Logical fallacies

Post Reply New Topic

Here are some not-so-good logical fallacies present in today's civil and religious discussions.

Enjoy.

False Dilemma: "We must ban fast-food restaurants or healthy living will become a thing of the past."

Slippery Slope: "Liberals want to restrict firearms. We will have to soon be mandated to give up our bodies to science."

Argument from authority: "Experts say that obesity is the biggest health-crisis in developed nations."

Argument from majority: "Socialism does well in European countries, why can't we be more like Europe?"

These are just a few. I only list a few because I want the rest open to interpretation and discussion.

Socialism doesn't exist in any highly developed European countries.

Non-sequiturs regarding a penny and luck:

'See a penny, pick it up, and all the day you'll have good luck'!
"Find a penny, leave it be, and bad luck will come to thee."
"Give a penny to a friend, and your luck will never end".

Here are some more:

False Dichotomy: "You are either a Christian or you a damned" and "Those who are not with us are against us."

Argument from Incredulity: "I can't believe that we evolved from slime, so the Bible must be true (... and we were molded from dirt, instead)!"

Argumentum ad Baculum ("Argument from Fear"): "Do what God tells me to tell you to do, or else you'll roast in Hell for all eternity" (Wesleyism); or "Do whatever you damn well please, you're probably going to roast in Hell for all eternity anyhow and there's nothing you can do about it" (Calvinism).

Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Argument from Ignorance): "If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then that means He must exist."

Argumentum ad Nauseum: "God exists, and I'm going to keep telling you until you believe it too!"

Argumentum ad Populum: "Just look how many people believe in God; they can't all be wrong!"

Circular Logic: "The Bible is the word of God because God tells us that it is; it says so right in the Bible!"

Ad Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc: "With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?"

Tu Quoque: "So what if Christians aren't perfect? Just look at how awful those Muslims are!"

Special Pleading: "God moves in mysterious ways that mere mortals can not possibly comprehend."

Argumentum ad Hominem: "Obviously, the Holy Spirit does not dwell within you, so you could not possibly know and understand God's plan for you."

Not to start a derail, but the current president of France is a member of the socialist party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Hollande

The fallacy of fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy ) ...

Two WP members discuss a real cat named Ginger ....

WP Person A: All cats are animals and Ginger is an animal.
Therefore, Ginger is a cat.

WP Person B: GOTCHA!
You have just fallaciously affirmed the consequent - that is called the "Fallacy of Converse"
You are incorrect.
Therefore, Ginger is not a cat. <---- Committing the "Fallacy of fallacy" here

A logical fallacy does not mean that the conclusion is wrong.

Few people actually make such "arguments." Informal Logical fallacies are interesting but be careful to understand the limits of the various fallacies. If I am interpreting it correctly, the example of an argument ad populum (appeal to popularity) that you cite is not a real example of the fallacy. It is not fallacious to argue that socialism works well in Europe and therefore socialism will work well here (or we should be more like Europe). It is fallacious to argue that socialism is the best (insofar as "best" has a discernible value) system of government because a majority of Europeans say so.

That's besides the point. The president of France is a subordinate to centrist laws, just like everyone else in France.

You're relatively new here, right? You may want to read as much as you can from the PP&R forum before making such a sweeping generalization.

Look at NYC mayor Bloomberg who tried to ban large soft drinks because he believes New Yorkers are stupid to make the right choice on their own.

Republicans freely admit that they are flawed human beings poorly suited to pass judgment on others by stressing personal responsibility. Democrats, conversely, present themselves as the paragons of virtue, whose judgment is needed to rule the clueless rabble.

These two go hand in hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy

One assumes the (un)pleasantness of a phenomenon on the basis of its (non)existence. (is to ought)
The other assumes the (non)existence of a phenomenon on the basis of its (un)pleasantness. (ought to is)

In fact, these two are so potent that a formal warning is required:

This one comes up sometimes ...

In 2010 Steve Schwarzman, who runs the private equity and hedge fund behemoth the Blackstone Group, compared efforts to raise taxes on private equity and hedge fund managers with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi ... ty-moguls/ )

This is an example of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" .

Quoted: "The Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party".

source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum