background preloader

Logic Fallacies List

Logic Fallacies List
Related:  FALLACIESSchools of thinking

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. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. 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.

The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers. Logic: Logic and the laws of thought G. Logic and the laws of thought There are three: 1. Law of identity 2. 3. These laws cannot be proved or disproved. Do the laws of thought apply to all of reality? Are they the basic rules of reality, or of thought only? Rationalism holds that the laws of thought apply to everything whatever because they are the most general truths of reality. Empiricism holds that the laws of thought are useful verbal conventions applying only to the way we think or talk, not necessarily to what we think and talk about or even necessarily how we must think or talk. a) The Principle of Identity Simply stated, the first of the fundamental laws is a tautology. b) The Principle of Noncontradiction Simply proposed, this asserts that "no statement can be both true and false." The word "paradox" is used sometimes to describe contradictions -- contradictions that, some would say, must be accepted. Occam would shout "poppycock" to that conclusion. Nature poses many riddles but contains no contradictions.

3 Ways to Spot Logical Fallacies A fallacy is simply a false or mistaken idea. If you can spot logical flaws, you can save yourself from bad information. This includes defending yourself from politicians, sales people, diet books, doctors, and even your own kids. In Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion , Jay Heinrichs writes about detecting logical fallacies.Key Take AwaysHere’s my key take aways: Distinguish between rhetoric and logic. Once you know what to look for, spotting logic flaws is a lot easier. Why Spot Logical FallaciesWhy should you learn how to spot logical fallacies? Bad proofs. Bad ProofsThis includes three sins: The false comparison, such as lumping examples into the wrong categories. bad examples ignorance as proof, such as asserting that the lack of examples proves something. Wrong Number of Choices This is the case where you simply don’t have the right number of choices. Additional ResourcesFor more information, check out:

about Hey there. My name is Maria Popova and I’m a reader, writer, interestingness hunter-gatherer, and curious mind at large. I’ve previously written for Wired UK, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab, among others, and am an MIT Futures of Entertainment Fellow. Maria Popova. Photograph by Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times Brain Pickings is my one-woman labor of love — a subjective lens on what matters in the world and why. Founded in 2006 as a weekly email that went out to seven friends and eventually brought online, the site was included in the Library of Congress permanent web archive in 2012. Here’s a little bit about my seven most important learnings from the journey so far. I think of it as LEGOs — if the bricks we have are of only one shape, size, and color, we can build things, but there’s a limit to how imaginative and interesting they will be. Please enjoy. Donating = Loving Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter.

List of cognitive biases Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics. There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[7] Although this research overwhelmingly involves human subjects, some findings that demonstrate bias have been found in non-human animals as well. Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases[edit] Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general. Social biases[edit]

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]

Naomi Klein Published at The Intercept Now that it seems virtually certain that Donald Trump will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, and the climate movement is quite rightly mobilizing in the face of this latest dystopian lurch, it’s time to get real about something: Pretty much everything that is weak, disappointing, and inadequate about that deal is the result of U.S. lobbying since 2009. The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States. The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commitments that collectively put us on a disastrous course toward more than 3 degrees of warming, was lobbied for and won by the United States.

Encyclopedia Uselessia -- Omnipotence Paradox The omnipotence paradox is an apparent contradiction in the notion of an omnipotent (all-powerful) being (such as God, or Superman, or the government). An omnipotent being can do absolutley anything. So can an omnipotent being create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? Philosophical Responses One common response points out that this question makes implicit assertions that are inconsistent and self-contradictory. Proof By Contradiction One response is to use proof by contradiction: Assumption: An omnipotent body exists Extraction: An omnipotent can create any type of stone. The "Logical Fallacy" Arguement Another response to those positing these questions of omnipotence and alleged conflict is that the questions of super heavy stones, along with all the other ability-based arguments etc., are actually a clever logical fallacy, and are false straw man arguments. The "Logical Fallacy" Counter Argument: Some have another view. Willpower Argument Back to Table of Contents

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. Translation: "Ad hoc" means "to this", indicating that something is for a specific, limited purpose. Example: Before Kepler, astronomers believed that planets moved in circular orbits. A fortiori Translation: "Even more so; by a stronger reason" (Latin). Example: Suppose that Tommy is Timmy's older brother. Affirmative categorical proposition Ambiguity Ambiguous

THE STONE - Opinionator This is the second in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the editor of the essay collection “Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.” Gary Gutting: You’ve taken a strong stand as an atheist, so you obviously don’t think there are any good reasons to believe in God. Louise Antony: I’m not sure what you mean by saying that I’ve taken a “strong stand as an atheist.” G.G.: That is what I mean. L.A.: O.K. I say ‘there is no God’ with the same confidence I say ‘there are no ghosts’ or ‘there is no magic.’ That’s not to say that I think everything is within the scope of human knowledge. But getting back to your question: I’m puzzled why you are puzzled how rational people could disagree about the existence of God. L.A.: Well I’m challenging the idea that there’s one fundamental view here.

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: