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. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. 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 Committing your very own logical fallacies Straw man.

Related:  FALLACIESLOGICargumentation

Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files Glossary This page defines logical terms used in the files on individual fallacies and in entries in the weblog. The first occurrence of a defined term in a file or weblog entry is linked directly to its definition below. Since most of the terms are linked from multiple files, you will need to use the "Back" button on your browser to return to where you came from. If you have suggestions for words that should be added to the glossary, or comments or criticisms of the current definitions, please email the fallacist. Ad hoc hypothesis An auxilliary hypothesis that lacks independent support which is adopted to save a theory from refutation.

Berkeley Berkeley's main arguments in the three dialogues can be reduced to these themes: Dialogue 1: Matter is inconceivable. Dialogue 2: Matter plays no functional role in explanation. Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them In the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, it is important to be able to spot all the logical fallacies that Creationists tend to throw around. This essay covers many bare essentials of logical thinking, as well as ways to critically evaluate an argument. The logical fallacies listed here are the ones most often used by Creationists, although Creationists have, to date, used almost every single logical fallacy in existence to "prove" their case. Each fallacy will have its own little paragraph, describing it, why it is fallacious and how to counter it.

List of fallacies A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. Propositional fallacies[edit]

The Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism David J. Chalmers Philosophy Program Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. chalmers at anu dot edu dot au Master List of Logical Fallacies A Priori Argument: Also, Rationalization; Proof Texting. A corrupt argument from logos, starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. Certain ideologues and religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary method of "reasoning" and some are even honest enough to say so.

Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The alphabetical list below contains 209 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. The Single Best Argument Against Philosophical Materialism? Browse > Home / Atheism / The Single Best Argument Against Philosophical Materialism? A Dilemma for Materialists In my experience, it's often difficult for my intelligent atheist friends to seriously consider arguments for the truth of Christianity. An argument from the resurrection of Jesus remains implausible because their worldview fundamentally excludes this sort of event. In light of this, I'd like to engage one popular form of this worldview, namely philosophical materialism.