

Argument from incredulity- claiming your position is true because you can't imagine any other explanation

Argument from authority- saying your claim is true because someone else, not actually qualified to assess the claim, says so

Argument from popularity- saying your claim is true because a lot of people agree with you

Non sequitur- jumping from one step to another that does not logically follow

Shifting the burden of proof- saying your claim is true because it can't be proved untrue

Unfalsifiable/untestable claim- something that can never be proved true or false and so is useless

Faulty analogy/ equivocation fallacy- comparing two situations which are not equivalent for the purposes of the argument, or using multiple definitions of the same word

Emotional manipulation- using threats or appeals to unexplained emotions in place of an argument

What have I missed?

[CapnAwesome]

Except that most of the time there is none of the second bit that you said. When you just point out the logical fallacy and do none of the delineating (as happens most of the time) you are being lazy and stupid. Also it doesn't change that you are using a logical fallacy yourself, the fallacy fallacy.

...? Most of the time when someone identifies a fallacy, they already expect the reader or audience to understand what that fallacy is. If one doesn't know what a certain fallacy entails, they can look it up (or, if the opponent denies committing the fallacy, then it can be delineated for them). I don't think it has anything to do with being "Lazy and stupid".

As for the misuse of the fallacy objection, sure, lots of people call out perceived fallacies when there might not be any...which is exactly when opponents can ask for clarification or deny it, which would force the accuser to describe the fallacy.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "fallacy fallacy" thing. I don't think any (reasonable) person here would look at a commentary on an argument and discard it just because someone accuses it of having a fallacy.


The point of identifying a fallacy isn't to automatically pull a trump card to overturn your opponent's argument, it's to show the dubiousness of their reasoning abilities and call into doubt the soundness of their assertions, which leads to further discussion and perhaps, eventually, a non-acceptance of their argument. But I haven't seen too many people, on here at least, just turn off their brains when someone else claims a fallacy.

Just to be clear when I said you using the fallacy fallacy I didn't mean you specifically, I meant you in the general sense, probably should of said they. A big drawback of English is the lack of a general you. Anywho. I think we agree more than we disagree on this. My complaint is against the very common practice of just pointing out a fallacy, declaring victory and moving on.

I agree that the point of identifying a fallacy shouldn't be to pull a trump card, however most of the time that is how it's used (on the internet anyway) I think what you say here is great in the way of how a discussion should work, however it's hardly ever how it does work in reality (well not reality but on the internet.) I fail to see the point of identifying or naming the fallacy anyway.

Lets be honest, most people would have no idea the names for so and so fallacy if wikipedia hadn't made a big list of them (also the wikipedia list has some inaccuracies.) I doubt I would know the names of so many myself without it, however I am confident that I could still identify the faulty logic. I think that's the better course anyway is to point out the bad logic and address the points and make your own without holding your (again a general you) nose high in the air and feeling smug about the fact you know the name of a few logical fallacies.

---

Yeah, I have considered trying to put a big list together. I wondered whether this has already been done on here.

The most common ones I saw are:

Bullshit fallacy (ok I need a proper name)- unsupported assertions

Straw man- attacking a position that is not the one being held

Tu quo/deflection- trying to prove your point by undermining a different point; "my point may not make sense, but neither does yours!"

Irrelevant conclusion- the argument may or may not make sense but does not prove the claim being made

Ad hominem- using an insult in place of an argument

Argument from ignorance- claiming your position is true because another explanation has not been established

Argument from incredulity- claiming your position is true because you can't imagine any other explanation

Argument from authority- saying your claim is true because someone else, not actually qualified to assess the claim, says so

Argument from popularity- saying your claim is true because a lot of people agree with you

Non sequitur- jumping from one step to another that does not logically follow

Shifting the burden of proof- saying your claim is true because it can't be proved untrue

Unfalsifiable/untestable claim- something that can never be proved true or false and so is useless

Faulty analogy/ equivocation fallacy- comparing two situations which are not equivalent for the purposes of the argument, or using multiple definitions of the same word

Emotional manipulation- using threats or appeals to unexplained emotions in place of an argument

What have I missed?

Well that is exactly not what I wanted from this thread. Ha. No offense meant though. Wikipedia has a comprehensive list. I doubt that we need one.

---

It's true that some people have no idea what fallacies mean and just throw them out as accusations seemingly at random. That becomes very obvious very quickly, and again if you point it out its up to them if they can be bothered to learn.

I'm more than happy to elaborate on any logical fallacy I have pointed out, or to argue whether it is indeed a fallacy at that point. Unfortunately, the level of logic and reason being applied is often so low by certain members that they have no interest in coherent arguments. They just want to keep spamming things until you get tired, so they can "win". And they have convinced absolutely nobody, except themselves. Maybe.

Anyone claiming a fallacy should be prepared to go into detail. If they can't, they are either just being difficult or don't know what they're talking about. Either way, you can ignore them at that point.

I agree with most of what you say. I think it's better to just point out the faulty logic and address the points (if indeed they are making points.) I can hardly say how many times I've seen things denigrate to one person saying something and the other person going "That's a logical fallacy!" and it being almost the totality of their argument. However I still fail to see why pointing it out of the first place, when using a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily have much effect on the truth of what someone says. Is using good proper logic more important than finding the truth?

[robvalue]

You can't find the truth without proper logic. That is, you can't be sure you have the truth.

I'm not sure what alternate method you are suggesting? If someone is relying on a logical argument to make their point, and the argument is not valid, they have no evidence their point is correct. If they mean to demonstrate it is true some other way, such as an experiment or something, why are they making faulty arguments?

Without logic, you have nothing.

My name is rob. Therefore, God does not exist.

If that's all I've got, then I have an argument, it just doesn't make any sense and isn't worth anything. God may or may not exist, but I have nothing to demonstrate either possibility to be true.

So I'm not sure what your point is. If you're going to say faith... Don't say faith

[CapnAwesome]

You can't find the truth without proper logic. That is, you can't be sure you have the truth.

I'm not sure what alternate method you are suggesting? If someone is relying on a logical argument to make their point, and the argument is not valid, they have no evidence their point is correct. If they mean to demonstrate it is true some other way, such as an experiment or something, why are they making faulty arguments?

Without logic, you have nothing.

My name is rob. Therefore, God does not exist.

If that's all I've got, then I have an argument, it just doesn't make any sense and isn't worth anything. God may or may not exist, but I have nothing to demonstrate either possibility to be true.

So I'm not sure what your point is. If you're going to say faith... Don't say faith

Strawman!

Ha, I think you are making this more grandiose than what I'm intending with this thread. I'm not proposing an alternate method to logic, I'm proposing a way for people to sound less like douche bags on an internet forum.

[robvalue]

You were saying finding the truth may be more important than logic. What else did you mean by that? Or shall I disregard that? I was answering that by saying it's not a matter of which is more important, correct logic is necessary for truth.

Sorry if I misread your meaning.

The point of naming a fallacy is simply as a shorthand. Not much more to it than that. Whether or not it's appropriate depends entirely on the context. As a bonus, it shows where people are making similar errors by giving it a label.

[CapnAwesome]

You were saying finding the truth is more important than logic. What else did you mean by that? Or shall I disregard that?

Red Herring!

That's not what I'm talking about at all on this thread. Again, way more grandiose than what I was intending. I'm just saying that because someone uses a fallacy doesn't mean that it's incorrect, like I said before. I'm specifically referring to people arguing on a forum or this forum. Also do you get the point from my last point that the part where I said "Strawman!" first was not necessary, insulting towards you and makes me sound like a douche. That is the point of this thread.

[robvalue]

Ok I now have no idea what you are talking about. I've explained several times that an argument containing a fallacy does not demonstrate truth. You seem to be saying that you can just ignore fallacies and say the result "may" still be valid. So that's good enough. Good enough for you maybe, not to someone who cares about actual truth.

Sorry I am really confused as to your point. I get it, you don't like labels, that's your personal preference. They don't have to be used insultingly. If you take offence every time you see one, that's up to you. You can always ask for explanations, and if they are not forthcoming, you can ignore the person. Put them on block, they are a dick. There's plenty of ways to be a dick, that's just one.

But you seem to be making some point about it not mattering whether or not an argument contains fallacies. But then you tell me off for analysing this statement. I don't know what else I can say, so I'll leave it here. Nice discussing with you