 Zeegrr60
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1514 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 2:12:47 PM
This chart is awful. |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 9:10:50 AM
"Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality"
@randomnxp: Isn't that "Circular Reasoning"? idk... Yes, they got that one wrong too.
We agree that "plastic" is right out! Eh? lolz! I couldn't think of what else Dr Seuss would wrap a baby in. Wubb Fur?
@madduck: Where'd you go?
|
|
 randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
774 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 7:35:35 AM
5Cats
As for ad hominem, your example it does connect the characteristic to the correctness (albeit falsely). Their example is just making a random insult against anyone who has a certain opinion. Had they said "We shouldn't allow the mosque because those that want to are America-hating liberals" that would have been a rather poor example of an ad hominem fallacy. As it is their construction does not even look like it relates to a debate. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
774 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 7:24:31 AM
5Cats
You make the same mistake with appeal to authority, albeit with a better example. Imagine I say that tinfoil is best because babies lose heat through radiation. Saying that a soft blanket is better because Dr Spock says so is a fallacy. A valid argument would be to outline Dr Spock's reasoning.
I just noticed they got begging the question completely and utterly wrong! Begging the question is making an argument that assumes the conclusion or simply restates it. I cannot even twist their example to actually beg the question, so I will nick Wikipedia's example:
"Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality" |
|
 antagonizer
Male, 18-29, Canada
476 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 5:37:05 AM
Seems to me everything a person could possibly say would end up on this fallacies list...
Oh look, I just made a hasty generalization. |
|
moose76
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
14 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:57:57 PM
tl;dr |
|
 Solvent
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
2709 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:27:40 PM
Titties. |
|
 Badenov
Male, 70 & Over, Eastern US
142 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:10:27 PM
What's the big idea posting this logic junk? What are you trying to do ruin the internet?!!! |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:23:45 PM
Yes, they do get the "Jumping to Conclusions" wrong. idk if it's the definition or the example or both? But it's poor. Luckily it one of the easiest to understand! After all, everybody does it... oops! (Mind #3)
It's not my fault! ("They're Out To Get Me Fallacy")
The "I spelled fallacy wrongly 4 times out of 5" reality... |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:21:59 PM
Given that he gets the appeal to authority completely arse about face...
@randomxnp: It's the "Appeal to Authority FALLACY" not the "Appeal to authority logical technique" eh?
If it were an appeal to a "proper" authority it wouldn't BE a fallacy! So they define it as an appeal to a false or incorrect authority.
Dr.Spock says: Wrap babies in a soft blanket.
= Appeal to Authority (logical)
Dr.Suess Says: Wrap babies in tinfoil.
= Appeal to Authority FALLACY (unqualified)
Dr.Kavorkian says: Wrap babies in a plastic bag.
= Appeal to Authority Fallacy (untrustworthy)
Ad Hominum: "You can't be correct, your (sic) a Canadian!" See? It doesn't have to "relate" to anything! It can be perfectly random. Just ask @madest! |
|
 bordo
Male, 50-59, Western US
378 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:35:48 PM
I stopped reading when I figured out that every example would either be silly or a swipe at the political views this guy obviously hates. |
|
 Canoas
Male, 18-29, Europe
422 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:15:13 PM
"You see this is a good example of a straw man. No it doesn't mean that the argument is incorrect. What it means is that the argument is not valid, that it has no bearing on the discussion."
It means that just because someone used a fallacy their conclusion can still be true.
It's a fallacy called "fallacy fallacy", not a straw man fallacy |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
774 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:59:48 PM
5Cats
Classic case is the Ad Hominem. The Ad Hominem fallacy would be more like "your argument that we should be tolerant of the mosque cannot be valid, because you are muslim" - i.e. a claim that the argument must be wrong because of some characteristic or other expressed opinion of the person arguing it. The example given is just a random insult, it bears no relation to the discussion.
Others are correct examples but address well-known debates with clear straw men.
For example the Jumping to Conclusions example, a clear reference to a specific argument, but a clear misrepresentation of that argument.
Perfectly valid as an example, but rather ironic and harmful to credibility. Given that he gets the appeal to authority completely arse about face and makes his own appeal to authority in the example, it suggests that the person writing this does not really understand fallacies. |
|
 paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
985 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:49:17 PM
The example for the popular belief fallacy is "Milk is good for your bones". That isn't true? |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
774 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:41:10 PM
Some of the definitions are wrong too. For example the appeal to authority is not a fallacy because of reliance on an unqualified person. Indeed it is quite the opposite, it is claiming that something is right because an expert says so, not because the evidence and argument is sound. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
774 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:37:16 PM
Canoas
"Even if someone uses a fallacy in an argument it does not mean that the argument is incorrect."
You see this is a good example of a straw man. No it doesn't mean that the argument is incorrect. What it means is that the argument is not valid, that it has no bearing on the discussion. |
|
 DrProfessor
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
3528 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:13:53 PM
Everyone on IAB: I *NEVER* use these, but everybody else does. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:18:24 PM
I guess my response would be an Ad Hominem.
@markust: It's "sarcasium ad nausium" actually 
Nice submission BTW!
Thankjs @davymid! I knew the moment I saw it that it was "IAB worthy" 
Did you see my "typo explanation" the other day?
#1 I cannot spell
#2 Not enough coffee
#3 Cat sleeping on my left arm
In this case it's #2-A too much coffee... (buzz buzz) |
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:50:23 PM
Holy crap 5Cats you finally got a Post rating above 2.5 - congratulations. I guess my response would be an Ad Hominem. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:48:03 PM
Even if someone uses a fallacy in an argument it does not mean that the argument is incorrect.
@Canoas: "Fake but true" you mean like that? Yup! I've seen that a lot...
"dolphins can fly because they have wings".
"Penguins can fly..." would be a better example, I think...?
Dammit! I spelled "originally" wrong, and I just looked it up 5 minutes ago! AAAG! |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16975 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:41:30 PM
@randomnxp: I went to informationisbeautiful.net (IIB, not IAB! lolz!)
...and it was the 4th one on their site.
Origionally at Ace Of Spades HQ a "right wing" blogger with a fine sense of humour!
@randomnxp & @Gerry1: I'd disagree: The "fine print" is just fine in their explainations. The examples given are light-hearted but accurate.
For example: "Appeal to Athority" is -wrong- when it's an UN-qualifed "expert" (in quotes!). Not when an honest to goodness expert says so.
Probability: To say it "must be true" is the false part. The truth is: It's "highly likely" NOT 100%. (in their example)
Mostly I just "lol'd" a lot while reading it! |
|
Canoas
Male, 18-29, Europe
422 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:40:56 PM
"I could claim there's no such thing as gravity because empirical evidence is worthless, and that would be a fair argument. "
No, it wouldn't. You first need to prove why empirical evidence is worthless. That's the same as saying "dolphins can fly because they have wings". No, dolphins don't have wings, such a statement, while logically correct, is not true and therefore it's conclusion is irrelevant.
Not using any fallacies means your logic is correct, but fallacies do not address the veracity of your claims. For an argument to be correct you need both logic and veracity, not just one of those. |
|
 madduck
Female, 40-49, Europe
2871 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:33:35 PM
Not sure all of these are correct- my screen is playing up a bit. I have my copy of 'thinking from A to Z' open- I will get back to you ( really- it's a handy book) |
|
Canoas
Male, 18-29, Europe
422 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:29:00 PM
They forgot the fallacy fallacy, which is probably the most common of them all. Even if someone uses a fallacy in an argument it does not mean that the argument is incorrect.
|
|
 SarahofBorg
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
3529 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:23:00 PM
You can literally debunk absolutely any argument using at least one of these. I could claim there's no such thing as gravity because empirical evidence is worthless, and that would be a fair argument.
Also, many of these fallacies are the same thing with only slight tweaks in definition based only on context, but it's still the same type of fault. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}