Post by Cain on May 20, 2013 18:57:59 GMT -6
So yeah, since this is gonna be the section for serious discussion/debating, I figure why not add a thread detailing logical fallacies so that those who aren't familiar with them will be able to recognize them. I'll post definitions then give my own original examples of each, so that they're more easily related and understood
I'll be listing off the most commonly used one's
First off, what is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is simply an error in logic. When there's an error in your logic then chances are the conclusion will also be flawed, but this isn't always true (You can use bad logic but still have a valid conclusion, just your logic wouldn't support it) For example: Kobe Bryant injured himself at the end of the season, so Lebron James won the MVP As you can see from that example, LeBron being "the NBA MVP" isn't simply a result of Kobe injuring himself (Kobe was injured just before the playoffs began anyway, so its doubtful that he would've won MVP over Bron for one or two final games). However, although the logic is bad, Lebron is the NBA MVP (The conclusion).
1. Strawman - This is probably the most used one. A strawman fallacy is a misrepresentation of someones position in an effort to refute it. An example:
Ciel is committing a strawman fallacy here. The Spurs being boring has nothing to do with their legacy or how great they are
2. Red Herring - A herring is a fish, but a red herring is a fallacy. This is basically when someone changes the subject in an argument, or responds with something irrelevant to the point to be more precise. Example:
As you can see, Markiss' response doesn't in any way combat refute whether or not Paula is married to Robin Thicke, instead he changes the subject to something entirely irrelevant (Whether Darien is gay, and gay marriage. Again, nothing to do with Paula)
3. Ad Hominem - Ad Hominem is simply rebutting someone's argument/claims with an insult or other personl attack directed at them specifically, and not the argument itself. Example:
Jane's attempting to discredit Cain's position on the grounds that he's an Obama supporter, as if that means that the research Cain has to support his position is invalid (It doesn't). It's worth remembering that Ad Hominem isn't simply insulting someone, it's attempting to invalidate an arguments veracity on the grounds of the insult (So if someone just calls you an idiot, thats not ad hominem. Its Ad Hominem when they say your argument is wrong because you're an idiot)
4. Burden of Proof - Burden of Proof Fallacy occurs when someone wrongly places the need for proof on the other person. Usually, the person making a positive claim has to prove their side, not the person denying it. Proof does not have to be undeniable, so long as it reasonable enough to lead to your conclusion it will serve as valid proof, and only then does the person denying this have to provide proof to counter it. Example:
In the above example, Bass is committing the Burden of Proof fallacy by asking Haze to prove Kenzie didn't steal his iPhone when he hadn't even proven she has, which is what he suggested in the first place (His positive claim). Here's a correct example (For Bass at least):
As you can see above, while Haze is right that it doesn't 100% prove that Kenzie stole the phone, it doesn't have to because it gives enough reason to believe that it is true that she stole it. So Bass did his part, and it's not on Haze to give reason to believe Kenzie didn't steal the phone
---------------------Will update regularly as I have time----------------------------
I'll be listing off the most commonly used one's
First off, what is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is simply an error in logic. When there's an error in your logic then chances are the conclusion will also be flawed, but this isn't always true (You can use bad logic but still have a valid conclusion, just your logic wouldn't support it) For example: Kobe Bryant injured himself at the end of the season, so Lebron James won the MVP As you can see from that example, LeBron being "the NBA MVP" isn't simply a result of Kobe injuring himself (Kobe was injured just before the playoffs began anyway, so its doubtful that he would've won MVP over Bron for one or two final games). However, although the logic is bad, Lebron is the NBA MVP (The conclusion).
1. Strawman - This is probably the most used one. A strawman fallacy is a misrepresentation of someones position in an effort to refute it. An example:
- Zay: The Spurs are one of the greatest teams in basketball
- Ciel: Spurs are boring as hell. No one watches their games.
- Ciel: Warriors are better
Ciel is committing a strawman fallacy here. The Spurs being boring has nothing to do with their legacy or how great they are
2. Red Herring - A herring is a fish, but a red herring is a fallacy. This is basically when someone changes the subject in an argument, or responds with something irrelevant to the point to be more precise. Example:
- Darien: What do you mean? Paula Patton is married to Robin Thicke, not Justin Timberlake
- Markiss: Aren't you gay though? You should be more worried about being able to marry yourself
As you can see, Markiss' response doesn't in any way combat refute whether or not Paula is married to Robin Thicke, instead he changes the subject to something entirely irrelevant (Whether Darien is gay, and gay marriage. Again, nothing to do with Paula)
3. Ad Hominem - Ad Hominem is simply rebutting someone's argument/claims with an insult or other personl attack directed at them specifically, and not the argument itself. Example:
- Cain: Mitt Romney's foreign policies would cripple our nations economy more than it is
- Jane: You only say that because you like Obama
- Cain: No I didn't, you can see from my research that its true
- Jane: No reason to believe anything an idiotic Obama supporter says about Mitt Romneys policies
Jane's attempting to discredit Cain's position on the grounds that he's an Obama supporter, as if that means that the research Cain has to support his position is invalid (It doesn't). It's worth remembering that Ad Hominem isn't simply insulting someone, it's attempting to invalidate an arguments veracity on the grounds of the insult (So if someone just calls you an idiot, thats not ad hominem. Its Ad Hominem when they say your argument is wrong because you're an idiot)
4. Burden of Proof - Burden of Proof Fallacy occurs when someone wrongly places the need for proof on the other person. Usually, the person making a positive claim has to prove their side, not the person denying it. Proof does not have to be undeniable, so long as it reasonable enough to lead to your conclusion it will serve as valid proof, and only then does the person denying this have to provide proof to counter it. Example:
- Bass: Kenzie stole my iphone
- Haze: No she didn't
- Bass: Yes she did. Prove that she didn't
In the above example, Bass is committing the Burden of Proof fallacy by asking Haze to prove Kenzie didn't steal his iPhone when he hadn't even proven she has, which is what he suggested in the first place (His positive claim). Here's a correct example (For Bass at least):
- Bass: Kenzie stole my iPhone
- Haze: No she didn't
- Bass: Yes she did. I left it in the car with her and told her to keep it in her jacket until I returned, and when I did she was gone
- Haze: That doesn't prove she did though, so prove she did
As you can see above, while Haze is right that it doesn't 100% prove that Kenzie stole the phone, it doesn't have to because it gives enough reason to believe that it is true that she stole it. So Bass did his part, and it's not on Haze to give reason to believe Kenzie didn't steal the phone
---------------------Will update regularly as I have time----------------------------