background preloader

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
Contents: Introduction This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones. Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. So why learn logical fallacies at all? I can think of a couple of good reasons. Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Logic as a form of rhetoric Unfortunately, the account I have just given is a bit idealized. It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Committing your very own logical fallacies Related:  LOGIC

Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files How to Understand: 8 Timeless Thoughts from the Last 2500 Years Image by *Zara (license). “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.” Dale Carnegie ”All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” Galileo Galilei “The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding.”Leonardo Da Vinci One of the interesting things about getting older and being interested in personal development is how you come to understand just how little you really understand. But how can we improve our understanding of ourselves and our world now? 1. “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” What we see in others is quite often what we see in ourselves. Therefore what you notice and what irritates you in others can teach you important things about yourself. 2. “To understand the heart and mind of a person, look not at what he has already achieved, but at what he aspires to.”Kahlil Gibran 3. “I hear and I forget. 4. 5.

The Theory of Abstract Objects Home Page Introduction The equations at the top of this page are the two most important principles of the theory of abstract objects. The first principle expresses the existence conditions for abstract objects; the second expresses their identity conditions. In this document, we try to give you some idea of what these principles say. Metaphysics vs. The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. It would be a mistake to think that a theory postulating abstract objects is incompatible with our theories of natural science, which seem to presuppose that the only things that exist are the things governed by our true scientific theories. Objectives of the Theory We can summarize the principal objectives of the theory of abstract objects as follows: To describe the logic underlying (scientific) thought and reasoning by extending classical propositional, predicate, and modal logic. Further Explanation of the Objectives of the Theory The Distinction Underlying the Theory Tutorial

Logical Fallacies Cliche List — The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread Matthew McCartney, "Game Theory: a Refinement or an Alternative to Neo-classical Economics?", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 30 Game Theory: a Refinement or an Alternative to Neo-classical Economics? Matthew McCartney (SOAS, University of London, UK) © Copyright 2005 Matthew McCartney This paper1 is not intended to say much that is new, rather it takes issue with the traditional manner in which economics has presented game theory. Neo-classical economics, Game Theory and General Equilibrium The intellectual centrepiece of neo-classical economics is general equilibrium. There is nothing inherently neo-classical about general equilibrium. The key assumption that distinguishes a game theory world from a neo-classical economy is that of interdependence. There are a variety of assumptions in the neo-classical version of general equilibrium necessary to prove the existence, the uniqueness and stability of equilibrium. Figure Two In this example (fig two) there are multiple equilibria4. Gravelle and Rees (1992) do not deal explicitly with game theory, but use it to model the behaviour of oligopolies (Chapter 12). a)a. b.

Group Fallacy There are 22 sub-topics of "Relevance Fallacies Against the Source": How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question Group Fallacy Group fallacy occurs when a person is discredited because he or she belongs to a certian group. membership in any group would not negate every statement made by a person from that group simply because the person belongs to the group. There are certain things that are likely when someone belongs to a some groups, however. Examples of Group Fallacy "You are an evolutionist. Evolutionists look at the same evidences that Creationists look at. Author/Compiler Last updated: Aug, 2014 Back to top There is so much more for you. God has established the pattern of Scripture, for life and for the Church. You can feel free to use the Contact Form further down on this page to ask any question regarding this pattern of Scripture. End John 10:35b the Scripture cannot be broken, Put a Link To This Page on Your Site.

Fallacies Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Other sites that list and explain fallacies include: Constructing a Logical Argument Description of Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning.

Related: