What Logical Fallacy Pisses You Off Most

[drkitten]

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.

No.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.

But that's still where the smart money bets.

If you don't believe what the history Ph.D. tells you, whom are you going to believe? Some bloke at the pub with self-proclaimed expertise in "it stands to reason, doesn't it"?

 

[Rob Lister]

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

I disagree. I find out on my own only when no experts are available. I usually find, in such cases, that I tend to find out very little, but that my work may be of benefit to others. In such cases I become, by default, an expert. Ergo, perfection!

Please give me an example of were this type of approach would fail. I'd be interested in hearing it. Take heart: Right now you, yes YOU, are an expert on this matter since no other field of science has ever proposed it. I will therefore give deference to you if my own logic and understanding does not contridict it, or another equally-expert poster does not refute it. If either happens, I'll query you further. If you don't answer, I'll assume the worst.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Passive-agressive ad-hominem (or implied ad hominem). I hate those.

 

[Rob Lister]

Passive-agressive ad-hominem (or implied ad hominem). I hate those.

I find it unreasonable that you could possible find it worthwhile to debate on internet forums if you reall do hate implied ad homs.

It's what they are made of!

Those are the best kind of ad homs!

The more transparently implied the better!

Come on now. Tell the truth and let Jeebus love you. You do it too, no?

 

[rdtjr]

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

Sure they were and I'll break them down further momentarily.

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.

And a logical fallacy relies on faulty reasoning to draw faulty conclusions. Hence fallacious logic.

Is it possible that the AMA might make a statement, based on their collective expertise, that was false? Of course it is.

Sure it is. Who would refute this. It quite probably that anyone could make a mistake about anything and provide false information. That does not automatically make any statement anyone makes fallacious.

So the statement "The AMA says that P, therefore P" is technically fallacious (and of course, the relevant fallacy is "appeal to authority').

It could be. As Rob Lister pointed out your original statement was not the same as your example here. Originally you said: "The AMA says that eating a healthy diet is good for you." There is nothing fallacious about that. It is a simple statement. You need something more to make it a fallacy... and then you need to show that the AMA has no basis or evidence for making such a claim to then have it be an improper Argument from Authority. Again, not all Arguments from Authority are fallacious, just Arguments from, and Appeals to, improper Authority are. That also doesn't mean that any proper Argument from Authority is automatically correct either. You can be a proper authority on a topic and still be quite wrong.

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.

But this is not the argument you offered originally.

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?

If they are recognized as having special training or expertise in the field upon which they are commenting. I am much more likely to listen to what an astronomer has to say about solar weather than to my general practitioner! Just because a person is a proper authority on a particular subject doesn't mean you don't verify the information... that in itself is faulty logic.

(There is no non-fallacious way to make that determination.)

Sure there is. Does the person have recognized training or expertise in the field upon which the are commenting? If we want to get truly absurd all knowledge which you have not directly investigated in the first person would be an Appeal to Authority. How do you know how a DVD player works? Well, I read a book about the physics of consumer electronics. Appeal to Authority!!! Because how does the author of the book know? Well, he's a electronic engineer and designer of consumer electronics. By your definition - also an Appeal to Authority because his expertise means nothing. Where do you stop, only when you have personally demonstrated every bit of physics and electrical engineering at work? That's just silly and is why only an improper Appeal to Authority is fallacious. I have every reason to believe that the electrical engineer with years of experience knows what he is talking about until evidence is presented otherwise, or until he says something verifiably wrong.
Again, that doesn't mean you shouldn't check up for yourself, but I ask again where that stops. Check the book, check the author, check each of the physical principles yourself, check the underlying basis and theory of the math... then question the mathematics theory books and their authority too? After all someone wrote those books. Should I take it on authority that they know what they are talking about? Take nothing for granted, but there is a point at which you've made yourself useless.

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.)

Again, you corner yourself into then stating that all studies and inquiries must then be fallacious. Just doesn't work that way.

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

- Covered this one already.



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!"

- Not a slippery slope. All we know is that Senator Bedfellow wants to outlaw a lot of footwear. We'd have to know what else you think will happen before it becomes a fallacious slippery slope. Try: "Senator Bedfellow has stated his intention to outlaw all kinds of footwear, starting with flipflops... next he'll want to lob off our feet... you'll see. We have to stop him before he gets rolling." Now that would be a slippery slope argument. It in no way follows that just becuase he wants to take away our shoes that he wants to take off our feet as well. Maybe he just has a fetish. Either way you are arguing a slippery slope with no evidence that if A, then definitely B, if B then definitely C... on and on to Z.



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!"

- It's not a false dilemna. Do you have plant allergies? Yes. Does not taking your medicine make them worse? Yes. If you are up all night due to your allergies will you feel badly in the morning? Probably. Where exactly is the fallacious logic?



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!"

- It might be a hasty generalization, and it might not. If you're brother had done nothing else different and immediately fell ill you've got a likely culprit in this case. We're not talking about wearing new batting gloves and hitting a home-run. It is likely that something you eat can make you ill. It is likely that if you became ill after eating something strange you've never had before (especially a wild mushroom) that the thing you ate might be the cause. It is unlikely, however, that new batting gloves directly resulted in you putting the ball out of the park.



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!"

- Probably not. It sounds like a request for evidence. There is a difference in pointing out that something is unlikely and making an argument from ignorance. It may in fact be quite correct to demonstrate that it would be incredible for Z to result from A. Of course, we don't know because the example is so general that it is impossible to tell. If the explanation or question it itself logical, evidence based, and internally consistent then it wouldn't be an argument from fallacy.


Thanks for playing though.

 

[Giz]

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.

Hmmm, I would say that if someone says: "these are all the realistic options I can come up with:
A) Do nothing
B) do Plan 'B'
C) do Plan 'C'
D) go to planet X

And they propose that 'B' - whilst imperfect - is a heck of a lot better than A, C, or D then you have two choices:
1) Dispute that B is preferable to A/C/D
2) Propose an alternate course, E (& /F/G...? )
(3 - ignore them and go off to planet X).


And to reply specifically to your example, I would say that to simply condemn Stalin is a moral judgment, not a constructive criticism.
i (It's fine to condemn him but don't think you're doing anything more)
ii (We could obviously offer advice to Stalin; "send less people to gulags for writing poetry" etc, he just probably wouldn't take it because he'd view it as an impact on his job security)

My initial post wasn't thinking so much about "constructively" criticising dictators (because I don't think you can offer them helpful advice: you basically want them to free their people and they basically want their people kept under their boot - a little divergence of aims) but more about how the West, the "free world" responds to the moral predicaments it faces when it deals with tyrants.

Perhaps an example could be made with Stalin and the USSR. Many people on these boards have decried the way the USA supports brutal dictators when it feels there is a greater interest at stake. Strangely they don't tend to bring up the fact that with Lend Lease the USA supported one of the most brutal of all dictators.

Perhaps sometimes less than perfect actions (shipping tanks to dictators say) which could be criticised if viewed in isolation are decidedly the lesser of the evils when the whole picture (a possible Nazi victory) is considered.

ps I mentioned the Nazis so this thread is now over. I win.

 

[drkitten]

A logical fallacy relies on faulty reasoning to draw faulty conclusions. Hence fallacious logic.

This statement is incorrect. It is perfectly possible, and indeed may even be likely, that a piece of faulty reasoning will nevertheless generate a correct conclusion.

That's why the notion of "fallacy" is defined in terms of potential, and not actual error.

From Wikipedia (not the greatest source, but easily accessible):

A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid. The presence of a logical fallacy in an argument does not necessarily imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, but the argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises using the inference principles of the argument.

In particular, from the Wikipedia page on "fallacies,"

An appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy though it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if, for example, it is an appeal to expert testimony.

The reason being, of course, that experts can be mistaken. From the Wiki page on "rational argument," referred to above,

A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.

(All font changes in the above quotes were added by me, for emphasis.)

The relationship between a "expert" and his subject is one of expectation and probability, but it's not valid.

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!"

- It's not a false dilemna. Do you have plant allergies? Yes. Does not taking your medicine make them worse? Yes. If you are up all night due to your allergies will you feel badly in the morning? Probably. Where exactly is the fallacious logic?

The fallacious logic can be found in the single word you used above : "Probably." Appeals to probability, while rational, are always fallacious as they involve relationships that are formally speaking, invalid -- they may or may not hold.

Similarly,

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!"

- It might be a hasty generalization, and it might not. If you're brother had done nothing else different and immediately fell ill you've got a likely culprit in this case. We're not talking about wearing new batting gloves and hitting a home-run. It is likely that something you eat can make you ill. It is likely that if you became ill after eating something strange you've never had before (especially a wild mushroom) that the thing you ate might be the cause. It is unlikely, however, that new batting gloves directly resulted in you putting the ball out of the park.

You used the word "likely" three times, "unlikely" once, and even highlighted your use of "might." All of these words are indicative -- indeed, proof positive -- of a logical fallacy. Because any time you accept that something might happen, you implicitly also accept that it might not, which means that the premises of your argument can be true while the conclusion false.

The fallacist's fallacy can be summarized very quickly as "a fallacious argument is not rational."

What I presented was a number of rational arguments that nonetheless contain demonstrable logical fallacies. You obviously consider them to be rational yourself, in spite of the fact that the (sometimes implicit) conclusion is not constrained to be true. The arguments are rational and convincing, but not watertight and not valid.

You stated that

Again, you corner yourself into then stating that all studies and inquiries must then be fallacious. Just doesn't work that way.

I'm deeply, deeply, sorry, but.... well, you're wrong.

All studies and inquiries (unless established to be tautologies) are indeed logically fallacious. That is indeed the way things work, because that's what the word means.

The problem (and the reason that the fallacists fallacy is so serious) is because people, including yourself, don't realize that that's what the word "fallacy" means, and that as a result don't realize that a fallacious argument (or study, or inquiry) can in fact still be rational. As a result, we see people (I'll pick on CapelDodger for a moment) analyzing arguments as follows.

Posted upthread by CapelDodger
[The fallacy] that goes "You say that, and these other people say that as well, and they say these other things so you're saying those other things as well".

First, due credit -- he correctly identifies this as a fallacy, in the technical sense that it is possible for me to share a belief with someone else without necessarily sharing others. On the other hand, it may still be rational for you to assume that I share other beliefs, if the beliefs are closely linked in some way. If I claim to believe some particular statement "because the Bible tells me so," it's rational to assume that I believe other statements on the same basis.

Wikipedia put it much more consisely.

For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.

Merely identifying a statement someone makes as an ad hominem argument does not refute the statement. To believe that such an identification has anything at all to do with the truth of the statement is to commit the fallacist's fallacy. It's also the basis of most "dirty" political campaigns and much negative advertising. It's one of the most common and pernicious fallacies in modern culture. And I'm terribly sorry that I have to spend so much bandwidth driving the point home....

 

[Tatsu]

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.

Oops. Here's the link you're asking for:

President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research

 

[Beth]

Ad hominen is probably the one I dislike the most, but since I tend to put people on ignore for using it, I don't deal with that one very often.

The one I find most irritating I don't know the name for but perhaps someone will enlighten me if one exists. It does seem to happen here a lot. It's when I state that I think something is possibly true and people assume that I believe it is true. It soesn't seem to matter what's being discussed, if I allow that something is possible I'm assumed to be a believer in that phenomenon.

Another closely related irritation but one that's already been mentioned here, is assuming that because I believe X (or even just because I allow that X is possible), and since people who believe X often believe Y too, then I must also believe Y.

Beth

 

[rdtjr]

This statement is incorrect. It is perfectly possible, and indeed may even be likely, that a piece of faulty reasoning will nevertheless generate a correct conclusion. That's why the notion of "fallacy" is defined in terms of potential, and not actual error.

You are right of course. Bad on my part for stating that wrongly. [Edit: Actually I take that back. Not bad on my part. I said, "A logical fallacy relies on faulty reasoning to draw faulty conclusions. Hence fallacious logic." I didn't say that the conclusions were right or wrong, but faulty. Somehow I let you convince me I meant something I did not. Coming to a faulty conclusion through incorrect logic is different from the conclusion being wrong. I think I make this clear in the rest of this post.]

"To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
" (Emphais mine.)

I find this or very, very similar explanations all over googled logic and logical fallacy sites.

"An appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy though it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if, for example, it is an appeal to expert testimony."
The reason being, of course, that experts can be mistaken. From the Wiki page on "rational argument," referred to above,

It seems there is a lot of disagreement on this. It is only fallacious if we refer only to an persons authority as the basis of information, e.g. "He has a PhD, so he must be right." It is of course absent any actual evidence or information pertaining to his area of expertise.

For example from here:

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious

The relationship between a "expert" and his subject is one of expectation and probability, but it's not valid.

Of course it is valid.

From anothersite:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. "

As you yourself pointed out, it is not a matter of whether they are correct or not, but whether they are an appropriate authority on the matter at hand; as the AMA would be in matters of health, absent contrary evidence.

The fallacious logic can be found in the single word you used above : "Probably." Appeals to probability, while rational, are always fallacious as they involve relationships that are formally speaking, invalid -- they may or may not hold.

Certainly not! In fact, leaving room for error makes it vastly less likely to be a fallacy. Not a hasty generalization fallacy: "I got sick after eating a wild mushroom... the wild mushroom may have made me sick." We leave room for error that it was something other than the mushroom that made me sick, this is not a fallacy.

Maybe a Hasty Generalization Fallacy: "I got sick after eating a mushroom... therefore the mushroom made me sick." Though this would be better classified as a "Confusing Cause and Effect" fallacy.

Definitely a Hasty Generalization: "I got sick after eating a mushroom... therefore all mushrooms will make me sick." Or: "I was mugged in New York, all New Yorkers are criminals."

You used the word "likely" three times, "unlikely" once, and even highlighted your use of "might." All of these words are indicative -- indeed, proof positive -- of a logical fallacy. Because any time you accept that something might happen, you implicitly also accept that it might not, which means that the premises of your argument can be true while the conclusion false.

Most certianly not fallacies in that regard. Not all statements are arguments. "It might rain tomorrow" is a statement that makes no argument. It is not fallacious to say that it might rain tomorrow simply because it might not. "The weather man said it is likely to rain tomorrow" is similarly not fallacious. Nor is, "The weather man said it might rain tomorrow, so it might rain tomorrow." Allowing for ambiguity and probability may actually support the argument and keep it from being fallacious. The premises for the conclusion must not be supported by the argument, leaving room for possible alternatives often removes the logical fallacy. "I ate a mushroom, I got sick... I may have gotten sick from the mushroom" is certainly logical and supported by the information contained in the sentence. "I got sick after eating a mushroom so all mushroom must make one sick" or "The weatherman said there is a possibility of rain tomorrow, so there will be flooding" are certainly not supportable and are examples of fallacious logic.

What I presented was a number of rational arguments that nonetheless contain demonstrable logical fallacies.

You actually made a series of statement that made no argument, like, "It might rain tomorrow". Since there was no conclusion to the sentence there is no fallacy present. If I said, "It might rain tomorrow, so there will be a flood" that is not supportable given the information presented... again a logical fallacy is present. But if I change the argument to say, "It might rain tomorrow, so it there may be flooding..." I neatly avoid any fallacy. "The AMA said eating healthy food is good for you" is can not be fallacious... it is simply something the AMA said. If this followed: "eating 'unheathly' food will kill you" that would be fallacious. "The Senator wants to take our shoes away, we have to stop him" is not fallacious. "The Senator wants to take our shoes away... next it will be our socks, or our feet" is fallacious. Is this starting to make any sense? In the first example in each pair there is no conclusion to be improperly arrive at, in the second there is. Your previous examples drew no conclusions to call erroneous.

You obviously consider them to be rational yourself, in spite of the fact that the (sometimes implicit) conclusion is not constrained to be true. The arguments are rational and convincing, but not watertight and not valid.

Wait a second, you just got done haraunging me about the irrelevance of the truth of the statement. Does it matter now? All that matters is that the statement logically follows. It seems you think that any statement made is an argument by default and can be called into question. Again, to be fallacious you must create "an argument in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support."

I'm deeply, deeply, sorry, but.... well, you're wrong.

All studies and inquiries (unless established to be tautologies) are indeed logically fallacious. That is indeed the way things work, because that's what the word means.

So any published work or paper is automatically fallacious? Then no argument can ever be made about anything. Not only can I not make an argument until I have proven every tiny step in it myself (and then prove the smaller parts... like 1 and 1 make 2, or that 1 is an integer with a value which means something), but it can't be accepted by anyone until they reprove it themselves.

The problem (and the reason that the fallacists fallacy is so serious) is because people, including yourself, don't realize that that's what the word "fallacy" means, and that as a result don't realize that a fallacious argument (or study, or inquiry) can in fact still be rational.

Actually, it seems from the agreeing definitions I've found, and repeated several times in this post, that you might not know what a logical fallacy is.

First, due credit -- he correctly identifies this as a fallacy, in the technical sense that it is possible for me to share a belief with someone else without necessarily sharing others. On the other hand, it may still be rational for you to assume that I share other beliefs, if the beliefs are closely linked in some way. If I claim to believe some particular statement "because the Bible tells me so," it's rational to assume that I believe other statements on the same basis.

Again, absent an argument to base it around you have presented no clear fallacy. It does not matter whether it is rational to believe that you believe other things in the bible or not... absent an argument that frames this rationalization no fallacy is present. Example: "Drkitten believes that the crucifixtion of Jesus as described in the bible is a real event" is simply a statement, it makes no argument so it can't be fallacious. "Drkitten believes that the crucifixtion of Jesus as described in the bible is a real event, therefore DrKitten believes that some things in the bible are true" is quite a consistent a logical statement. Where as, "Drkitten believes that the crucifixtion of Jesus as described in the bible is a real event, therefore DrKitten believes that all events" or "believes that any other event presented in the bible is true." This does not follow and is fallacious. Just because you believe one thing doesn't mean you believe the others, while clearly if you do believe in the one thing you at least believe that part of the bible is true.

Merely identifying a statement someone makes as an ad hominem argument does not refute the statement. To believe that such an identification has anything at all to do with the truth of the statement is to commit the fallacist's fallacy.

Absolutely true. For example just because "It's going to rain tomorrow, so there will be flooding" is fallacious doesn't mean it won't turn out to be true. Edit to add: Of course the ad hominem may or may not be true, but the reason that an ad hominem is fallacious because it attacks the person or character of the person making an argument instead of the argument. "Bill says X is true, but Bill eats boogers so ignore him." Bill may very well eat boogers, but that has no bearing on whether X is true or not.

It's also the basis of most "dirty" political campaigns and much negative advertising. It's one of the most common and pernicious fallacies in modern culture. And I'm terribly sorry that I have to spend so much bandwidth driving the point home....

Pretty much irrelevant really. You seem to have a hard time grasping that a fallacy is an argument that is not supported by the premises delivered in that argument. You say that a fallacy is independent of the truth of the statement, then say something is fallacious because it might not be true, then change back again.

I think we're pretty close to agreement on a number of things. But you started off with very bad examples. Your examples did not end with conclusions that we may say the rest of the example did not support... so they weren't examples of statements that might be called fallacies. For some reason, it is taking a lot of bandwidth to drive that point home. (Yes, I'm having a little bit of fun with you there.)

 

[RandFan]

Oops. Here's the link you're asking for:

President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research

Thank you for the link. I honestly don't see your point. Oh, I think an argument can be made but it is a poor argument and very flimsy. Let's look closer at the context of the speech and the intent of the speaker, Bush, and try and figure out why these children were at the event and how their presence was used.

The families here today have either adopted or given up for adoption frozen embryos that remained after fertility treatments. Rather than discard these embryos created during in vitro fertilization, or turn them over for research that destroys them, these families have chosen a life-affirming alternative. Twenty-one children here today found a chance for life with loving parents. (Applause.)

Event: President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research

Subjects: Included children that were born as a result of using embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

Proposition: If the embryos that resulted in the birth of these children were only used for research then these children would not be here.

Conclusion: This is a valid premise.

But just a damn minute, is this a good argument for restricting the use of embryos to only reproduction? I don't think so. If one follows this logic then sperm and eggs that humans discard in incomprehensible numbers are important. Perhaps we should save all cells capable of reproduction.

While the underlying premise is valid that the embryos in question could be used to aid families who would like to have children the overall argument is wrong. While it is emotionally difficult for some couples who can't have children is this really the answer or a significant answer? There is nothing wrong with conceiving children this way but it is hardly the only option to a childless couple. Further, I don't think that it has been argued that society is better off by using these embryos only in this fashion.

More importantly, while few if any would argue that these children would be better off if they did not exist that is besides the point. That argument is fallacious because it is post hoc reasoning. I had planned on using protection during the time my first son was born. Someone (me) made a mistake and my son was conceived despite my best wishes at the time. I love him and would never think that he should not be here but does that make my decisions not to wear protection correct? The answer is no. It was wrong but the consequences that resulted from that poor decision turned out wonderful and I don't regret at all having him.

Yeah, these embryos can be used to produce more children but then so can the millions and millions of sperm I produce each year. What of them?

Bottom Line: I don't like the presidents argument. It is fallacious but I don't think it amounts to what you think it amounts to. That is just my opinion.

Thank you,

RandFan

Sorry for all of the edits.

 

[Rob Lister]

...snip
...
snip...
...I think we're pretty close to agreement on a number of things.

Very nicely written, the whole last few posts. Concise and polite. I'd have told you privately in a PM but you don't seem to have that button. Bravo.

 

[Vagabond]

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.<<<<

JFK JR was an "expert" pilot. So are just about every single one that crashes. Pilot error is also the most common cause of crashes. GPS recievers until recently were secretly and deliberately programmed to be off by several feet so that terrorists and or enemies couldn't use them to pinpoint things. The fact somebody makes maps doesn't mean he is the best person to ask for directions to the local mall.

Once again I am not saying you should never listen to people with knowledge of a topic. But, just the fact somebody is a pilot doesn't make them an "expert" on all aspects of aviation. To me the biggest value of an education is it allows me to gauge the value of something quickly without wasting much of my time. I use the information provided by an "expert" in just the way I would handle knowledge from any other source. As one of many probable facts I can use for my purposes and with a healthy dose of skepticism. Also most likely the expert you think made that bread is somebody who has no clue whatsoever how to make bread but is just pouring big bags of stuff into a huge vat because somebody is paying them too.

 

[Tmy]

I hate the term "strawman". Geez cant you ever make an anaology with someone saying "STRAWMAN!!!"

 

[Mycroft]

I hate the term "strawman". Geez cant you ever make an anaology with someone saying "STRAWMAN!!!"

Unless you can cite an example, that's just a strawman.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Unless you can cite an example, that's just a strawman.

I call your strawman about what Tmy said and raise you a Reductio ad Hitlerum, a slothful Induction and an untestability.

 

[Vagabond]

Please give me an example of were this type of approach would fail. I'd be interested in hearing it. Take heart: Right now you, yes YOU, are an expert on this matter since no other field of science has ever proposed it. <<<<<

I have one for you. You have just been diagnosed with a serious and perhaps fatal illness. I guarantee you will not take the word of the doctor "expert" in this case but you will get a second opinion and perhaps many more. You also will find out as much about the illness as possible on your own.

 

[shuize]

Is this a logical fallacy? I don't know the name for it, but when people try to link their own pet causes to recent terror attacks it pisses me off (I call it "piggybacking").

An example.

Piggybacker: "The terrorists attacked us because of our foreign policy, Man."

Me: "What foreign policy would that be?"

Piggybacker: "Not signing Kyoto ... Debt relief ... AIDS ... Fluoride in the water, etc ... "

Me (to self): "Why the hell am I even talking to this person?"

 

[Vagabond]

Is this a logical fallacy? I don't know the name for it, but when people try to link their own pet causes to recent terror attacks it pisses me off (I call it "piggybacking").

An example.

Piggybacker: "The terrorists attacked us because of our foreign policy, Man."

Me: "What foreign policy would that be?"

Piggybacker: "Not signing Kyoto ... Debt relief ... AIDS ... Fluoride in the water, etc ... "

Me (to self): "Why the hell am I even talking to this person?"

It's called a fallacy of distraction. This is when you connect one or few answers to a question that has many more possible answers. Such as your example, there are probably other reasons besides foreign policy and there are other elements of foreign policy besides those your piggybacker mentioned. Or we must attack Iraq or Doom when doom is probably not going to happen whether we take action or not and there might be lots of other ways to prevent doom, perhaps even better ones.

 

[Rob Lister]

It's called a fallacy of distraction.

Why do you say that? Clearly you don't like the arguments that piggybacker made but those arguments are the real reasons we were attacked and we both know that. If you don't admit it, that's fine, but especially Kyoto. The Arab nations are already 150 in the winter shade. Maybe they have a point. Sure, we can promise debt relief but that doesn't get rid of the plight and poverty that such heat causes because of the oil they sell. No AIDS there, I can tell you that, because it's too hot to screw! And floride in the drinking water would be great because THERE IS NO DRINKING WATER! because it all evaporates!

hehe.

I call this argument by Mark.