What Logical Fallacy Pisses You Off Most

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Me

But (!) sometimes, in an imperfect world, you will have to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils... your best course of action (or inaction) while open to criticism may be better than the alternatives. For criticism to be constructive there has to be an implicit/explicit suggestion of how you could improve.

My stock response to this argument is that I am perfectly comfortable condemning Stalin, even though I do not have a detailed alternative plan for industrialising the USSR, defeating Hitler and maintaining political stability.

I think if I am trying to justify a crime by claiming that it was necessary, the onus is very much on me to prove that the crime was indeed necessary.

 

[rdtjr]

Your example fails here. You do offer an alternative -- life without parole.

But my point was that many people who push the false dichotomy on you do not allow for that solution. And I still believe that some people are just soooo bad and so clearly guilty that premanent removal from society is the best option. The BTK killer would be a rare perfect example.

One might agree or disagree with that alternative, but if someone is denying that you've offered an alterative at all it is they who are failing logically, not you. If they criticize your fix because the possibility of escape essentially makes your idea equivalent to "letting murderers go" you can reasonably argue for more secure prisons or you can offer escape statistics for existing maximum facility prisons to demolish his argument. So regardless of the merits of the idea (which, to be frank, are often separate and apart from any "rules of debate"), you've met the burden set by those who insist that simply saying "no" without an alternative is not constructive.

I agree with you, but not every such situation is so cut and dry. Another example, torture and occassional killing of WOT prisoners in U.S. custody. Pointing out that it happens is often accused of being empty criticism, the follow-on is that "We have to do something with them...." Yeah sure, lock them up I don't care, just don't chain guys to the floor and subsequently freeze them to death. Fix it! I could care less about the rationales for putting them where they are and keeping them out of circulation. Just don't do the other stuff. Fix it!

Fix it! Is the implied solution to every expressed criticism or problem, isn't it? Just because we can't always offer specifics, such as with the car or wall clock doesn't mean that pointing out a problem is invaldid.

 

[Beancounter]

Argumentum ad baculum - Appeal to Force.

Not such a big issue on a discussion forum such as this but I always found it strangely compelling in the playground. Try pointing out to the guy twice your size that he has a fallacy in his argument when he tells you that if you don't believe him he will smack you one.

Getting hit pisses me off.

 

[RandFan]

No Problem (^_^)

*harumph* The link isn't working at the moment...

I don't need a source for equivocation.

I wanted you to source the Bush talk (the one in the front of the kids) so I could judge it in context to see if it really was what you think it is.

 

[drkitten]

One fallacy I would like to mention here is the so-called "fallacist's fallacy," which I find is very present on this board.

The idea being that if such-and-such a piece of reasoning is fallacious, then the conclusion can be dismissed out of hand or ignored.

For example : "The AMA says that eating a healthy diet is good for you." "That's just an argument from authority!"

For example : "Senator Bedfellow has stated his intention to outlaw all kinds of footwear, starting with flipflops. We should stop him as soon as possible before his campaign really gets rolling." "That's just an argument from the slippery slope!"

For example, "If you don't take your antihistimines, then you'll be up all night sneezing from the ragweed plants next door and feel terrible tomorrow morning." "That's just a false dilemma!"

For example, "When my brother ate those kinds of mushrooms, he was delirious for about twenty minutes, writhing in agony, before we got his stomach pumped. Let's avoid them." "That's just a hasty generalization from too small a sample size!"

or, most pernicious : "In order for that to have happened, it would need a set of coincidences unlikely to the point of incredible." "That's just an argument from ignorance!"

The point, of course, being that even fallacious reasoning can be correct, or even most likely to be correct. It's simply not absolutely universalizable.

 

[rdtjr]

One fallacy I would like to mention here is the so-called "fallacist's fallacy," which I find is very present on this board.

The idea being that if such-and-such a piece of reasoning is fallacious, then the conclusion can be dismissed out of hand or ignored.

For example : "The AMA says that eating a healthy diet is good for you." "That's just an argument from authority!"

For example : "Senator Bedfellow has stated his intention to outlaw all kinds of footwear, starting with flipflops. We should stop him as soon as possible before his campaign really gets rolling." "That's just an argument from the slippery slope!"

For example, "If you don't take your antihistimines, then you'll be up all night sneezing from the ragweed plants next door and feel terrible tomorrow morning." "That's just a false dilemma!"

For example, "When my brother ate those kinds of mushrooms, he was delirious for about twenty minutes, writhing in agony, before we got his stomach pumped. Let's avoid them." "That's just a hasty generalization from too small a sample size!"

or, most pernicious : "In order for that to have happened, it would need a set of coincidences unlikely to the point of incredible." "That's just an argument from ignorance!"

The point, of course, being that even fallacious reasoning can be correct, or even most likely to be correct. It's simply not absolutely universalizable.

Ummmm, those were all clearly misapplied. Not one of the original statements was fallacious in anyway, so someone calling them fallacious would simply be wrong. For example, the AMA statement would not be an improper Appeal to Authority. Something I outlined a few posts above. The AMA woule be one of the groups that should be able to make collective value judgements (based on other evidence, of course) about health. The AMA would not be qualified to tell me about Solar weather or nuclear phsyics. "The sun is going to explode next month." How do you know? "A doctor on the board of the AMA told me. He's more educated than both of us, so he should know." That's an invalid Appeal to Authority.

I do see how some of those statement could turn into fallacies if more was added to them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..........................

The point, of course, being that even fallacious reasoning can be correct, or even most likely to be correct. It's simply not absolutely universalizable.

To suggest otherwise would be fallacious..

 

[Rob Lister]

It's simply not absolutely universalizable.

Cool word. Well, not really a word but it should be, simply for the unpronouncabilty of it.

 

[ReFLeX]

They all suck, but the most common ones used that I hate are.
...
Reducio ad absurdium. Twisting what you say so that it is false, then attacking their own false twist.

Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy. You're thinking of strawman.

 

[username]

One fallacy I would like to mention here is the so-called "fallacist's fallacy," which I find is very present on this board.

Yup, this is what annoys me the most and I do find it very present on this board.

Take an entire argument, think there is a logical fallacy of some sort in it, cite the perceived fallacy and ignore the entire argument.

If this technique doesn't have a name it ought to since it is so commonly used. Oh wait, you called it the fallacist's fallacy. I see that at fallacyfiles.org it is called that as well as the more fancy sounding agrumentum ad logicam. I am going to be calling out everyone with this puppy. BWAAHAHAHA!

 

[Rob Lister]

Ummmm, those were all clearly misapplied. Not one of the original statements was fallacious in anyway, so someone calling them fallacious would simply be wrong. For example, the AMA statement would not be an improper Appeal to Authority. . .

Actually the AMA statement [example] was not an appeal to authority (it was a report of what they said and no argument was based upon it) and additionally it takes on the added benefit of being self-proving ("The AMA says that eating a healthy diet is good for you", well yea, duh!).

 

[rdtjr]

Actually the AMA statement [example] was not an appeal to authority (it was a report of what they said and no argument was based upon it) and additionally it takes on the added benefit of being self-proving ("The AMA says that eating a healthy diet is good for you", well yea, duh!).

Astute correction. Thanks!

 

[Vagabond]

The problem with that is that too often the term "people who know about the subject" is defined by the very position on the subject being debated. Those that believe differently obviously don't know about the subject/are biased/are ignorant/are bribed/are lying/etc. It's a form of counting the hits and ignoring [discounting] the misses.

They say this is professor A from whatever university who is an expert on B. Well, who says he is an expert on B? He is on tv because he says or said what whoever picks the people to go on tv wanted to hear. Or he was controversial or whatever. This doesn't mean he is an expert on anything. I tend to discount anybody who is a self proclaimed "expert" on anything.

 

[Beerina]

Argumentum ad baculum - Appeal to Force.

Not such a big issue on a discussion forum such as this but I always found it strangely compelling in the playground. Try pointing out to the guy twice your size that he has a fallacy in his argument when he tells you that if you don't believe him he will smack you one.

Getting hit pisses me off.

You know what your error was? Not being the bigger guy. Try again next lifetime. Redistribute your allocated points better, or take the time to reroll enough to get what you want.

 

[Rob Lister]

They say this is professor A from whatever university who is an expert on B. Well, who says he is an expert on B? He is on tv because he says or said what whoever picks the people to go on tv wanted to hear. Or he was controversial or whatever. This doesn't mean he is an expert on anything. I tend to discount anybody who is a self proclaimed "expert" on anything.

With the exception of the 'self-proclaimed' bit, I don't discount experts. Experts are my only -- and I mean ONLY -- path to the evidence. If two people say opposing things, I will believe the expert over the novice. If the novice provides convincing evidence and/or arguments above and beyond that which the expert has provided, I switch sides quickly to the novice. I will use said evidence/arguments to query the expert and if answers are not forthcoming will stay on the side of the novice.

 

[drkitten]

Ummmm, those were all clearly misapplied.

No, they weren't. (But thanks for playing.)

Remember that the technical definition of a "fallacy" is simply an invalid (term of art) piece of reasoning -- a piece of reasoning in which it is possible,, even if unlikely, that the premises might be true, while the conclusion is false.

Is it possible that the AMA might make a statement, based on their collective expertise, that was false? Of course it is. So the statement "The AMA says that P, therefore P" is technically fallacious (and of course, the relevant fallacy is "appeal to authority').

Now, if P is in fact health- or medicine- related, then the likelihood is if the AMA states that P, then P is true. Or to put it another way, if P is medicine-related, and the AMA says that P, then P is probably true. But probabilistic arguments are explicitly arguments that may or may not apply, which means that they are by definition fallacious.

Much of the problem lies in the weasel words. As you put it, the issue might be described as "Argument from Improper Authority" -- but who's to decide whether a given authority is proper or not? (There is no non-fallacious way to make that determination.) Similarly, the fallacy of "Hasty" Generalization presumes generalization from an insufficiently large (or insufficiently representative) sample -- but who's to decide whether a given sample is "sufficient"? (and again, there is no non-fallacious way to decide.)

 

[drkitten]

They say this is professor A from whatever university who is an expert on B. Well, who says he is an expert on B?

Typically, the faculty of the university (including other experts within that department) who have selected Dr. A from the set of potential candidates for the professorship on the basis of his expertise of A. If he's actually a "professor" in the European sense, then at some point, he was reviewed by a panel of internal and external reviewers, also recognized experts in the discipline, to see whether he had the appropriate expertise for a position at the level of a professorship.

More generally, of course, in order to get the Ph.D. he typically had to satisify his Ph.D. examination committee, also a group of recognized experts on B, of his expertise.

So the short answer to the question, "who says he is an expert on B?" is "other experts on B." Whom, I note, are exactlly the people in the best position to hold an accurate opinion.

 

[Vagabond]

With the exception of the 'self-proclaimed' bit, I don't discount experts. Experts are my only -- and I mean ONLY -- path to the evidence. If two people say opposing things, I will believe the expert over the novice. If the novice provides convincing evidence and/or arguments above and beyond that which the expert has provided, I switch sides quickly to the novice. I will use said evidence/arguments to query the expert and if answers are not forthcoming will stay on the side of the novice.

How about finding out on your own? It certainly isn't the only path nor even the best.

 

[Vagabond]

Typically, the faculty of the university (including other experts within that department) who have selected Dr. A from the set of potential candidates for the professorship on the basis of his expertise of A. If he's actually a "professor" in the European sense, then at some point, he was reviewed by a panel of internal and external reviewers, also recognized experts in the discipline, to see whether he had the appropriate expertise for a position at the level of a professorship.

More generally, of course, in order to get the Ph.D. he typically had to satisify his Ph.D. examination committee, also a group of recognized experts on B, of his expertise.

So the short answer to the question, "who says he is an expert on B?" is "other experts on B." Whom, I note, are exactlly the people in the best position to hold an accurate opinion.

I didn't mean to say a professor of history shouldn't be considered a good source for history knowledge. However, just the fact somebody is a Phd in history doesn't mean they know exactly what happened on a given day to a given person. Most of what such people say is subjective opinion and not true facts. Their opinion about something specific isn't necessarily nor automatically any better than anybody else's. Just the fact they sometimes disagree is proof of this.

You most often get people like Stephen Ambrose and Shelby Foote who wrote books about WW2 and the Civil war but I don't think either even had a degree in history but were just entertaining.

I watched a show one day where these archeologists recreated this device they saw strapped to the hip of some Incan in relief and then went about trying to figure out what it was used for by trying different things with it attached. This might be fine for a hypothesis, but even if they discover something it is good for this doesn't mean that is what the Incans used it for. It's just their opinion. Most things are like this. My problem is such "experts" will present such knowledge gained as a fact and this won't be disputed.

 

[drkitten]

How about finding out on your own?

How are you going to find out "on your own" without reliance on experts? I think you'll find that you have to rely on expert opinion at some point in the process.

Let's take a simple example -- an "expert" tells you that there is uranium ore to be found in a specific area in Northern Canada, on the basis of his geological expertise. A novice differs with him. So you decide to find out for yourself.

How are you gong to find that area? Use a GPS receiver? But why should you trust the "experts" who designed the GPS system to guide you properly? A map? But that's the work of an "expert" cartographer -- how will you find out for yourself if the map is accurate? A local guide? He's an "expert," by definition.

But let's say you figure out where "there" is. How will you get there. A plane? Do you fly yourself, or hire an "expert" pilot? If you fly yourself, how did you learn? And what "expert" built the plane, and designed the navigational aid system so that you can get there. Or perhaps you would prefer a car, built by "experts" in Detroit, and fueled by gasoline refined by "experts" to burn properly in your engine.

Finally, you're there, having re-invented along the way most of automotive engineering, engine design, petroleum chemistry. How do you recognize "uranium ore" when you see it? Look in a book compiled by "experts" about what pitchblende looks like? Or do you use a chemistry text to run your own experiments, based on what experts tell you the properties of uranium are? Perhaps you trust the "experts" enough to believe that uranium is radioactive, and that the "expert"-built Geiger counter can detect that.

Have fun sitting there in northern Canada figuring all this out. I'm going for a sandwich. Made with bread baked by "experts" to save me the trouble.