From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 04:19:12 MST
Hi Kalkor,
Here is a mini-portal on critical thinking and fallacies I threw together
once.
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/critical_thinking.htm
I also came across this recently, it is quite wonderful, a review of
Bentham's "Book of Fallacies" by Sydney Smith .
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/smith-antireform.html
Regards
Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kalkor" <kalkor@kalkor.com>
To: "Virus (E-mail)" <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: virus: Fallacies
> L'Ermit recently mentioned the "ad populum" fallacy in a response to NNG,
> and I thought I'd delve into the subject for my own education. I've never
> participated in or been educated in formal debate or argument, and would
> like to start a thread about the logical fallacies.
>
> I found an interesting site about the subject at
> http://radicalacademy.com/logicalfal1.htm, which I printed out and have
been
> studying. I decided to make for myself an outline of the fallacies to help
> me learn them and recognize them in conversation, advertisement, etc. If
you
> folks would help me out by possibly providing better definitions or
> examples, especially those pertaining to achieving rational self efficacy
> and Level 3 of conciousness, I think this would help me and perhaps others
> sort through the garbage we're exposed to daily. I've organized this
outline
> as follows:
> Categories (I)
> Subcategories (A)
> Types or example (1)
> Examples (a)
>
> I'll post this on my web site sometime today, and update as necessary, so
> please [SNIP] the outline below and use things like III.A.2.b. to refer to
> specific parts for correction, emphasis, addition, etc.
> Here goes:
>
> I. Fallacies of Relevance
> A. Ad Hominem (attack on person)
> 1. Abusive
> a. Since she is a religious fanatic, there is no reason to accept
her
> arguments for or against having bible study in public schools.
> 2. Circumstantial
> a. Since he is himself a gun owner, there is no reason to accept his
> arguments for or against gun control.
> 3. Tu Quoque (diversion)
> a. Since you have never fought in a war, you are not qualified to
> criticize my mistreatment of combat captives.
> B. Ad Populem (appeal to people)
> 1. Appeal to UTism
> a. You should consume brand X because everyone else does.
> 2. Ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
> a. Free this jailed murderer because his family suffers in his
> absence.
> C. Ad Baculum (appeal to force)
> 1. Sign this confession or it will go harder on you when you're
> convicted.
> D. Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
> 1. Buy brand X toothpaste, because I am a famous football player and I
> recommend it.
> II. Fallacies of Ambiguity
> A. Equivocation (multiple definitions of the same term)
> 1. Animals can not talk. Man is an animal. Therefore, he can not talk.
> B. Amphiboly (poorly composed premise)
> 1. Four out of five doctors recommend brand X. (implies four out of
> EVERY five, but literally can mean only five were surveyed)
> C. Composition
> 1. The whole has the characteristics of the parts
> a. The bricks used to build this building are rectangular, so
> therefore the building is rectangular.
> 2. The collection has the characteristics of the parts
> a. The members of this crowd each have two ears, therefore the crowd
> has two ears.
> D. Division
> 1. The parts have the characteristics of the whole
> a. This judicial system is fair, therefore she got a fair trial.
> 2. The parts have the characteristics of the collection
> a. This pile of bricks is asymmetrical, therefore each brick is
> asymmetrical.
> III. Fallacies of Presumption
> A. Petitio Principii (begging the question)
> 1. God exists because the bible says so.
> B. Ad Ignorantium (argument from ignorance)
> 1. You have not proved him guilty, therefore he is innocent. (This is
> the explicit foundation of our legal system. Bravo!)
> 2. You have not proved yourself innocent, therefore you are guilty.
> (Drug testing)
> C. Non Causa Pro Causa (implying cause from correlation)
> 1. The economy improved during his reign, therefore he is responsible
> for improving the economy.
> D. Fallacy of Accident (applying generalization to specific cases)
> 1. Running improves heart condition. Therefore you should run after a
> double bypass to improve your heart condition.
> E. Hasty Generalization (the root of prejudice)
> 1. I had a bad marriage to a woman, therefore all women are bad.
> F. Complex Question
> 1. Have you stopped beating your wife?
> G. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)
> 1. We should convict and sentence this woman for murder because murder
> is such a horrible crime.
> IV. Other Fallacies
> A. Emphasis or Accent
> 1. I've never SEEN any complaints about this. (you may have HEARD
> complaints)
> B. Significance
> 1. Sixty percent of children in this city read below grade level.
> (what's the ratio in other cities? countries?)
> C. Quotes out of Context
> 1. "I would sleep with you if and only if you were the last man on
earth
> and needed to produce offspring."
> 2. "I would sleep with you ... to produce offspring."
> D. False Dilemma (offering two choices where there are more than two)
> 1. With crime increasing like it is, you must either carry a gun or
live
> in fear.
> E. Straw Man
> 1. We must legalize murder because we can not completely enforce it.
> F. Statistical Fallacies
> 1. Brand X gets your teeth 50% whiter than brand Y.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT