What Logical Fallacy Pisses You Off Most

Rob Lister said:
Actually, that's not a terrible simplified example. For a real one I would have to get (or seem) partisan and provide an example from the last debates (but the attempt failed). We'll go with yours. There are many, many, many examples on this board (Mycroft is particularly skilled in this type of fallacy -- if it is one -- but he does it with such style and class that I don't fault him, nay, I strive to learn from him).
Click to expand...

And it got him banned for three days.
 
Without a doubt, the fallacy that gets under my skin the most is equivocation.

A semi-recent example would be president Bush standing in front of a group of young children, all apparently conceived in-vitro, to speak out against why using extra fertilized embryos is bad.

The fallacy being that nobody is proposing to grind up children for their stem-cells. It's insdious, it's underhanded, in this example it's subtle beacuse it's unspoken, and I see and hear this tactic used often in politics of late. It makes me want to pull my hair out :p
 
Tatsu said:
Without a doubt, the fallacy that gets under my skin the most is equivocation.

A semi-recent example would be president Bush standing in front of a group of young children, all apparently conceived in-vitro, to speak out against why using extra fertilized embryos is bad.

The fallacy being that nobody is proposing to grind up children for their stem-cells.
Click to expand...
Come again?
 
Hmmm... strictly speaking it's not the textbook definition of equivocation, which is using two meanings of the same word in a logical argument. e.g. A plane is a carpenter's tool and a Boeng 737 is a plane, therefore a 737 is a carpenter's tool. But that's as close as I can come to putting a label on it. Two different things are being equated as one and the same.

In my example above, the argument seems to be that embryo's in a pertri dish are the same as actual children that have grown inside the womb to term, and destroying a fertilized embryo is the same as killing a young child. Nobody is proposing that. A cluster of cells is not a child.

Hope I was able to clarify suitably... :con2:
 
Meadmaker said:
Is there a technical term that describes an attempt to dismiss an argument because it was at one time used by other, bad, people. e.g. "That's exactly what Hitler said!"

Click to expand...

opentopia encyclopedia

The term Reductio ad Hitlerum was originally coined by University of Chicago Classics professor and ethicist Leo Strauss. The phrase comes from the more well-known logical argument, reductio ad absurdum.

The "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil".

The fallacious nature of this argument is best illustrated by identifying "X" as something that Adolf Hitler or his minions did support but is not considered evil, setting X = "vegetarianism" or X = "breathing in and out". Those policies advocated by Hitler and his party which are generally considered evil can all be condemned on other, logically more sound, grounds.
Click to expand...
 
The fallacy that annoys the most is the one were someone says that "such & such" is a fallacy and then reinterprets and/or rephrases the "such & such" to make it sound like a fallacy...
 
Tatsu said:
Hmmm... strictly speaking it's not the textbook definition of equivocation, which is using two meanings of the same word in a logical argument. e.g. A plane is a carpenter's tool and a Boeng 737 is a plane, therefore a 737 is a carpenter's tool. But that's as close as I can come to putting a label on it. Two different things are being equated as one and the same.

In my example above, the argument seems to be that embryo's in a pertri dish are the same as actual children that have grown inside the womb to term, and destroying a fertilized embryo is the same as killing a young child. Nobody is proposing that. A cluster of cells is not a child.

Hope I was able to clarify suitably... :con2:
Click to expand...
Thanks Tatsu, I have elevated myself as the fallacy policeman. Of course that doesn't prevent me from committing fallacy or even accurately spotting other people's fallacy, but hey, it's a job.

Yeah, I kind of thought that was where you were going. I get in so many debates because I simply don't understand other people's position. I can see how you could come to that conclusion though it is a bit dicey IMO. Hey, I'm willing to accept it at face value (as if my opinion matters) however it would be nice if you could source the example.

In any event thanks for the response.
 
I, too, am annoyed by the four examples Rob Lister provided. The only other one that really torques me is halfway between appeal to emotion and appeal to authority: appeal to patriotism.

A: we should investigate the intelligence failure that lead to 9/11

B: why do you hate America?
 
I hate the 'fallacy fallacy' where someone gives a stupidly incoherent argument, but their conclusion is right anyway.

Just because I don't know what I'm talking about does not mean the position I support is wrong
 
Kopji said:
Just because I don't know what I'm talking about does not mean the position I support is wrong
Click to expand...
This is a logically valid statement but it is intelectually vapid and very pathetic.
 
Two stand out for me. But I've got a different perspective. It's not the use of the fallacies which pisses me off but their existence.

Ad Hominem: I understand the theory behind it, but as a professional information consumer I have to say that the source of a piece of information, even something proffered as data and not opinion, is sometimes even more important than the information itself. Even if one assumes the truthfulness of a particular piece of information, why is this particular party sharing this particular information? What axe does he have to grind? If I suspect it's a piece of partial truth offered to convince me of something other than the whole truth, how would I research that and find differently? Related is Appeal to Authority -- this is almost always BS, but not actually always. Yes, actually, I give more weight to the opinion of a former Green Beret/prosecutor/pro golfer/whatever than I do to you and your blog.

Slippery slope: Not to put to fine a point on it, but there's a reason skiing and snowboarding exists as a viable industry. Sometimes, the slope is indeed slippery.
 
Luke T. said:
I don't know if there is an abbreviated term for the logical fallacy that pisses me off most.

It is basically someone making a claim that has no evidence to support it, and then using that claim as evidence for yet another claim, and then using that claim as evidence for a third claim, ad infinitum.

In order to deconstruct the final claim, you have to deconstruct a mountain of "supporting evidence" which each require their own deconstruction. Requires a superhuman effort.

It is easy to make a claim and believe it based on absolutey nothing more than a desire to believe the claim. Deconstruct it requires a lot more effort. So paranormal believers can outpace you without breaking a sweat.

Very frustrating.
Click to expand...
I believe the abbreviated term is 'The Bible'.
 
Re: call me crazy, but...

webfusion said:
Interesting thread, Rob Lister, but does it belong here within the Politics subheading?
Click to expand...
This is extremely annoying, and it has to do with logic, but is the opposite of a fallacy. I hate when someone points out something that is technically correct, but has absolutely no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It's the person who tells you your shoe is untied while you're screaming that the house is on fire.

Part nitpick/pedant, part anal retentive, part strawman, part passive/aggressive and part messiah complex.

What would you call THAT? I call it annoying.
 
They all suck, but the most common ones used that I hate are.

Fallacy of distraction-2 possibilities are given when there are really many more. Politicians and fundies are famous for this one. We must go to war with Iraq otherwise America will crumble into ruin.

Reducio ad absurdium. Twisting what you say so that it is false, then attacking their own false twist.

Argumentum ad ignoratium. Famous one here. Making a statement that can't be proven false and claiming it is true because of this.

Appeal to belief fallacy. Saying because most people think so it must be true. Even if that majority is Phd's. I tend to go the opposite way and believe if the majority believe something it is probably false.

Appeal to pity fallacy. Very common one. I am Micheal J Fox and you like me and I am going to die and you feel sorry for me, so now everything that comes out of my mouth is true. This one pisses me off, because none of these people cared about the issues at hand until it effected them. Christopher Reeve broke his own neck by trying to get a horse to jump over something too high for it to jump over. This doesn't engender sympathy from me.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Campaign Debates 2007

Clinton: And I say my opponent has no call to question my commitment to the defense of the nation, because he peed his pants in third grade, right on the playground, and everyone called him Pee-pee Pants for five years after that!

Frist: Waaaaaaah! No fair! I'm going to KILL YOU ALL! Rrraarrr!
Click to expand...

This sounds like the spiteful fallacy to me. He can't do this because he did whatever in the past. However, pointing out a thief should not be treasurer is a valid arguement. It's only a fallacy if what they did doesn't have anything to do with the issue.
 
Vagabond said:


Appeal to belief fallacy. Saying because most people think so it must be true. Even if that majority is Phd's. I tend to go the opposite way and believe if the majority believe something it is probably false.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this can be avoided when it comes to subjects we don't know much about! For instance, what are we supposed to do if the subject in question involves some obscure scientific reasoning? I usually tend to go for the scientific consensus view, which is to say that I believe it because most scientists believe it to be true. A good example of this is the entire global warming argument.
 
The only fallacies that really upset me are the ones I commit. I'd rather not commit them, but I'm mostly human. :D

The thing that I think is interesting about politics is the human behavior factor. Purely in terms of human behavior, I think the best you can do in many cases is provide evidence that supports your claim, not prove it.

My least favorite is "Ignoring a common cause":

1) A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).

2) Therefore A is the cause of B.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html
 
Orwell said:
I don't see how this can be avoided when it comes to subjects we don't know much about! For instance, what are we supposed to do if the subject in question involves some obscure scientific reasoning? I usually tend to go for the scientific consensus view, which is to say that I believe it because most scientists believe it to be true. A good example of this is the entire global warming argument.
Click to expand...

You are quite right. If you are not learned in the topic yourself you have to base your belief on something. There is nothing wrong with that. But, just because they say so doesn't make it true. We might find out later they were all wrong. It happens more often than not.

One of the harshest lessons I learned going to college was that many and perhaps most Phd's are BS'ers who know more details about something so obscure nobody else is in a position to dispute them. Or they write a thousand page treatis nobody bothers to read and in language you couldn't understand if you did. I took a few to task and felt their rage so I know. They survive on being too lofty to have to support their arguements not in supporting their arguements. Their opinion unless they are being deliberately false is at least as good as anybody elses and perhaps slightly better. Just remember that and don't give them infallibility or omniscience. Because none of them have either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom