# Name that logical fallacy



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Well it's a quiet night, all good people are asleep and dreaming, but we atheists and skeptics can still have some fun, and practice at the same time.

One important skill to develop when defending reason and sanity is to recognize logical fallacies and other manipulative tricks. On RUI they are usually obvious, but sometimes if you are not aware of reasoning mistakes, a logical fallacy can lead to a pretty compelling argument. Some fallacies can be nuanced and confusing. Lets take a look at both the obvious and subtle mistakes we are likely to see in this forum, practice our skill and learn something at the same time.

If you feel you can identify the fallacy, please name it, describe it, and give an alternate example of when we hear it. Feel free to drop some riddles of your own, but make sure to give multiple examples.

Lets start with an easy yet common argument we see quite a bit.

1) I believe the Loch Ness monster and other sea creatures exist because the ocean and bodies of water are hard to explore, and we have only seen a fraction of what is down there.

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

3) I believe ESP is possible because humans only use 10% of their brain. Who knows what is possible if we learn to use the entire thing.

In addition to some factual errors, all of these arguments share a common fallacy. What is it?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

sounds like "argument from ignorance' to me, but I dunno ... 
cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> sounds like "argument from ignorance' to me, but I dunno ...
> cn


It is indeed! You win the prize! But you failed to list your own example or to describe why the fallacy fits, so you lose the prize and are afforded one demerit.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Dang!! I forgot about the middle bit. 

OK my example: I have seen no trees in my travels through this county. There aren't any.

The fallacy holds because i'm citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence. 

I'll see yer demerit and raise you one: "loose"? Heisenberg, I'm uncertain about you sometimes. ~ggg~
cn

<edit> Note to self. Read ALL the instructions.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

The argument from ignorance can be compelling if stated a certain way. Many people get offended when you point out an appeal to ignorance because they mistakenly assume you are calling them ignorant. The problem with argumentum ad ignorantiam is that when someone is asked to supply support for their premise, they use ignorance as evidence. Saying that the ocean is vast and unexplored in no way supports the idea of sea monsters. Saying that we have no evidence of aliens in no way indicates aliens don't exist. 

The argument from ignorance and appeal to ignorance are actually two different things, with one creating a false dilemma, but anytime someone points to the lack of knowledge as support for supposed knowledge you can be sure it is a fallacy.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The argument from ignorance can be compelling if stated a certain way. Many people get offended when you point out an appeal to ignorance because they mistakenly assume you are calling them ignorant. The problem with argumentum ad ignorantiam is that when someone is asks to supply support for their premise, they use ignorance as evidence. Saying that the ocean is vast and unexplored in no way supports the idea of sea monster. Saying that we have no evidence of aliens in no way indicates aliens don't exist.
> 
> The argument from ignorance and appeal to ignorance are actually two different things, with one creating a false dilemma, but anytime someone points to the lack of knowledge as support for supposed knowledge you can be sure it is a fallacy.


last time i checked we got evidence of fuckin aliens bein here all around us.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Dang!! I forgot about the middle bit.
> 
> OK my example: I have seen no trees in my travels through this county. There aren't any.
> 
> ...


Your demerit is removed for pointing out a spelling error, and subsequently reinstated for pointing out a spelling error!

Next fallacy

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 to think Elvis is still alive because everybody knows he is dead


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> last time i checked we got evidence of fuckin aliens bein here all around us.


Please do not attempt to argue the details of arbitrary examples in this thread.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> last time i checked we got evidence of fuckin aliens bein here all around us.


Holster that hogleg son. Heis is using hypothetical examples. cn


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Please do not attempt to argue the details of arbitrary examples in this thread.


i know i wasnt aimin that statement at you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> i know i wasnt aimin that statement at you.


No problem, just trying to cut down on clutter. You are welcome to play along.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Your demerit is removed for pointing out a spelling error, and subsequently reinstated for pointing out a spelling error!
> 
> Next fallacy
> 
> ...


Argumentum ad populum. (The first shades into appeal to authority.)

It describes the idea that the majority is invariably correct.

Example (are we still doing this?): Dude, nobody I know owns a Mitsubishi. They obviously suck.

As for my demerit, i offer argumentum ad baculum: So long as i don't have any demerits ... nobody gets hurt. ~cackle!~
cn


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Argumentum ad populum. (The first shades into appeal to authority.)
> 
> It describes the idea that the majority is invariably correct.
> 
> ...


i happen to enjoy my mitsu!! lol

boils down to people will believe anything the majority does. ie mindless followers


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Argumentum ad populum. (The first shades into appeal to authority.)
> 
> It describes the idea that the majority is invariably correct.
> 
> ...


Yes, and great example. You win the prize, which is dinner with Carrot Top.

The appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, is obviously a poor way to judge the truth value of a statement. No matter how many people think Clay Aiken is a woman, he's still a man.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You win the prize,


 Yaaaay!


> which is dinner with Carrot Top.


Oh, dear.
cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

1) I wore this shirt then I pitched a perfect game, therefore this is my lucky shirt and I can never wash it. 

2) Many people try marijuana before moving on to harder drugs like heroin. Cannabis is a gateway drug.

3) Most rapist admit to having pornography on their computer, pornography leads to rape.


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

All fallacies are in fact true, because our understanding is relative to the knowledge we have obtained. No one has yet given mankind all knowledge so it seems more likely that most of our conclusions are false; at least in part.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

I'll take a break from being a piggie
cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

NewGrowth said:


> All fallacies are in fact true, because our understanding is relative to the knowledge we have obtained. No one has yet given mankind all knowledge so it seems more likely that most of our conclusions are false; at least in part.


We have already covered the appeal to ignorance.  Any good skeptic or person of reason already acknowledges that any answer we have is an approximation of the truth, with some being more accurate than others. For example, the conclusion that my cat is a male seems to be a pretty close estimate, but is subject to change given a sufficiently supported argument. The knowledge we do have is backed by evidence based reasoning which attempts to avoid fallacies and defeatist attitudes such as this one.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) I wore this shirt when I pitched a perfect game, therefore this is my lucky shirt.
> 
> 2) Many people try marijuana before moving on to harder drugs like heroin. Cannabis is a gateway drug.
> 
> 3) Most rapist admit to having pornography on their computer, pornography encourages rape.


ways to validate an action by some so called sign


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

Knowing that seems to point to the fact that your evidence was false in the first place. So would that not then imply that all conclusions thereafter are actually false? Is this not constantly reiterated by the fact that the argument has to be constantly changed to remain 'correct' in the light of new evidence?
So our understanding being only relative should never really be able to negate anything in totality. Rather it seems more pertinent to examine multiple routes independent of the observer wherever possible. 
This to me is not an appeal to ignorance rather an appeal to 'dynamic understanding' shall we say?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Piggie back! 

Okaay. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation misassigned a causative role)

Basically a stubborn disbelief in coincidence.

Regionally a classic example is earthquake weather. "The clouds looked JUST LIKE this in '89. I'm scared."

I think I'll de-pig again. The cannabineutron flux is higher than anticipated, and the little subnucleonic punks are stealing my brain's lunch money. Just look at that Cheren'cough radiation ... cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> ways to validate an action by some so called sign





cannabineer said:


> Piggie back!
> 
> Okaay. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation misassigned a causative role)
> 
> ...


Very close but no.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Uh (blushes)
...post hoc ergo propter hoc? cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Uh (blushes)
> ...post hoc ergo propter hoc? cn


Yes! Your new prize is that you don't have to spend dinner with Carrot Top.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Words cannot describe my relief. 
<sorta ot> Dang. I was fractally, recursively, interdimensionally hammered last night. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or "after this therefore because of this", is a very common logical fallacy that is responsible for most of the superstitious beliefs we have today. Many of the simple ones involve luck. When a black cat crosses your path and you feel dread, when a sports figure must touch the color red before competition, when a witch gives you the evil eye and then you fall sick, these are all examples of post hoc at work.

Post hoc reasoning mistakes come about because of the human brain's love for patterns, and are essentially a result of leaping to conclusions without carefully examining the situation. An example of a serious mistake that threatens health today is the belief that vaccines cause autism. The only evidence we have for this is post hoc reasoning. "My son received a vaccine and then was diagnosed with autism, therefore the vaccine caused the condition." Obviously it takes careful and thorough study to find out if this is true, but for many people including Jenny McCarthy, this one indication is enough to draw a conclusion.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or "with this, therefore because of this", is closely related of course. An example of this is the classic observance that church attendance and public drunkenness have always correlated. They do not equal each other, but if one statistic rises, so does the other. This can lead to the belief that going to church causes some people to drink in public, or that public intoxication inspires guilt which leads to church attendance. Again the failure to carefully and thoroughly examine the situation is the problem. If we look further we see that both numbers are governed by an even larger factor, which is simply city population. If the population goes up, then naturally church attendance and drinking in pubs also goes up.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Very close but no.


 What are you talking about? Of course they are examples of cum hoc. Post hoc requires that there is an order of events, not mere correlation. Your examples were not technically post hoc. A post hoc would be, "The sky last night was very red, that's why today's weather is so nice."

or

"Everyone prayed for Johnny to get better and now he is, It's a miracle demonstrating the power of prayer."


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What are you talking about? Of course they are examples of cum hoc. Post hoc requires that there is an order of events, not mere correlation. Your examples were not technically post hoc. A post hoc would be, "The sky last night was very red, that's why today's weather is so nice."
> 
> or
> 
> "Everyone prayed for Johnny to get better and now he is, It's a miracle demonstrating the power of prayer."


Yes I see now I left it a bit ambiguous without stressing the cause and effect aspect. I have changed it a bit to reflect the true fallacy. This is why I spared cannabineer from being exposed to Carrot Top.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

1) We can not legalize marijuana, if we open the doors to prisons our streets will be flooded with rapists and murderers.

2) If we ban assault rifles people will get the idea that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, soon we will not be allowed to own any firearms which will lead to the restriction of other rights like free speech.

3) If we do not allow prayer in schools, people will stop going to church and America will fall into demoralized chaos.

These share a common specific fallacy, as well as a more generalized fallacy. Name either.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

The informal fallacy is "slippery slope", a congener of the continuum fallacy. 

This supposes that a small step in a given direction will lead quickly&consequently to an extreme outcome. It has been aphorized as "give'm an inch an' they'll take a mile."

My favorite example is, of course, political. "You voted for [candidate with alleged socialist leanings]??? Well I hope you're HAPPY when they hand you a rusty shovel and send you to a collective farm!!"

If I'm being a piggy, please say so. Until then ... I guess I love the feeling of being on something like a game show. I'll take Entheobotanical Lore for $600, Alex ...
cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) We can not legalize marijuana, if we open the doors to prisons our streets will be flooded with rapists and murderers.
> 
> 2) If we ban assault rifles people will get the idea that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, soon we will not be allowed to own any firearms which will lead to the restriction of other rights like free speech.
> 
> ...


Non-sequitur


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> The informal fallacy is "slippery slope", a congener of the continuum fallacy.
> 
> This supposes that a small step in a given direction will lead quickly&consequently to an extreme outcome. It has been aphorized as "give'm an inch an' they'll take a mile."
> 
> ...


No worries, this thread is to pass the time, and involves a subject that most people find rather dry.

You are of course correct. The slippery slope argument makes it's error in assuming that accepting a position is the same as accepting the extreme of that position. In many cases the fallacy also falls under the umbrella of non sequitur, as the conclusion does not represent the original position, even in it's extreme.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Non-sequitur


I would hazard the observation that _non sequitur_ is a universal feature of all logical fallacies. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I would hazard the observation that _non sequitur_ is a universal feature of all logical fallacies. cn


 True that. All formal logic fallacies are non-sequitur. However, not all fallacies are formal logic errors.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

1) Anyone who supports the NRA must be okay with hundreds of innocent children being shot each year.

2) If you reject alien visitors only because you have never seen them, then you must also reject the existence of the Great Wall of China or footprints on the moon.

3) It is not okay to have religious freedom because it is not okay for witches to dig up corpses and use them in rituals.

These all make use of a strawman, but use a specific technique to get there. This technique is only a fallacy when misused.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 23, 2011)

Argumentum ad populum

EDIT: Didn't see all the other posts - this was for the Paris Hilton, Mc Donalds example...


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) Anyone who supports the NRA must be okay with hundreds of innocent children being shot each year.
> 
> 2) If you reject alien visitors only because you have never seen them, then you must also reject the existence of the Great Wall of China or footprints on the moon.
> 
> ...


All of them appear to have some form of false dilemma. 1 and 3 are an appeal to consequences.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

I just canceled my membership to the National Cutlery Association. I would hate for those hundreds of innocent children to get stabbed instead; that's worse; ewwww. ~grin~

fwiw your latest examples look to me like "cherry picking" gone bad. 

Numbers 1 and 3 strike me as a sort of appeal to emotion, perhaps "appeal to moral horror". 
Number 2 is throwing me at the moment. My first instinct is "argument from fallacy" but it isn't passing my wait-5-minutes test. Will need to think on it while seeking nutrition ... cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

They appear similar to false dilemma and do appeal to consequences. The distinction is in what those consequences represent, and the hint that the technique is sometimes valid. The key is that the statements are silly.

Here is an example of a proper use of the technique.

Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea."

Carl Sagan: If that aphorism is a great idea, then the converse statement 'The opposite of a great idea is not a great idea.' must also be true. It stands self-confessed as not a great idea.



> I just canceled my membership to the National Cutlery Association. I would hate for those hundreds of innocent children to get stabbed instead


Great example because it's silly...

If you support the NCA, and knives sometimes stab children, you support children being stabbed. <-- This achieves a strawman and justifies it by this technique...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

Heisenberg, I yield. I'm sure that the moment you tell me, I'll slap my forehead. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

Reductio ad absurdum takes a premise to an absurd conclusion, and then assumes a falsehood. It may be presented as a false dichotomy, a syllogistic argument, or just a proposition but the apparent truth is derived from reductio ad absurdum logic. It can be a useful tool for judging truth value, but is often misused in combination with a strawman.

It can be confused with argument from adverse consequences when presented as "Anyone who supports the NRA must be okay with hundreds of innocent children being shot each year." But the conclusion is not that support of the NRA will lead to child deaths, that is the implied (or suppressed) premise, the conclusion is that someone who supports gun ownership also supports children dying.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2011)

1) It is unfair to judge ESP on scientific testing because ESP does not work in the presents of skeptics.

2) Police officers should never get traffic tickets because they have had extra training in safety.

3) The actions of god can make no sense to you, because you are only human.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2011)

Special pleading of course.

I always thought of reductio ad absurdum as a technique for demonstrating the poor logic, not as a fallacy. I think that's why I missed that one.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 23, 2011)

GREAT idea for a thread dude! I hope to see some of the regulars on the other side of the aisle pop in and do some reading.


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 24, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> i happen to enjoy my mitsu!! lol
> 
> boils down to people will believe anything the majority does. ie mindless followers


Mitsubishi what you expect for $300?


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Argumentum ad populum
> 
> EDIT: Didn't see all the other posts - this was for the Paris Hilton, Mc Donalds example...


 1 up for the fries! now I'm hungry!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Special pleading of course.


Special pleading is correct, which puts you in second place.


Special pleading is is used when a subject is suggested to be exempt from normal standards of evaluation for a certain reason, and often that reason is invalid and hasn't been given proper criticism. If the special reason is valid, which sometimes happens, then the special pleading is also valid. Watch for special pleading anytime a pseudoscience fails a test, it's sure to be there.

This vid Pad posted is a great example. When these psychics are called out on their bullshit, they immediately engage in special pleading, although the woman seems to think better of it and go with the truth instead. (she admits she cheated)

[video=youtube;u4qGfNViVN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

1) The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, therefore, the links in the chain of your history predict your future.

2) Skeptics continue to holdout against alternative medicine, I wonder why they fear complementary treatments.

3) I know ghosts exists because I have seen thing's that can only be described as spirits.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 24, 2011)

begging the question.

"The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God."

"We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.'

These are my examples. The first one begs the questions that the universe has a beginning and that everything has a cause. 
The second one has the conclusion, that god exists, based on the premise of intelligent design. The existence of intelligent design assumes a designer so the conclusion is assumed in the premise.


----------



## tinyTURTLE (Sep 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Please do not attempt to argue the details of arbitrary examples in this thread.


also recent studies prove that we use far, far more of our brains than the fabled 10%. you can eat your demerrit with hot sauce.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

tinyTURTLE said:


> also recent studies prove that we use far, far more of our brains than the fabled 10%. you can eat your demerrit with hot sauce.


Yes, that would be the factual error I refereed to in the very next line, but lets clear up the myth since you singled it out.

The myth implies that 90% of the human brain is dormant and may harbor vast untapped potential. If the 10% we do use governs all our internal functions, subconscious processes, and conscious thought then the inactive 90% must be capable of wondrous accomplishments. Perhaps this is where the potential for extra sensory perception and telekinetic energy is held. Maybe this is the part of the brain being used when mediums enter a trance and talk to the dead, or when dowsers locate water with a pair of sticks. 

The problem is that neuroscience has never held the idea that we only use 10% of our brain capacity. It is so unsupported that no one can even explain how this misconception arose. It has been shown that no part of the brain can be damaged through trauma or disease without having some consequences, often rather severe. Through low tech research such as autopsy to detailed imaging scans like MRI, it has been observed that no part of the brain is without function, although there are redundancies. If this myth were true, a person could lose 90% of their brain and still function normally. Alzheimer&#8217;s patients lose significant brain function with just a 20% loss of brain cells, and rarely live to see 50%.

It also doesn't make sense that a species would evolve such a resource intensive organ without specific need. The brain demands constant oxygen and energy. It seems odd that evolution would select to preserve something with 10% efficiency. 

Now there is the question, how much of our brain do we use at any one time? This is a question the mythbusters answered. They found that during complicated tasks we can use as much as 40% of our brain at once. Their methods were a bit too sloppy to assign precision, but they clearly demonstrated we use more than 10%.

There is no theoretical or evidential reason to think any part of our brain is dormant.


http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10


----------



## tinyTURTLE (Sep 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes, that would be the factual error I refereed to in the very next line, but lets clear up the myth since you singled it out.
> 
> The myth implies that 90% of the human brain is dormant and may harbor vast untapped potential. If the 10% we do use governs all our internal functions, subconscious processes, and conscious thought then the inactive 90% must be capable of wondrous accomplishments. Perhaps this is where the potential for extra sensory perception and telekinetic energy is held. Maybe this is the part of the brain being used when mediums enter a trance and talk to the dead, or when dowsers locate water with a pair of sticks.
> 
> ...


blah blah blah. whatever the case, i have friggin ESP. put that on your toast.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> begging the question.
> 
> "The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God."
> 
> ...


Correct! That answer with examples puts you in the lead. 

Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning. Basically, the premise is simply restated in the conclusion. Saying "I know ghosts exists because I have seen thing's that can only be described as spirits." is the same as saying "I know ghosts exist because I know ghosts exist." This begs, or raises, the question, how do you know ghosts exist? Sometimes this fallacy is not circular reasoning, but simply a premise and an unrelated conclusion, which while they may not be related logically, beg the same question.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

1) America is for free speech, but free speech is sometimes offensive. Silence is equally undesirable, therefore we should have limited censorship.

2) Jack wants an open marriage. Jill wants a monogamous relationship. Jack solves the problem by saying he will be monogamous with Jill during the week and take other lovers only on weekends. 

3) Whether or not you think god designed the universe, we can at least agree the universe is inexplicably complicated, so you see, we really do agree.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2011)

Argument to moderation.

This is a reflexive avoidance of the extremes of a continuum, even if one of those extremes is right.

An amusing example of this is Urinal Theory, wherein very few men, when faced with a row of unoccupied urinals, will select one at the end.

cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Argument to moderation.
> 
> This is a reflexive avoidance of the extremes of a continuum, even if one of those extremes is right.
> 
> ...


The judges say you are very close, however this is a specific form of argument to moderation which qualifies it as a fallacy. Argument to moderation is not always invalid. I must give your opponents a chance to answer, even though I am impressed with your example.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 24, 2011)

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that given two positions there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.

Looks right to me as well.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

False compromise is what I was going for. Argument to moderation can sometimes reach a legitimate compromise. If jack's position is that he wants to use the family computer 100% of the time because he paid for it, and Jill's position is that she wants to use the computer 100% of the time because she pays the rent and electric to facilitate it, an argument to moderation suggests that 50/50 is fair. 

The false compromise, or splitting the difference, occurs when the compromise fails to satisfy one or both positions. If Jack wants to go north, and Jill wants to south, going west is a compromise that benefits neither side. If Jack wants to buy a car, and Jill does not, buying half a car satisfies no one. Argument to moderation is invalid if it assumes both positions must be unacceptable, and equal compromise is the _only_ solution. When brought up in the context of fallacy, we assume the mistake has already been made, which is why argument to moderation has become synonymous with false compromise.

I award the point to cannabineer since he was first and the most specific. This means we have a tie!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

1) We should not allow schools to adopt official uniforms because that is what the Nazi's did.

2) Anyone who worries too much about what I wear is a fashion Nazi!

3) The moderator deleted my post, he might as well be Hitler.

Easy one for a tie breaker.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2011)

"reductio ad Hitlerum", lol

"Godwin's law" is congeneric. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Mentioning Hitler, "playing the Nazi card", is so emotionally and ideologically charged that it can remove a debate from the realm of the rational. 

I dare the thread Gestapo to disagree.*

cn

*n.b. I am not making an unpleasant claim about anyone here ... it's my example of the principle!


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> False compromise is what I was going for. Argument to moderation can sometimes reach a legitimate compromise. If jack's position is that he wants to use the family computer 100% of the time because he paid for it, and Jill's position is that she wants to use the computer 100% of the time because she pays the rent and electric to facilitate it, an argument to moderation suggests that 50/50 is fair.
> 
> The false compromise, or splitting the difference, occurs when the compromise fails to satisfy one or both positions. If Jack wants to go north, and Jill wants to south, going west is a compromise that benefits neither side. If Jack wants to buy a car, and Jill does not, buying half a car satisfies no one. Argument to moderation is invalid if it assumes both positions must be unacceptable, and equal compromise is the _only_ solution. When brought up in the context of fallacy, we assume the mistake has already been made, which is why argument to moderation has become synonymous with false compromise.
> 
> I award the point to cannabineer since he was first and the most specific. This means we have a tie!


 According to Nizkor, Iron Chariots and wikipedia they are different names for the same fallacy. I think neer deserves the point


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> "reductio ad Hitlerum", lol
> 
> "Godwin's law" is congeneric. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
> 
> ...


Exactly right. Godwin's law states that as any internet thread grows in length, the chance of mentioning Hitler, Nazi's or the holocaust reaches 1. Some people expand Godwin's law to include any ad hominem attack or false comparison which derails a discussion. For example, if I said "The moderator deleted my post, he might as well be a pedophile", it could also been seen as invoking Godwin's law. This is an obscure detail, but your mention of reductio ad Hitlerum ensures your point, and gives you the lead.

We will now break for intermission until later.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2011)

Very gracious mindphuk! I tried to +rep you, but something about spreading. 
Heis, I confess curiosity about judges, plural. I had a GREAT T-shirt that declared "You're just jealous because all the voices are talking to me."  cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Very gracious mindphuk! I tried to +rep you, but something about spreading.
> Heis, I confess curiosity about judges, plural. I had a GREAT T-shirt that declared "You're just jealous because all the voices are talking to me."  cn


I consult judges and award points in much the same manner as Drew Carey.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> According to Nizkor, Iron Chariots and wikipedia they are different names for the same fallacy. I think neer deserves the point


It's true I tend to be overly fastidious. I have seen a few discussions about the distinction between the two, with most people concluding that there is no distinction. I think I made a good case for a distinction, but perhaps I am adding a layer of redundancy. We could think of an argument to moderation as always saying compromise _must_ be the best solution, in which case it is always invalid. Legitimate compromise is simply that; compromise. Even if the middle ground is sometimes the best solution, it is not _always_ the best solution, which argument to moderation stipulates. I am not sure argument to moderation necessarily stipulates this. That is why I left it up to the judges, which happen to be my cats, so they sided with me.


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 24, 2011)

dj jesus, he died for your spins.


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 24, 2011)

View attachment 1804397View attachment 1804395i couldnt find those 'argue about god' threads but i have great memes for when they do reappear.View attachment 1804394


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 15, 2011)




----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

my answer - generalizing from incomplete information.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> my answer - generalizing from incomplete information.


Yes but a more specific mechanism is being used. This one is sort of obscure.

Hint: Misapplication of Leibniz' Law


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".
> 
> 2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.
> 
> 3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.


That's my favorite, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Can give an air of credibility to even the most batshit arguments...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> That's my favorite, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Can give an air of credibility to even the most batshit arguments...



I agree. Post hoc arguments can be very convincing. They play perfectly to our intuition and are backed up by confirmation bias. However, none of the above arguments can be reduced to "after this, therefore because of this". 

Is that your final answer?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It also doesn't make sense that a species would evolve such a resource intensive organ without specific need. The brain demands constant oxygen and energy. It seems odd that evolution would select to preserve something with 10% efficiency.


and yet our society has evolved to do just that, which explains government bureaucrats.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".
> 
> 2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.
> 
> 3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.


would that not be the disjunctive fallacy, or assuming facts not in evidence? 

when i have to piss my sister is always in the can, thus she has a mind reading ray to allow her to anticipate and prevent my every urination!


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree. Post hoc arguments can be very convincing. They play perfectly to our intuition and are backed up by confirmation bias. However, none of the above arguments can be reduced to "after this, therefore because of this".
> 
> Is that your final answer?


Ah, right as usual. Forgive me, I'm so high. You made look at Wiki for the last 30 minutes: Your first example is an epistemic fallacy your second example is the Masked Man fallacy, are all your examples considered Intensional Fallacies?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 1, 2012)

great thread

i was informal fallacied(ya i know i should not make up words) earlier tonight . . i felt dirty and used


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 1, 2012)

This thread is too phallic for my liking.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Ah, right as usual. Forgive me, I'm so high. You made look at Wiki for the last 30 minutes: Your first example is an epistemic fallacy your second example is the Masked Man fallacy, are all your examples considered Intensional Fallacies?


They are all in fact variations of The Masked Man fallacy, also known as an epistemic or intensional fallacy. This happens when we misapply Leibniz's law. 

Leibniz's law states that two entities can be thought of as identical if their properties are identical. This of course depends on us knowing all the properties of the entity. 

1.) Joe proclaimed Richard Bachman wrote the book "Thinner". Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, therefore Joe must be claiming that Stephen King wrote "Thinner".

Because Richard Bachaman and Stephen king share the exact same properties they can be though of as the same, however we would be mis-characterizing what Joe meant if we equivocate the two. We can not assume Joe is aware of the identical properties.

2.) I don't know who committed the murder. I do know who my mother is, therefore my mother did not commit the murder.

In this case we make the mistake of attributing our knowledge of someone as a property. My mother has the property of being known by me. The killer does not have the property of being known by me. Therefore they can not be the same person. Stated this simply it's an obvious error. But some people are swayed by the following argument.

God is the most perfect being imaginable. The most perfect being imaginable possesses the property of existence, as existing is certainly more perfect than not existing. Therefore God exists.

3.) My brain is made of matter which occupies dimensions like space. My consciousness is not made of matter and does not occupy space, therefore my brain is separate from my consciousness.

Our consciousnesses is like our brain wearing a mask. When we look at the masked version, we do not see the properties that are in fact identical to that of the brain. Until we can demonstrate that the mind has properties distinct from the brain, we can not say they are different. When we damage the brain, we damage the mind, which is evidence that they share identical properties.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

I can not give you rep yet tyler, but good job anyway.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I can not give you rep yet tyler, but good job anyway.


Thanks, Heis. Keep 'em coming, I'm learning a lot...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 2, 2012)

1) Evolution has many faults, such as the incomplete fossil record, therefore creationism is true.

2) Any voter who values guns in our country must vote republican.

3) Aliens must be responsible for crop circles because they are too complicated to be made by humans.


Easy one


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 3, 2012)

False dilemma


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

I cheated and looked an MP's answer


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 3, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> I cheated and looked an MP's answer


MP's answer was correct. Your punishment for cheating is that you have to now explain how each example qualifies as a false dilemma.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> MP's answer was correct. Your punishment for cheating is that you have to now explain how each example qualifies as a false dilemma.


That seems fair, Teach. Got to get up early so I'll get back to you tomorrow


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 3, 2012)

Why shouldn't Creationism be taught in science class. After all evolution is just a theory.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Why shouldn't Creationism be taught in science class. After all evolution is just a theory.


Because one is backed by science and evidence and one is 100% pure unadulterated grade A prime bullshit. You don't understand the meaning of the word theory.


http://www.notjustatheory.com/references.html

*the·o·ry* n. pl. *the·o·ries* 


A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
 From the National Academy Press: 
*Is evolution a fact or a theory?* 
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. 
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. 
*Why isn't evolution called a law?* 
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. 
Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science. 

From the Talk Origins site: 
*"Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"* 
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. 

Answers in Genesis, a web site which promotes Creationism, has a section on arguments that creationists shouldn't use. Whilst they correctly direct people not to use the "just a theory" argument, their alternative is no better: 
*"Evolution is just a theory."* 
What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. 

From the PBS series on evolution:
When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.

The book _The Top 10 Myths About Evolution_, by Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan, has a chapter entitled "Myth Two: It's Just a Theory":
...calling evolution "just a theory" involves a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Evolution is a fact, and the three main processes that make up evolution - replication, variation, and selection - are observable and undeniable.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) Evolution has many faults, such as the incomplete fossil record, therefore creationism is true.


This example qualifies as a false dilemma by trying to weaken Evolutionary Theory pointing to an incomplete fossil record. It is not taking into account that we're lucky to have as many fossils as we do, but even if we had no fossils at all the evidence for Evolution is still vast. Even if Evolutionary Theory was much weaker than it is, it wouldn't automatically mean creationism is true as there would be other possibilities.



> 2) Any voter who values guns in our country must vote republican.


This is a classic False Choice. It gives us two choices as the only possibilities, dismissing other valid possibilities. For example, I value guns but I'm not voting Republican 



> 3) Aliens must be responsible for crop circles because they are too complicated to be made by humans.


Argument from Ignorance - It has not been shown that crop circles are too complicated to have been made by humans.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 3, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Because one is backed by science and evidence and one is 100% pure unadulterated grade A prime bullshit. You don't understand the meaning of the word theory.
> 
> 
> http://www.notjustatheory.com/references.html
> ...


 Good you got it.People who say this are using the wrong def. of theory.Many are ignorant,a fault that can be overcome if that person is willing,others are intellectually dishonest a shortcoming that is much harder to remedy.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Good you got it.People who say this are using the wrong def. of theory.Many are ignorant,a fault that can be overcome if that person is willing,others are intellectually dishonest a shortcoming that is much harder to remedy.


I had a feeling you were simply playing devil's advocate on your first post  You got guy all riled up...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 3, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> This example qualifies as a false dilemma by trying to weaken Evolutionary Theory pointing to an incomplete fossil record. It is not taking into account that we're lucky to have as many fossils as we do, but even if we had no fossils at all the evidence for Evolution is still vast. Even if Evolutionary Theory was much weaker than it is, it wouldn't automatically mean creationism is true as there would be other possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very good. A false dilemma is easy to spot if you think of it as a false dichotomy, an "either/or" fallacy. It happens when we arbitrarily reduce the possible results to two choices. Even if evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the truth value of creationism. Even if we did find that crop circles were too complicated to be made by humans, it would not automatically follow that they were made by aliens. You get a B+ because the last one is not technically an argument from ignorance, although it does stem from a sibling fallacy, argument from incredulity. Argument from ignorance points to ignorance as it's reasoning; we don't know aliens aren't involved so they probably are. Argument from incredulity simply relies on lack of imagination; I can't imagine humans making something so complicated therefore they aren't. What makes the statement a false dichotomy is not it's assumption that humans are incapable, but it's assumption that there is nothing more to learn beyond that, therefore aliens.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

Ah, I get it. Thanks for explaining, Heis. I'll take the B+, it's a much better grade than I used to get in HS...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 3, 2012)

1) Gay marriage is wrong because it goes against the custom of marriage in this country

2) Homeopathy should be given equal consideration as mainstream medicine because it has been practiced for generations

3) Women may be equal to men, but a woman's place is in the home


Remember, the key is the fallacy they all have in common.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) Gay marriage is wrong because it goes against the custom of marriage in this country
> 
> 2) Homeopathy should be given equal consideration as mainstream medicine because it has been practiced for generations
> 
> ...


Appeal to tradition


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 3, 2012)

What MP said oh so whitely. cn


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 3, 2012)

Next time someone uses the excuse that the fossile record is incomplete to knock evolution concede the total record IS sketchy,then ask them what they know about the pig,they won't know much if anything,invite them to study the pig and come back later.The record of the pig is very complete from its begining; they will have to decide whether to believe what they hear from the pulpit or their lying eyes,and will know they have a tough case to make.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) Gay marriage is wrong because it goes against the custom of marriage in this country
> 
> 2) Homeopathy should be given equal consideration as mainstream medicine because it has been practiced for generations
> 
> ...


I'm going with argumentum ad antiquitatem for $500...


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 3) Women may be equal to men, but a woman's place is in the home
> .


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 4, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> I'm going with argumentum ad antiquitatem for $500...


You are technically correct. All the sources I look up combine argument from antiquity with appeal to tradition. In my mind they are different. Argument from antiquity argues something is true based on it's history of use, i.e. Women must be inferior to men as evidenced by their history of not doing things other than housework and mothering. Appeal to tradition ignores the truth value and simply says something should be continued because it has been for so long, true or not, i.e. women may be equal but their place has always been in the home and should stay that way.

I am giving you an A but I have my eye on you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 4, 2012)

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.


Remember the fallacy must apply to all three.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 4, 2012)

_post hoc ergo propter hoc_. One of my faves. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> post hoc ergo propter hoc. One of my faves. cn



Ahh but the last one does not argue that because the children were born Jane cheated, or employ any sort of 'after this' logic. It's reasoning lies elsewhere.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Ahh but the last one does not argue that because the children were born Jane cheated, or employ any sort of 'after this' logic. It's reasoning lies elsewhere.


Oh dear. I must have only glanced at that third. And I don't wanna say it's _cum hoc_, as I have no assurance that Jane purchased the sperm at a bank. 

Seriously, I am going with the statement that _cum hoc_ would apply, since it's a correlation/causation fallacy like the two _post hoc_ examples. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 4, 2012)

I vote Jane did cheat. That whore is a liar.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Oh dear. I must have only glanced at that third. And I don't wanna say it's _cum hoc_, as I have no assurance that Jane purchased the sperm at a bank.
> 
> Seriously, I am going with the statement that _cum hoc_ would apply, since it's a correlation/causation fallacy like the two _post hoc_ examples. cn


Don't feel bad, Neer, he got me with a similar one. All the examples are non sequitur, so that's my final answer...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

The mistake John makes in each case is ignoring the regression to the mean. 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 the exception. This fallacy is committed when we assign arbitrary reasons for the return to mediocrity, rather than acknowledging that it is expected. 

1) 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) 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) 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.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 5, 2012)

Awesome. I fell prey to this fallacy many times, but never identified it as such. Keep 'em coming, Teach...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Awesome. I fell prey to this fallacy many times, but never identified it as such. Keep 'em coming, Teach...


BTW tyler you were correct that they are all non-sequitur, as all formal fallacies are. The term non-sequitur, meaning 'does not follow', is normally used when an argument does not have a specific flawed mechanism for reaching a conclusion, but simply combines two non-logically connected ideas.

John eats a lot of red tomatoes, he must live in a very red house. <-- There is no specific mistake being made, it just does not follow. Stated this absurdly it is easy to spot.

Here is one a bit more convincing.

Millions of people have seen unidentifiable lights in the sky. Alien visitation is certain. <-- This may appear to be making an appeal to popularity, but those millions of people have not concluded anything, or at least their conclusions are not mentioned. This also may appear as a false dichotomy, however the argument is not considering even two options (human/alien), but just the one. It never follows that something having the property of unidentifiable can be identified by that very same property, even if it is the case a million times over.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I vote Jane did cheat. That whore is a liar.


Coincidentally Jane did in fact cheat, but it was with John's sister, so there was no chance of pregnancy.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 5, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I vote Jane did cheat. That whore is a liar.


 Jane's fallacy is a lie by omission. You were not told that one of her children is 1/2 native american and the other is 1/2 chinese, or that her husband is of moorish decent.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 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.


I think this one gets me. Although regression to the mean is expected, part of the problem is that we know that height is passed down through genetics, and for me, that implies tall children and I don't think my brain parsed the key word, "exceptionally" even after multiple readings. It's almost as if my brain ignored it while trying to justify accepting the fallacy along with John. Weird.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 6, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I think this one gets me. Although regression to the mean is expected, part of the problem is that we know that height is passed down through genetics, and for me, that implies tall children and I don't think my brain parsed the key word, "exceptionally" even after multiple readings. It's almost as if my brain ignored it while trying to justify accepting the fallacy along with John. Weird.


I had the same thing happen. It was the word "unidentifiable" in one of the examples ... my brain swapped in the more usual "unidentified", which weakens the _non sequitur_. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 6, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Coincidentally Jane did in fact cheat, but it was with John's sister, so there was no chance of pregnancy.


That's hot...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 7, 2012)

1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.

2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.

3) When we look at life we see incredible complexity arise from randomness. The chances of a protein, a cell, a frog, or even the universe forming randomly out of chaos is near nonexistent. We must have a designer.

Not an easy one. All of these essentially make the mistake of not investigating further, or begging the question, but each has a specific mechanism in common.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Coincidentally Jane did in fact cheat, but it was with John's sister, so there was no chance of pregnancy.


ooooOOooOO!! '

i think you need to explain this in greater detail. 

SLOWLY! 

and use the term "Heaving Bosoms" a lot. 

yeah... just like that...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.
> 
> 2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


are these not also the disjunctive fallacy where irrelevant non sequitors are used to falsely establish an unrelated conclusion? 

for example: fish live in the sea. jellyfish also live in the sea, jellyfish are called fish despite their obvious differences from *fish *fish, so therefore crabs are also fish. and the moon is made of peanut butter and rice crispies.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.
> 
> 2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


I've been wrestling with this one for hours now. i can find commonalities between 2 out of 3, but then the third doesn't conform. 

In instance 1, I see affirming the consequent: 

a: Deliberate spreading of rabies increases its incidence. 
b: Rabies is present in increased evidence at the location. 
c(and fallacious): The spread of rabies at the location is deliberate. 

I can analyze example 2 similarly, with the improperly affirmed antecedent being that all em activity is from ghosts. 

However example 3 does not fit this model. The best I can do with it is denying the antecedent, to wit:

a: We see great complexity (I consider inserting "from randomness" to be a red herring.) 
b: Such great complexity is almost certainly not random.
c: Thus, the complexity arose by design.

...I am missing something basic. But I'm not getting a handle on it. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I've been wrestling with this one for hours now. i can find commonalities between 2 out of 3, but then the third doesn't conform.
> 
> In instance 1, I see affirming the consequent:
> 
> ...


that was pretty deep homey. i think i should get more seal blubber in my diet since it's obviously doing good things for you. 

also, Klondike Bars.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 7, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I've been wrestling with this one for hours now. i can find commonalities between 2 out of 3, but then the third doesn't conform.
> 
> In instance 1, I see affirming the consequent:
> 
> ...


Glad to see you chewing this over. I could not think of a way to set up this fallacy that did not also seem to beg the question, however sources do not link the two fallacies. I think perhaps the difference is in the scope. You can beg the question about anything, yet this fallacy requires a mistake of causation. Question begging is basically restating the premise in the conclusion, i.e. electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies. Notice the conclusion is different in #2. John is not simply saying the house is haunted, he is saying it is the most haunted. And perhaps in #3 randomness is not a red herring, but a clue. #3 is more abstract though, a bit higher concept of the fallacy.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Glad to see you chewing this over. I could not think of a way to set up this fallacy that did not also seem to beg the question, however sources do not link the two fallacies. I think perhaps the difference is in the scope. You can beg the question about anything, yet this fallacy requires a mistake of causation. Question begging is basically restating the premise in the conclusion, i.e. electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies. Notice the conclusion is different in #2. John is not simply saying the house is haunted, he is saying it is the most haunted. And perhaps in #3 randomness is not a red herring, but a clue. #3 is more abstract though, a bit higher concept of the fallacy.


The way I see it, your statement "electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies" is not begging the question, but a formal fallacy, a misapplication of set theory. It's supplying "all G cause E" as a premise, but then using the illicit reverse "all E are caused by G" to complete the syllogism. Which syllogistic fallacy is characterized by that pattern? Oh my head; it spins a little. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The way I see it, your statement "electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies" is not begging the question, but a formal fallacy, a misapplication of set theory. It's supplying "all G cause E" as a premise, but then using the illicit reverse "all E are caused by G" to complete the syllogism. Which syllogistic fallacy is characterized by that pattern? Oh my head; it spins a little. cn


No need for head spins. The statement is indeed committing both fallacies because it is ambiguous, my fault. If it's read as " [all] electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts are the cause of [all] electromagnetic anomalies" it begs the question. If it is read as "[all] electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of a ghost because [all] ghosts cause an electromagnetic anomaly", it shifts quantification. 

It seems the original example begs the question, shifts quantification, and then commits this final fallacy. Extra points to you for uncovering an additional fallacy.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

I am going to go ahead and end this one because even I have a difficult time seeing this fallacy. My brain wants to concentrate on the other fallacies. Just as I could not think of a way to demonstrate reductio as absurdum without ending in a strawman, I can not think of a way to set up this example that doesn't _seem_ to beg the question. 

This fallacy is called The Cluster Illusion. When we are dealing with random data, or what we think is random data, our brains want to assign meaning to any cluster points. We see it as a pattern of cause and effect. The fallacy is committed when we use the very same data that made us suspect an effect to conclude the cause. This is also known as The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Imagine a gunman firing random shots at the side of a barn from a great distance. He finds the space where the bullet holes cluster and draws a bullseye around it, then declares himself a sharpshooter.


1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.


John notices a cluster of data, his brain see's it as an effect, and then he uses the very same data to conclude the cause. John ignores that it's possible for this to happen by chance, or to have some other cause, such as the data including test animals at the towns rabies research facility. 

If this were stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of animal infections" then it is non validating, a non-argument. If it is stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of infecting it's animals", it is a validating argument, but begs the question. I believe John is saying the former, and so not begging the question.

I believe the reason this is not asserting the consequent is because the premise does not arise from propositional logic, but from a mistake of causation.


2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.


John is working under the assumption that anomalies are evidence of ghosts, but beyond that, John sees a cluster of data points in what he considers random chance (any abandoned house has a chance of being haunted), and uses that cluster not only to suspect the house is haunted, but to conclude the house is the most haunted.


3) When we look at life we see incredible complexity arise from randomness. The chances of a protein, a cell, a frog, or even the universe forming randomly out of chaos is near nonexistent. We must have a designer.


Of course life did not become complex randomly. Life was shaped by rules and selective pressures. In the scope of this argument however, if we accept that reality is random chaos, we see complexity as cluster points among the randomness. We use these cluster points not only to suspect non-randomness, but to conclude that it's caused by a designer.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

That was a serious toughie, Heisenberg. i think i was thrown a bit by all the distractions. That is not a complaint, mind you ... the high definition of the usual textbook examples bred a sort of complacency in me, is my best guess. Looking forward to the next one. cn

<add> Ironically, I remember going through the list and seeing Texas sharpshooter, and going naaah. It's a good lesson in the "dirtiness" of the zillion-plus-five variables in a zillion equations that is life. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 10, 2012)

1) It is a myth that gay people care about getting married. I have a gay cousin and a lesbian co-worker and neither of them have any interest in getting hitched.

2) Pitbulls get a bad rap. Everyone thinks they are dangerous and can hurt people, but my pit is gentle as a lamb and even plays with my 2 y/o.

3) Modern music sucks. I listened to my son's radio station today while taking him to school, and every song they played was terrible.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 10, 2012)

Anecdotal evidence


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> 1) It is a myth that gay people care about getting married. I have a gay cousin and a lesbian co-worker and neither of them have any interest in getting hitched.
> 
> 2) Pitbulls get a bad rap. Everyone thinks they are dangerous and can hurt people, but my pit is gentle as a lamb and even plays with my 2 y/o.
> 
> 3) Modern music sucks. I listened to my son's radio station today while taking him to school, and every song they played was terrible.



Proof by Example, or Inappropriate Generalization...


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 10, 2012)

Hasty generalization; subset "from the particular". cn


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Oct 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I am going to go ahead and end this one because even I have a difficult time seeing this fallacy. My brain wants to concentrate on the other fallacies. Just as I could not think of a way to demonstrate reductio as absurdum without ending in a strawman, I can not think of a way to set up this example that doesn't _seem_ to beg the question.
> 
> This fallacy is called The Cluster Illusion. When we are dealing with random data, or what we think is random data, our brains want to assign meaning to any cluster points. We see it as a pattern of cause and effect. The fallacy is committed when we use the very same data that made us suspect an effect to conclude the cause. This is also known as The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Imagine a gunman firing random shots at the side of a barn from a great distance. He finds the space where the bullet holes cluster and draws a bullseye around it, then declares himself a sharpshooter.
> 
> ...


This is fucking amazing by the way, art in itself. 

But just as, concluding that there is a designer, would conclude that something would design "IT"... which would result in infinite regression, which is a fallacy in it's own right.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 12, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Anecdotal evidence





tyler.durden said:


> Proof by Example, or Inappropriate Generalization...





cannabineer said:


> Hasty generalization; subset "from the particular". cn


All are correct enough for points, but the bear was the most specific. A hasty generalization occurs when we judge a large and diverse group by an inappropriately small sample size. Although guy didn't name the fallacy, he is correct in that hasty generalizations are one of the prime reasons we must hold anecdotal evidence highly suspect. Humans get through life making generalizations, but they have no place in logic.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> All are correct enough for points, but the bear was the most specific. A hasty generalization occurs when we judge a large and diverse group by an inappropriately small sample size. Although guy didn't name the fallacy, he is correct in that hasty generalizations are one of the prime reasons we must hold anecdotal evidence highly suspect. Humans get through life making generalizations, but they have no place in logic.


I looked at Hasty Generalization as a possibility, and then settled on Proof by Example as it seemed more suited to your scenarios. Your scenarios in each case made a generalization from a cited personal example. From Wiki on Proof by Example:

*Proof by example* (also known as *inappropriate generalization*) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.[SUP][1][/SUP]

This fallacy has the following structure, and argument form:
Structure:
I know that X is such.Therefore, anything related to X is also such. Argument form:
I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P.Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P. The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:
I've seen a person shoot someone dead.Therefore, all people are murderers. The flaw in this argument is very evident, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem somewhat convincing, as in the following example: I've seen Gypsies steal. So, Gypsies must be thieves.

From Wiki on Hasty Generalization:


*Hasty generalization* is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.[SUP][1][/SUP] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").

Context is also relevant; in mathematics, the Pólya conjecture is true for numbers less than 906,150,257, but fails for this number. Assuming something to be true for all numbers when it has been shown for over 906 million cases would not generally be considered hasty, but in mathematics a statement remains a conjecture until it is shown to be universally true.

 [h=2]Contents[/h] 


1 Examples
2 Alternative names
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
 
 [h=2] Examples[/h] Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern
X is true for A.
X is true for B.
X is true for C.
X is true for D.
Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.


A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town.
A person is looking at a number line. 1 is a prime number, 3 is a prime number, 5 is a prime number, 7 is a prime number, 9, that does not mean anything, probably some anomaly, 11 is a prime number, 13 is a prime number. Therefore, the person says, all odd numbers are prime.


It seems both answers are correct, but mine was more specific regarding the structure of your examples. This thread rocks, I'm learning so much...


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 13, 2012)

This will require some study on my part. I was thinking of what I now realize is a more classic view, hasty generalization vs neglecting qualification, but I have come across a paper proposing hasty generalization be broken down to be more specific. I am currently dealing with a back injury which makes doing anything difficult aside from laying here and drooling. I'll give this some study and sort it out when I am better able, hopefully in a few days.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 13, 2012)

So sorry to hear about the back injury, Heis! Those can be the worst, you can't sit, stand or even lie down comfortably. I'm sure you have plenty of great, heavy indica to smoke, so you'll be alright. Let us know how it goes, I'll be praying for you...


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 13, 2012)

I do hope the back injury was not the result of a "fallassy" event ... cn


----------

