# The Fallacy Game (Name the logical fallacy)



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

*The first one is very easy to give an idea of how the game is played. The point of the fallacy game is to practice spotting fallacies and to spark discussion more so than to test knowledge. If you think my answers or explanations are off the mark, feel free to speak up.

Remember that all fallacies are non-sequitur. Non-sequitur is a generic term that simply means "does not follow." I'm looking for the most specific term. Also keep in mind that cognitive biases are different from logical fallacies, so an answer like "confirmation bias" is never going to be what I am looking for. 

Name the logical fallacy all three arguments have in common.

1) Psychics must be real because celebrities like Paris Hilton and Regis Philbin use them often.

2) McDonald's fries are America's favorite, so they must be the best.

3) It's silly not to believe in God because everybody knows he is real.

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


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> *The first one is very easy to give an idea of how the game is played. The point of the fallacy game is to practice spotting fallacies and to spark discussion more so than to test knowledge. If you think my answers or explanations are off the mark, feel free to speak up.
> 
> Remember that all fallacies are non-sequitur. Non-sequitur is a generic term that simply means "does not follow." I'm looking for the most specific term. Also keep in mind that cognitive biases are different from logical fallacies, so an answer like "confirmation bias" is never going to be what I am looking for.
> 
> ...


Without peeking at the list, I'd say all of these are Arguments from Authority. Paris and Regis in the first example, America in the second, and Everybody in the third. There is nothing else to support these statements beside the weak (non-sequitur) attempt to somehow link the statements' validity to the fact that an authority supports them...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 27, 2015)

Missed it by that much!

Notice the first argues not that psychics are real because celebrities say they are (endorsement), but that psychics are real because celebrities use them. It's a subtle difference for sure, but combined with the other examples it should give you the answer.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 27, 2015)

Like I said I'm not keen but I'll pay attention, I don't see how this could not educate me on the fallacies.


----------



## dashcues (Oct 28, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> *The first one is very easy to give an idea of how the game is played. The point of the fallacy game is to practice spotting fallacies and to spark discussion more so than to test knowledge. If you think my answers or explanations are off the mark, feel free to speak up.
> 
> Remember that all fallacies are non-sequitur. Non-sequitur is a generic term that simply means "does not follow." I'm looking for the most specific term. Also keep in mind that cognitive biases are different from logical fallacies, so an answer like "confirmation bias" is never going to be what I am looking for.
> 
> ...


Popular opinion


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

dashcues said:


> Popular opinion




Yes! This was argument from popularity. The popularity of a belief has no bearing on its truth value. No matter how many people believe Elvis is alive, he's still dead.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html


----------



## New Age United (Oct 28, 2015)

You have time for another one heisenberg? I already know incredulity and begging the question down pat so those would be too easy; I find those are the two that come up the most in my own thinking.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

*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?*


----------



## BM9AGS (Oct 28, 2015)

Assumptions?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

BM9AGS said:


> Assumptions?


Yes, but plenty of scientific theories make assumptions. When those assumptions operate on bad logic, they can be thrown out. So, what are the assumptions in the examples using for support?


----------



## BM9AGS (Oct 28, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes, but plenty of scientific theories make assumptions. When those assumptions operate on bad logic, they can be thrown out. So, what are the assumptions in the examples using for support?


Guess I don't understand this. 
The lack of evidence is used as evidence.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

BM9AGS said:


> Guess I don't understand this.
> The lack of evidence is used as evidence.


 

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


----------



## BM9AGS (Oct 28, 2015)

I simply thought there was an intelligent riddle to this. There's not. Was hoping for more here


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

It's an exercise in critical thinking. Simply knowing the names of fallacies is often not sufficient in helping us spot them in real-world arguments. This game is meant to encourage people to consider the structure and context of the logic.


----------



## BM9AGS (Oct 28, 2015)

Ok. Give me a challenge


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

*Okay, this one is a little harder.

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.

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.

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. 

All three examples make the same mistake. What is it? Remember, if it doesn't apply to all three, it's not what I am looking for.
*


----------



## BM9AGS (Oct 28, 2015)

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.


----------



## The_Herban_Legend (Oct 28, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> View attachment 3530988
> 
> 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.


So, if what you say is true, that would make you agnostic?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

BM9AGS said:


> 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
> ...


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.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 28, 2015)

The_Herban_Legend said:


> So, if what you say is true, that would make you agnostic?


Yes, and I think that is a pretty easy position to arrive at in existential matters, as knowledge is a subset of belief. We either have knowledge of something or we do not. If we do not, I remain agnostic. I may or may not also withhold belief as well.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 29, 2015)

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 (Oct 29, 2015)

New Age United said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2015)

Heisenberg said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

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 (Oct 30, 2015)

BM9AGS said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2015)

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 (Nov 20, 2015)

Correlation in juxtaposition to causation.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 20, 2017)

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 (Oct 20, 2017)

New Age United said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 20, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> 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 (Oct 20, 2017)

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


----------



## GreenLogician (Oct 20, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> Remember that all fallacies are non-sequitur.


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


----------



## New Age United (Oct 20, 2017)

GreenLogician said:


> 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 (Oct 20, 2017)

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 (Oct 20, 2017)

GreenLogician said:


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





New Age United said:


> 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 (Oct 20, 2017)

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 (Oct 20, 2017)

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 (Oct 22, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> *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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 22, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Yay!! Lol


----------



## Venus55 (Oct 22, 2017)

BM9AGS said:


> 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
> ...


I thought placebo too til the last one


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 22, 2017)




----------



## New Age United (Oct 22, 2017)

Venus55 said:


> 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)


The argument from Ignorance is one of the most popular fallacies made in argument I find; whenever someone makes a generalization and deems it to mean something specific the argument from Ignorance has been made, for instance if someone sees a ufo they may immediately come to the conclusion that it is an alien spacecraft when in fact many other possibilities exist. Basically whenever there are other possibilities or like Heisenberg said when someone tries to shift the burden of proof it is an argument from Ignorance.

Edit: also remember to be skeptical about everything you hear or read because it may be false, I'm just learning myself so I may be wrong lol!!!


----------



## New Age United (Oct 22, 2017)

Name this fallacy

The DNA code absolutely had to be designed by a higher or universal intelligence because there is no way that the double helix would have formed on its own.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 22, 2017)

New Age United said:


> Name this fallacy
> 
> The DNA code absolutely had to be designed by a higher or universal intelligence because there is no way that the double helix would have formed on its own.


Argument of incredulity or argument from design?


----------



## New Age United (Oct 22, 2017)

reddan1981 said:


> Argument of incredulity or argument from design?


Yes I was aiming for incredulity reddan but it also an argument from design thanks for bringing it to my attention.


----------



## GreenLogician (Oct 22, 2017)

Wouldn't argument from design be what it's going for and what it is, but not a fallacy therein?
If it had no fallacies and worked to prove a universal intelligence, it would still be an argument from design. That's about the content, not the form of the logic or the logical error committed.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 22, 2017)

Name this fallacy:

Skeptics fail to realize that ghosts only show themselves to those who believe. A skeptical outlook automatically closes the mind to the truth. That's why skeptical investigators never find evidence of ghosts.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 22, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> Name this fallacy:
> 
> Skeptics fail to realize that ghosts only show themselves to those who believe. A skeptical outlook automatically closes the mind to the truth. That's why skeptical investigators never find evidence of ghosts.


Special pleading, people will resort to this when they can no longer defend there conclusion they will then try to propose an argument that can not possibly be proven false however it can be shown as fallacious, this is called ad hoc whereas they are employed as needed after a previous argument has been shown as being unsound.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 22, 2017)

Can you explain a little bit about Occum's Razor @Heisenberg? 
It basically means the simplest data in a set of data must be the truth right???? But isn't it our primal brain that tries to oversimplify the data? When should I employ Occum's Razor and how can I recognize the difference between Occum's Razor and oversimplification?


----------



## GreenLogician (Oct 22, 2017)

New Age United said:


> the simplest data in a set of data must be the truth right?


Definitely not 'must be the truth', no - it's a general rule of thumb for choosing the more likely explanation. 
The simplest _explanation_ for data, of two competing explanations is usually going to be right, and so invoking unnecessarily complex explanations will often lead your predictions astray.


----------



## GreenLogician (Oct 22, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> A skeptical outlook automatically closes the mind to the truth.


Was it a straw man?


----------



## ttystikk (Oct 22, 2017)

reddan1981 said:


> View attachment 4030764


Thief! Gimme my book back!


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 22, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> Name this fallacy:
> 
> Skeptics fail to realize that ghosts only show themselves to those who believe. A skeptical outlook automatically closes the mind to the truth. That's why skeptical investigators never find evidence of ghosts.


Conservatism bias?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 22, 2017)

New Age United said:


> Special pleading, people will resort to this when they can no longer defend there conclusion they will then try to propose an argument that can not possibly be proven false however it can be shown as fallacious, this is called ad hoc whereas they are employed as needed after a previous argument has been shown as being unsound.


Very good! Special pleading is what people use to get out of being proved wrong, or to explain away inconvenient evidence (or the lack of). The classic example is when a psychic agrees to controlled scientific testing and then, upon failing the test, they find a reason why the test didn't count. 

Moving the goalposts is the most common form. It's also sometimes called supernatural creep. That's because we can start with a testable claim and, after moving the goalposts enough times, we end up crossing the line of falsifiability.

So, if we start with the claim that a race of Bigfoot are living undetected in the forest, that is at least something we can investigate. But when we fail to find Bigfoot using traps, dogs and trail cameras, we redefine Bigfoot as someone who can somehow sense and avoid traps, dogs and trail cameras. When we don't find any bones, habitat or droppings, we say Bigfoot must be a nomadic race, always on the move, and they somehow destroy their dead and pick up their droppings. Eventually we get to a place where Bigfoot is a psychic interdenominational alien capable of popping in and out of existence at will (yes, people really do make this claim). This, of course, is a claim we could never test. We've moved the goalposts so far no one could ever reach them. 

Special pleading is never about the evidence and always about the person's desperation to hold on to their beliefs.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 22, 2017)

New Age United said:


> Can you explain a little bit about Occum's Razor @Heisenberg?
> It basically means the simplest data in a set of data must be the truth right???? But isn't it our primal brain that tries to oversimplify the data? When should I employ Occum's Razor and how can I recognize the difference between Occum's Razor and oversimplification?



Philosophical razors are tools meant to help us "shave off" unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. That doesn't mean we decide those explanations are wrong, but that other explanations are more worthy of our attention. If we investigate the most likely explanations and they do not pan out, we may return to some of the ones we discarded earlier. So razors can help guide our investigations, but they are not tests allowing us to draw conclusions.

Occam's razor is meant to help us when we have to choose between two or more explanations which equally explain the data. It reminds us to apply the scientific principle of parsimony. The word "simplest" gets us into trouble. Many people interpret this to be about complexity. But in many cases, Occam's razor will actually favor an explanation which is more complex.

So lets consider these two explanations for ghost sightings.

1) Ghost sightings can be explained by a combination of psychology, misperceptions, mistakes, hallucinations, fever dreams, drug use, cultural expectations, and hoaxes combined with malleable memory and confabulation. 

2) Ghosts are real.

On the surface, the second explanation seems the simplest. However, proper application of Occam's razor tells us the first is most likely. That's because parsimony is not about complexity, it's about assumptions. It's about the number of times we go beyond the evidence and how far we leap when we do. The first explanation cites things that are all well researched, well documented and well understood. It is not introducing any new knowledge about the world. The second explanation asks us to make a number of giant leaps beyond our knowledge. We must assume there is an afterlife, that people can cross over from that afterlife into our reality, and that we are able to notice when they do. We do not have evidence for any of these things.

The proper expression of Occam's razor is: _the explanation which introduces the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correc_t. Each assumption presents a possible point of error, so obviously the fewer the better. 

But, of course, Occam's razor sometimes fails. When trying to make a medical diagnosis doctors usually favor the explanation where one disease accounts for all the symptoms. But a patient can have two or more rare diseases that just happen to show themselves at the same time. That's why razors are guidelines, not tests.

Razors are really just heuristics allowing us to quickly apply scientific principles during investigation. Just like mental heuristics, they create a bias. Hitchens's razor is a bias towards evidence. Alder's razor is a bias towards falsifiability. Occam's razor is a bias towards parsimony. These are good biases to have.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 22, 2017)

> A skeptical outlook automatically closes the mind to the truth.





GreenLogician said:


> Was it a straw man?


That line could be considered a strawman if in a slightly different context. In my example it's being used to explain a lack of evidence. But people say something very similar when they accuse skeptics of being closed-minded cynics. They say skeptics don't want to get to the truth, that they are comfortable with the world the way it is and want it to stay that way. But, of course, that is a complete mischaracterization. Skepticism is a method of learning about the world, not looking away from it.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 23, 2017)

Is there an argument from _narcissism?
_
There should be.


----------



## New Age United (Oct 23, 2017)

reddan1981 said:


> Is there an argument from _narcissism?
> _
> There should be.


I hope you're not implying that heisenberg is being narcissistic reddan, quite the opposite he is taking time to explain logic in a completely respectful manner. Or are you being serious? If there were such a fallacy I think it should be argument from ego whereas that would have a much broader spectrum.


----------



## ttystikk (Oct 23, 2017)

reddan1981 said:


> Is there an argument from _narcissism?
> _
> There should be.


You'd be the authority. You tell us?


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 23, 2017)

New Age United said:


> I hope you're not implying that heisenberg is being narcissistic reddan, quite the opposite he is taking time to explain logic in a completely respectful manner. Or are you being serious? If there were such a fallacy I think it should be argument from ego whereas that would have a much broader spectrum.


Lol no not heis. He is the model of a gentleman. And 2 people i love are named after him (or the other way around).plus he also demonstrates his names sake theory of uncertainty quite often.


ttystikk said:


> You'd be the authority. You tell us?


Ttystikk i dont take myself that serious, i can barely tie my own shoes..


----------



## ttystikk (Oct 23, 2017)

reddan1981 said:


> Ttystikk i dont take myself that serious, i can barely tie my own shoes..


Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind going forward.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 24, 2017)

What i do take issue from is bigotry of any form.

What makes a person, treat another person like shit, because they have a different belief?

The problem I get when i raise the question, (or demonstrate the issue ) is that it is _persons unaware of their own bigotry _that always respond. Lol


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 24, 2017)

I have never started a FE thread.
Look back through my posts and pay more attention to the specifics of what i have been saying.

It is these same people that now either ignore me, or tag me in FE posts.


----------



## reddan1981 (Oct 24, 2017)

I feel the need to explain using this thread as an example.

My first post was me, implying that there is always a different answer that might not have been considered.

It was taken as an attack, because it did not follow the rhythm of the premise of this thread.

Even though it was valid, it was disqualifed because of personal opinion.

My second post _was _a poke. I know that there isnt an argument from narcissism.
I think irl ego and ignorance is where most arguments come from.


----------



## New Age United (Nov 1, 2017)

@Heisenberg I've recently discovered just how far robotics has developed; I saw a video of a Russian robot doing army drills and construction activities; there is a video of a robot developed in Saudi Arabia that is strangely human like, with facial emotions and intelligent cognitive abilities. I don't know if it was programmed to answer the guys questions for the presentation or not but it seemed to be thinking for itself. 

Here's my argument; please point out any fallacies and feel free to argue against it.

The human consciousness is produced by the input of electrical signals in our brain, therefore a robot that also receives data from electrical signals may develop a consciousness.


----------



## Venus55 (Nov 1, 2017)

New Age United said:


> @Heisenberg I've recently discovered just how far robotics has developed; I saw a video of a Russian robot doing army drills and construction activities; there is a video of a robot developed in Saudi Arabia that is strangely human like, with facial emotions and intelligent cognitive abilities. I don't know if it was programmed to answer the guys questions for the presentation or not but it seemed to be thinking for itself.
> 
> Here's my argument; please point out any fallacies and feel free to argue against it.
> 
> The human consciousness is produced by the input of electrical signals in our brain, therefore a robot that also receives data from electrical signals may develop a consciousness.


Fallacy aside for a moment. Never going to happen and that's just personal opinion based on no research. 
But have a read:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-artificially-intelligent-robots-will-never-have-consciousness-like-humans/amp/


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 1, 2017)

Venus55 said:


> Fallacy aside for a moment. Never going to happen and that's just personal opinion based on no research.
> But have a read:
> https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-artificially-intelligent-robots-will-never-have-consciousness-like-humans/amp/


Robots/Androids/AI will never have consciousness like a human, because they'll be wired differently.

But to dismiss out of hand that they'll never have self awareness or the ability to contemplate questions without enough data to arrive at firm answers or the ability to do art is short sighted, IMHO.

They'll have a consciousness, it just won't be like ours. We need to start working on ensuring that it has a moral and ethical structure that will respect us, as primitive as we will appear to be to a consciousness that will no doubt be able to think with trillions of calculations per second.


----------



## New Age United (Nov 2, 2017)

Venus55 said:


> Fallacy aside for a moment. Never going to happen and that's just personal opinion based on no research.
> But have a read:
> https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-artificially-intelligent-robots-will-never-have-consciousness-like-humans/amp/





ttystikk said:


> Robots/Androids/AI will never have consciousness like a human, because they'll be wired differently.
> 
> But to dismiss out of hand that they'll never have self awareness or the ability to contemplate questions without enough data to arrive at firm answers or the ability to do art is short sighted, IMHO.
> 
> They'll have a consciousness, it just won't be like ours. We need to start working on ensuring that it has a moral and ethical structure that will respect us, as primitive as we will appear to be to a consciousness that will no doubt be able to think with trillions of calculations per second.


Thanks for the read Venus very good article, but it does not dismiss the possibility of developing a more advanced intelligence, what if there is an I Robot scenario where the manufacturer of robots develops a program specifically designed to police the human race, or worse exterminate it?


----------



## Venus55 (Nov 2, 2017)

New Age United said:


> Thanks for the read Venus very good article, but it does not dismiss the possibility of developing a more advanced intelligence, what if there is an I Robot scenario where the manufacturer of robots develops a program specifically designed to police the human race, or worse exterminate it?


Then we're in serious trouble

*Seriously tho.. I don't allow my mind to have such ponderings re: A.I futuristic capabilities, unnecessary anxiety


----------



## New Age United (Nov 2, 2017)

Venus55 said:


> Then we're in serious trouble
> 
> *Seriously tho.. I don't allow my mind to have such ponderings re: A.I futuristic capabilities, unnecessary anxiety


Ignorance is bliss


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 3, 2017)

New Age United said:


> Ignorance is bliss


Fortunately, true AI is a long way off.

It would be much more prudent to stay awake worrying about what men program computers to do. An Air Force Colonel has been leading a project to reduce battlefield rules of engagement to code, since the 1990s. In other words, a program that tells the machine when it's okay to kill humans, based on its program and WITHOUT HUMAN INVOLVEMENT.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 3, 2017)

New Age United said:


> The human consciousness is produced by the input of electrical signals in our brain, therefore a robot that also receives data from electrical signals may develop a consciousness.



There is no problem with the form of the logic, however it is an analogical argument. You are saying that because two things are alike in some way, they must also be alike in other ways. This may or may not be true. So while we cannot fault your argument for being formally fallacious, we still have to judge if it is a weak or strong analogy.

We can argue that it is weak because "consciousness" is still a bit of an ambiguous term. So we would first ask you to offer an operational definition of the term. Next we would want to know the evidence for the claim that consciousness is produced by electrical signals. A radio operates by electrical signals, yet we would not consider it conscious. Obviously there is something more than the mere presence of electrical signals. Is it the number of them? The type? How they interact with each other? How they are processed? Your premise leaves out quite a bit and does nothing to demonstrate that the electrical signals involved in a robot are anything like those utilized by the human brain.

So, you have made a weak analogy, more specifically, a question-begging analogy. You may be correct, however your argument, as it stands, is not very compelling. Even if we steel man it by changing it to say, "The human brain processes electrical signals in such a way as to produce consciousness. So if a robot could also process electrical signals in this way, it would also produce consciousness." But at that point it's basically a tautology. It's like saying "A human manipulates vocal sounds in such a way as to produce English, so if a dog could manipulate its vocal sounds in the same way, it would also be able to speak English." While the argument is technically true, it doesn't give us much hope that dogs will someday be speaking English.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/qbanalog.html


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 3, 2017)

My dog is very good at telling me what he wants. However, I'm often stupid enough that I fail to understand him.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Nov 4, 2017)

There's lots of logical fallacies that it's confusing to me. I see the illogic, but remembering which one it is takes practice which I've not done.

Is there a shorter list that covers most bases?


----------



## New Age United (Nov 4, 2017)

Dalek Supreme said:


> There's lots of logical fallacies that it's confusing to me. I see the illogic, but remembering which one it is takes practice which I've not done.
> 
> Is there a shorter list that covers most bases?


I know it takes lots of practice to get them down pat, even then it's hard not to stumble upon them. So far I've found these to be the most common: ignorance, incredulity, begging the question, special pleading and if you want to argue about God you must be aware of god of the gaps and argument from design.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 5, 2017)

Dalek Supreme said:


> There's lots of logical fallacies that it's confusing to me. I see the illogic, but remembering which one it is takes practice which I've not done.
> 
> Is there a shorter list that covers most bases?



I'm not sure there is a short list, but here's the one that got me started. They've actually added a lengthy introduction to it since I stumbled on it. I think the fallacies are mostly listed in order of prevalence, but that depends a lot on the types of subjects you argue and the people you deal with. For example, if you argue about psychic powers and ghosts, you'll hear an abundance of special pleading. If you argue about alternative medicine and healthy eating, you'll hear tons of appeal to nature fallacies.

Seeing the mistake is the most important part, knowing the name of the fallacy can be a trivial detail. But other times, knowing the name may help you remember the structure of the error, which then helps you better deconstruct an argument that seems wrong but you can't quite put your finger on it.


http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 5, 2017)

Name this fallacy:

My uncle tells me I shouldn't be afraid to ride the wooden roller coaster at Six Flags. He says that in 30 years no one has ever been injured and the ride has never had a major malfunction. To me, that just means the coaster is overdue for a tragedy. Something bad is probably going to happen any day now.


----------



## Grandpapy (Nov 5, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> Name this fallacy:
> 
> My uncle tells me I shouldn't be afraid to ride the wooden roller coaster at Six Flags. He says that in 30 years no one has ever been injured and the ride has never had a major malfunction. To me, that just means the coaster is overdue for a tragedy. Something bad is probably going to happen any day now.


Ignorance.

Mechanics at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom have been locked out since May 2, preventing unionized workers from servicing the park’s rides.


----------



## New Age United (Nov 5, 2017)

Heisenberg said:


> Name this fallacy:
> 
> My uncle tells me I shouldn't be afraid to ride the wooden roller coaster at Six Flags. He says that in 30 years no one has ever been injured and the ride has never had a major malfunction. To me, that just means the coaster is overdue for a tragedy. Something bad is probably going to happen any day now.


I believe it's ignorance but for a different reason than grandpapy. The boy is taking general data and making it out to mean something specific. He is construing statistics and the odds which show that the ride has been perfectly safe for 30 years to mean that the odds are now in favor of an accident. It would be like me who has never got a royal flush in poker going all in with poker J 10 suited believing that I'm due to get a royal flush, when the truth is the odds are still 650,000:1.


----------



## Grandpapy (Nov 5, 2017)

New Age United said:


> I believe it's ignorance but for a different reason than grandpapy. The boy is taking general data and making it out to mean something specific. He is construing statistics and the odds which show that the ride has been perfectly safe for 30 years to mean that the odds are now in favor of an accident. It would be like me who has never got a royal flush in poker going all in with poker J 10 suited believing that I'm due to get a royal flush, when the truth is the odds are still 650,000:1.


My remark has fallacy's based in bias, opinion, experience and fear.
So take that into account.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 5, 2017)

New Age United said:


> I believe it's ignorance but for a different reason than grandpapy. The boy is taking general data and making it out to mean something specific. He is construing statistics and the odds which show that the ride has been perfectly safe for 30 years to mean that the odds are now in favor of an accident. It would be like me who has never got a royal flush in poker going all in with poker J 10 suited believing that I'm due to get a royal flush, when the truth is the odds are still 650,000:1.


Yes! You done everything but name the fallacy. Good job seeing that it applies to card games.

The Gambler's fallacy occurs when we decide that something happening more frequently than normal will later be balanced out by a period of that something happening less frequently than normal, or vice versa. If we flip a coin 10 times and get heads each time, we feel the odds are pretty good that we will get tails on the 11th time. In reality, the odds are still 50/50. 

This is the counterpart to the hothand fallacy, in which we believe that a positive outcome experienced by a person can be used to predict future positive outcomes. So, if a person manages to get 21 at the blackjack table three times in a row, we say they are on a winning streak and will probably win the next hand as well.

In either case we are allowing negligible or irrelevant factors to distort our view of the odds. Since the human brain cannot perform complicated math on the spot it has had to find other ways to quickly calculate probabilities, known as heuristics. These fallacies are not just due to lack of knowledge about logic, they are directly tied to biases. The flip side of every heuristic is a bias. That's why, despite understanding the logical fallacy at the root of these situations, the wrong answer still _feels_ right. We know that the coin still has a 50/50 chance on the 11th toss, but it still feels like it would be more likely to land tails after getting ten heads. That's the problem with biases. They often feel like truth.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 5, 2017)

I'm still not getting on that damn coaster until the mechanics are back on the job!


----------

