The Fallacy Game (Name the logical fallacy)

[New Age United]

Ok I'm just gonna put this out there I'm really not certain which fallacy this is I think it's assumption. Three quotes from Eckhart Tolle that I'm pretty sure are fallacies.

If looked at from the highest perspective everything is happening for a reason

The brain did not create consciousness; consciousness created the brain

It is obvious that something infinitely more intelligent than us created the universe

Can anyone tell me which fallacy or fallacies these are?

 

[Heisenberg]

Ok I'm just gonna put this out there I'm really not certain which fallacy this is I think it's assumption. Three quotes from Eckhart Tolle that I'm pretty sure are fallacies.

If looked at from the highest perspective everything is happening for a reason

The brain did not create consciousness; consciousness created the brain

It is obvious that something infinitely more intelligent than us created the universe

Can anyone tell me which fallacy or fallacies these are?

These are assertions rather than arguments, so we do not know the premise they are based on or logic used to back them up. To counter these we would only need offer the counter-assertion.

If looked at from the highest perspective everything is happening for no reason

Consciousness is what the brain does

It is not at all obvious that something infinitely more intelligent than us created the universe

Without argumentation, these statements have the same validity as those quotes.

If you can find the arguments surrounding these quotes I'd be happy to explore the logic. I'm guessing the fallacies are many.

 

[BM9AGS]

Well, you haven't pinned down the logical error, but you are very correct in that this error contributes greatly to the placebo effect. Many people do not understand that the placebo effect is largely a collection of mistakes and statistical phenomena we cannot control for. So while you haven't named the fallacy, you've seen its implications.

Then the fallacy would be cause and effect

 

[New Age United]

Ok thanks heisenberg, I'm gonna get my books back from my buddy and when I'm on my computer and can type longer messages I would very much appreciate if you could go through some of his logic with me.

 

[Heisenberg]

Then the fallacy would be cause and effect

The parent fallacy is indeed False Cause (non causa pro causa). This is a specific instance that may appear similar to its siblings post hoc (after this) and cum hoc (with this) reasoning, but is its own category.

I'll go ahead and give my explanation of this one as it looks like no one is going to get it.

The mistake John makes in each case is ignoring the expected regression to the mean. Regression to the mean is a statistical concept. Anytime we have a baseline established and then a certain data point lies away from that baseline, our brains see a pattern. The further away the data point, the more we want to assign a cause. In addition, the further away the data point, the more likely subsequent data points will be closer to the average than to that exception. This fallacy is committed when we assign arbitrary reasons for the return to mediocrity, rather than acknowledging that it is expected.

1) John was a marathon runner. After starting to drink wheat grass juice John had the best marathon time of his life by far. The next race was not as good, but still better than usual. Soon John was finishing at his normal time again despite continuing his juice drinks. John concludes the wheat grass had an effect on his performance until his body became used to it.

Notice John does not just attempt to explain his exceptional time with wheat grass juice, he is also trying to explain why he did not continue having exceptional performance even though he continues drinking juice. His return to an average time is evidence that the wheat grass did nothing, but rather than abandon his original mistake, he explains it away with a further assumption.

2) John had back pain, but on most days it was bearable. One particularly bad day he could take no more and drank a homeopathic remedy his neighbor offered. His pain returned to normal levels the next day, proving the treatment worked.

If the remedy worked we would expect the pain to vanish, not simply return to a previous average level. The presence of pain indicates the cause has not been treated. It is much more likely that the pain would return to its baseline on its own, in fact, that is what we expect.

3) John was married to Jane, both were exceptionally tall. Their children, although taller than average, were not nearly as tall as either parent. Based on this, John concludes Jane cheated on him and he is not the father.

The more exceptional John and Jane's height, the less likely their children are to equal or exceed that exception. We do expect tall parents to have tall children, but if all children reached the height of their parents then John's height wouldn't be exceptional. The taller the parents are, the more likely their children will be closer to average than to the exception.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean

 

[Heisenberg]

If something varies normally between two far extremes,
It usually swings back naturally to values in between.
From sport to crime to illnesses we see this common theme,
An effect we call, statistically, 'regression to the mean'.

When Bruce plays his cards right and he's holding up a queen,
You know that next a lower card is likely to be seen,
Because there are so many cards much lower than the queen.
It's simple probability, it's 'regression to the mean'.

Evidence-based treatments which doctors should assign,
Use tests that are randomized, controlled and double-blind.
Stopping self-deception before results are seen,
Preventing them being fooled by regression to the mean.

 

[Oregon Gardener]

Correlation in juxtaposition to causation.

 

[New Age United]

I want to bump this thread just to see if anyone wants to play. I need to practice logic and critical thinking and thought somebody might be interested.

Name this fallacy

Our mission in life should be to have a lasting positive impact, and any negative impact should be avoided at all costs or we will have failed to fulfill our mission.

Keep in mind that I'm just starting to practice logic and argumentation so I'm obviously not as sharp as @Heisenberg

 

[Heisenberg]

I want to bump this thread just to see if anyone wants to play. I need to practice logic and critical thinking and thought somebody might be interested.

Name this fallacy

Our mission in life should be to have a lasting positive impact, and any negative impact should be avoided at all costs or we will have failed to fulfill our mission.

Keep in mind that I'm just starting to practice logic and argumentation so I'm obviously not as sharp as @Heisenberg

It looks like you are begging the question. Your conclusion is just a restatement of your premises.

Although it looks like you have two premises, you actually only have one. Saying we should avoid negative impacts is the same as saying we should only have positive impacts. So the logic breaks down to "mission = positive impact, if not positive impact then not mission" or being more reductive, "P=Q, If not Q then not P." which is a tautology.

 

[New Age United]

It looks like you are begging the question. Your conclusion is just a restatement of your premises.

Although it looks like you have two premises, you actually only have one. Saying we should avoid negative impacts is the same as saying we should only have positive impacts. So the logic breaks down to "mission = positive impact, if not positive impact then not mission" or being more reductive, "P=Q, If not Q then not P." which is a tautology.

Is it possible that the one argument can have multiple fallacies? Because now that you point it out yes it is begging the question, but I was actually aiming for argument from final consequences, is that also a fallacy in this argument?

 

[GreenLogician]

Nobody I know has died from smoking-related illnesses, therefore smoking is safe.
Name that fallacy

 

[GreenLogician]

Remember that all fallacies are non-sequitur.

Except for circular arguments, which are valid fallacies. An interesting exception

 

[New Age United]

Nobody I know has died from smoking-related illnesses, therefore smoking is safe.
Name that fallacy

I'm not sure of the fallacy name but you are pleading to personal experience and not realizing that chances permit that no one you know has died from cancer, it is definitely a cognitive bias because you are ignoring that multiple statistics show that smoking can be fatal.

 

[Heisenberg]

Arguments can have more than one fallacy for sure, but what you stated is just a tautology. It was also set up as a syllogism, which means 2 propositions. We can use logic to evaluate the truth value of propositions, but propositions just state that something is or isn't true. They are deductive.

The fallacies we usually concern ourselves with in rhetoric are often inductive. They take the form of premise + logical operator = conclusion. A logical operator can be words like: because, therefore, ergo, so.

Premise therefore conclusion. Or, Conclusion because premise.

An argument from consequences attempts to demonstrate that something is or isn't true because of the impact it would have. X is/isn't true because positive/negative consequence.

The Earth can't be round because that would upset the church.

The Earth must be round because that means we don't have to worry about falling off the edge.

Stated plainly it sounds ridiculous, however they show up in many comment debate wars.

 

[Heisenberg]

Nobody I know has died from smoking-related illnesses, therefore smoking is safe.
Name that fallacy

I'm not sure of the fallacy name but you are pleading to personal experience and not realizing that chances permit that no one you know has died from cancer, it is definitely a cognitive bias because you are ignoring that multiple statistics show that smoking can be fatal.

I think argument from anecdote (or personal experience) fits very well. But, let's steelman the argument. This argument can be interpreted in two ways, one being more ridiculous than the other. To be charitable, lets assume the less ridiculous version.

He could be saying that if bad effects exist then he would have personally noticed them. That bad effects and his personal experience must intersect. In that case he's making an argument from anecdote. This is a ridiculous argument.

He could also be saying that he knows a number of people who smoke and none of them are ill. In this case he's making a hasty generalization. He's drawing a conclusion about the whole of a category while only sampling a few from the category. This is a less ridiculous argument.

By being charitable we get to the primary error. If we fault him for the first error, personal experience, then he is free to go sample a few people he doesn't know and make the same weak conclusion. By getting to the primary error we force him to get a more reasonable sample.

Here's a quote I like very much:

“If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.” – Black Belt Bayesian

 

[GreenLogician]

Good thinking
I had in mind the texas sharpshooter fallacy, cherry picking, or the fallacy of the biased sample. But you're right too

 

[Heisenberg]

Well, it could be cherry picking or biased sample if this guy knows of people who are ill because of smoking but discounts them because he hasn't personally seen them. Just how big of an idiot is this guy?

Texas sharpshooter can be tricky to set up. The bones of the fallacy is when you test your hypothesis using the very same data that led to your hypothesis.

So, let's say I am an paranormal investigator and someone shows me what they think are Bigfoot tracks. I examine the tracks and notice a strange bumpy pattern left by the bottom of the foot. I then conclude that Bigfoot must have bumpy skin, and that's how we can tell real Bigfoot tracks from fake ones. So, these tracks that I am looking at must be real.

I've looked at the data, formed a hypothesis, and then used that same data to confirm my hypothesis. I've committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The bumps are where the bullets cluster, and my conclusion that Bigfoot has bumpy skin is the bullseye I've drawn around the cluster.

 

[Venus55]

1) Prehistoric creatures such as Megalodon exist in today's oceans because we have only explored a tiny fraction of what's down there.

2) We do not have any evidence of alien visitors or spacecraft, therefore aliens do not exist.

3) Chi and other healing energies are real because science has never found a way to disprove them.

All three arguments make the same mistake. What is it?

Because there's no proof of otherwise, the statements are deemed as fact?
(I'm sure I'm way off but thought I'd have a crack)

 

[Venus55]

View attachment 3530988

Yes, that is exactly correct. Rather than point to evidence for support, these arguments point to ignorance. Anytime the burden of proof is shifted, an argument from ignorance has been made.

Let's break them down:

1) Prehistoric creatures such as Megalodon must exist in today's oceans because we have only explored a tiny fraction of what's down there.

This points to the fact that we don't know something as a way to prove we do know something. It ignores the possibility that we could explore every bit of ocean and still not find Megalodon.

2) We do not have any evidence of alien visitors or spacecraft, therefore aliens do not exist.

Just as you can not use ignorance to conclude something does exist, you can not use it to conclude something doesn't. Absence of evidence is just that; it means nothing either way.

3) Chi and other healing energies are real because science has never found a way to disprove them.

If we lower our standards in this way to accept Chi, we now must also accept leprechauns, gremlins, the evil eye, and everything else science hasn't disproved, including Satan.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Yay!! Lol

 

[Venus55]

Lol the cheating part threw me off track!
Other than the last one everything could be subjective or placebo effect. Or that he wants to believe each outcome was for a reason.

Is say the same mistake was subjectivity

which is difficult to prove for the last except the clue in his pragmatic statement of him concluding he's not the father as no father would rightfully believe that unless he wanted to believe it on the height basis alone.

I thought placebo too til the last one