background preloader

Common fallacies

Common fallacies
List of common fallacies Compiled by Jim Walker originated: 27 July 1997 additions made: 01 Dec. 2009 You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds. -Robert A. Wilson When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. William D. Audio file: Monica Victor ( made an audio file of the above article for people who have visual impairments or for those who prefer to listen through their mp3 players rather than read. Related:  Logical FallaciesLOGICwords

La fallace inversione dell'onere della prova ©Ssosay Vi è mai capitato, alla vostra richiesta di prove che supportino una certa asserzione, per esempio «tutto è un sogno», di sentirvi rispondere «prova a dimostrare che non lo è»? Oppure di sentirvi chiedere di provare che il pianeta Nibiru non esiste quando si cerca solo di criticare le prove della sua esistenza? Sì? Allora vi siete trovati di fronte alla fallacia dell’inversione dell’onere della prova, ossia quella strategia scorretta in cui l’interlocutore, al vostro dubbio verso la sua asserzione, chiede a voi di provare il contrario. Andiamo per gradi. Per il nostro discorso è importante riconoscere che in entrambi questi casi troviamo almeno una persona che asserisce. Sebbene varii da contesto a contesto[3] nella discussione critica, ossia nelle discussioni in cui la prova delle reciproche tesi avviene attraverso l’argomentazione razionale, l’onere della prova impone che chi asserisce si assuma l’impegno di provare, qualora richiesto, la propria asserzione. Conclusione Note

Welcome to AP Central Introduction to Logic List of Internet forums An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.[1] Forums act as centralized locations for topical discussion. The Forum format is derived from BBS and Usenet but on a much larger scale and in more specialized ways.[2] The most notable and significant Internet forums communities have converged around topics ranging from medicine to technology, and vocations and hobbies. Forums are an element of social media technologies which take on many different forms including blogs, business networks, enterprise social networks, forums, microblogs, photo sharing, products/services review, social bookmarking, social gaming, social networks, video sharing and virtual worlds.[3][verification needed] 0–9[edit] A[edit] B[edit] C[edit] D[edit] E[edit] F[edit] G[edit] H[edit] I[edit] IGN Boards[11] J[edit] K[edit] L[edit] M[edit] N[edit] O[edit] P[edit] Q[edit] Quora R[edit] S[edit] T[edit] U[edit] V[edit] W[edit] X[edit] XDA-Developers Y[edit]

A List Of Fallacious Arguments attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.) Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality: Turing thinks machines think. (Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)

Why People "Fly from Facts" “There was a scientific study that showed vaccines cause autism.” “Actually, the researcher in that study lost his medical license, and overwhelming research since then has shown no link between vaccines and autism.” “Well, regardless, it’s still my personal right as a parent to make decisions for my child.” Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts. As public debate rages about issues like immunization, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, many people try to use science to bolster their arguments. And since it’s becoming easier to test and establish facts—whether in physics, psychology, or policy—many have wondered why bias and polarization have not been defeated. Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs.

Fallacy of Composition Abstract: The fallacy of Composition, the belief that what is true of the parts of something is true of the whole, is described with examples. In science, inferences using composition are sometimes useful heuristically for suggesting hypotheses for testing. Composition: (1) the fallacy committed by reasoning from the fact that since one or more individual things or events have one or more specific characteristics, the claimed conclusion is, therefore, the whole group has those one or more specific characteristics also or (2) the fallacy committed by reasoning from the fact that since one or more parts of a whole have one or more specific characteristics, the claimed conclusion is, therefore, the whole has those one or more specific characteristics as well. This file is a stub.

Gödel's Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed. In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories. Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. Oddly, few people know anything about it. Allow me to tell you the story. Mathematicians love proofs. So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems. That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. “I am lying.” 1. 1. 1.

quora Charlton Heston Winning The Cultural War Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Anti-pattern Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera. In informatica, gli anti-pattern (o antipattern) sono dei design pattern, o più in generale delle procedure o modi di fare, usati durante il processo di sviluppo del software, che pur essendo lecitamente utilizzabili, si rivelano successivamente inadatti o controproduttivi nella pratica. Il termine fu coniato nel 1995 da Andrew Koenig, ispirato dal libro Design Patterns: Elementi per il riuso di software ad oggetti scritto dalla Gang of four (la banda dei quattro), i quali svilupparono il concetto di pattern nel campo del software. Secondo l'autore, devono presentarsi almeno due elementi chiave per poter distinguere un anti-pattern da un semplice errore logico o cattiva pratica: Qualche schema ricorrente di azioni, processi o strutture che inizialmente appaiono essere di beneficio, ma successivamente producono più problemi che benefici.L'esistenza di una soluzione alternativa che è chiaramente documentata, collaudata nella pratica e ripetibile.

Appeal to the People Philosophy 203: Scientific Reasoning Appeal to the People Abstract: The argument based upon what most or all people think or believe is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious. Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms. "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

The Many Worlds of Logic - Classic Logical Arguments: The Determinist Argument © 2011 By Paul Herrick You have a mind and you have a brain. What is the relationship between the mind and the brain? Is the brain one thing while the mind is another thing entirely? Here is another way to pose these questions: Our thoughts take place within a medium of some sort. Mind-body Dualism The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) argued for a view that is known today as “mind-body dualism.” Descartes lived at a time when people were questioning many traditional beliefs. The essence of matter is nothing but to be extended in space, that is, to occupy a volume of space. Back to Top Arguing for Materialism Opposed to mind-body dualism is materialism, the view that nothing exists but matter and things made of matter. The British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first modern philosopher to argue systematically for materialism as a solution to the mind-body problem. Dualistic Arguments Identity. Leibniz's Law. This implies: The Mental Image Argument for Dualism

Related:  Hodge Podge Interesting StuffUseful InfoandeLogic & DebateCritical Thinking