Logical Fallacy Ref Comp
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
90 comments displayed.
#190
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/16/2015) [-] stickied by alucardhell
Here is the second part: /Logical+fallacy+ref+part+2/funny-pictures/5615760/
#15
-
thatonesmartdude (07/14/2015) [-] Use of ad hominem pisses me off so damn much that I can't give an example without going into a full-on rant. I'll just stick with saying that my mother uses it every single time she and I disagree on something.
#187 to #15
-
drachma ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] Political cadets in a nutshell
Talk about your own policy plans? Refute each others idea? Na don't even bother announcing your ideas or taking apart their policies, just talk **** about the other guys while showing really unflattering pictures of each other on the news.
Politics make me sad because it feels even less formal/professional than an freaking school election
Talk about your own policy plans? Refute each others idea? Na don't even bother announcing your ideas or taking apart their policies, just talk **** about the other guys while showing really unflattering pictures of each other on the news.
Politics make me sad because it feels even less formal/professional than an freaking school election
#90 to #15
-
languagexplain ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] What pisses me off way more is when someone in a debate calls out ad hominem when you're just insulting them. Big difference.
#64 to #15
-
quantumlegend ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] Print this picture several times per page, cut them out, and hand one to your mother each time she does that.
#141 to #131
-
phudgepacker (07/15/2015) [-] uh yeah or it's just the concept of attacking someone personally rather than their ideas. Ad hominem
#43 to #15
-
garymotherfingoak (07/15/2015) [-] im sorry you have to put up with that kind of thing, my mother does this **** too.
#54 to #15
-
dovahben (07/15/2015) [-] I agree. I see it most prominently in political debates. Most notably to me when Obama was debating Romney. It is truly upsetting that men who practice law resort to turd flinging when an argument is starting to look sour on their part. Grow the **** up, I say.
#76 to #32
-
skabbalabba ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] This **** annoys me to no end.
So many internet arguments dive straight into grammar bitching territory after only a few responses, and some try to diminish the other by calling them a kid or whatever and say they therefore cannot speak on the subject.
...I just wanna strangle these people, especially concidering it's usually just some minor misspelling.
So many internet arguments dive straight into grammar bitching territory after only a few responses, and some try to diminish the other by calling them a kid or whatever and say they therefore cannot speak on the subject.
...I just wanna strangle these people, especially concidering it's usually just some minor misspelling.
#104 to #100
-
skabbalabba ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] It hasn't happened to me, but i've seen it happen to others... alot.
No wonder we can't have arguments on the internet when people care more about apostrophes than the arguements.
No wonder we can't have arguments on the internet when people care more about apostrophes than the arguements.
#20
-
anon (07/14/2015) [-]
Where are the rest of them? The guy did over 50 of them. imgur.com/gallery/ebr8o
#182 to #20
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] They are coming. I thought i would break them apart since there were so many
#138
-
knarlyfish (07/15/2015) [-] I read this in the voice of the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.
AAH! That's a logical argument! Now lemme see your logical argument!
Non sequitur comparison!
******** ! You didn't convince me!
AAAH INDUCTIVE REASONING!
AAH! That's a logical argument! Now lemme see your logical argument!
Non sequitur comparison!
******** ! You didn't convince me!
AAAH INDUCTIVE REASONING!
#136
-
anon (07/15/2015) [-]
Can we have one that says "Just because you find logical fallacies and point them out in the opponents side, it doesn't mean you're right"?
Because now we're gonna see this **** a lot and in a site where 90% of the arguments are opinion based, it scares me how many arrogant teenagers are gonna try to use them to feel better about themselves and actually try to "win" internet discussions.
Because now we're gonna see this **** a lot and in a site where 90% of the arguments are opinion based, it scares me how many arrogant teenagers are gonna try to use them to feel better about themselves and actually try to "win" internet discussions.
#38
-
skelebones (07/15/2015) [-] the problem with this one is this whole goddamn website being a ******* bandwagon hivemind with no real ******* opinions of their own. the second i post this img every goddamn butthurt cuckold salty sailor piece of ******* ******** will downvote me into oblivion.
i know. its happened DOZENS of times to me at the very least.
i know. its happened DOZENS of times to me at the very least.
#41 to #38
-
frenzyhero (07/15/2015) [-] It happens to everybody.
Perhaps, FJ is a metaphor for life, that we're all the same, and all going through the same difficulties.
nah **** that blue names 4 lyfe
Perhaps, FJ is a metaphor for life, that we're all the same, and all going through the same difficulties.
nah **** that blue names 4 lyfe
#79 to #38
-
anon (07/15/2015) [-] **anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**dont worry, when you put it right most people dont want a "hivemind", however they go right back into hivemind when they see another red vs green thumb war in the comments they will asume that the one with green thumbs must be right. i wish the hivemind would die out because it's not only a major source of the ********* that's on this site but it's actualy harmfull to the world around, like how autism is now an insult? never before had anyone used my diagnosis as an insult towards me but that changed thanks to the online "jokes" about autism=stupid and/or cringe worthy. what feels worse is the fact that i trusted this site, i have been on here for over four years, so it feels like because people agree it's ok to treat autist bad online that people even started hating me because i stated how much it hurt me on a day to day basis, maybe i sound whiny but honestly i dont care, i just hope some of you truely understand, i become sad when people **** on me and somthing that i had to deal with every day of my life, i come here because i just want to smile and joke around, but more and more of this site has seemed to become hate post, cringe post (about people you bully online), feel posts (wich is usualy more enraging than sad) or just a spite post pointed towards the people you can hurt with it... not that i belive that it's the entention, but this site is turning into a poor version of a school yard bully, it's preety ******* sad. and i know there has always been a hivemind on here, it's nothing new, but the hivemind is becoming a huge piece of **** that just want cheap ego boosts
**anonymous rolled image**dont worry, when you put it right most people dont want a "hivemind", however they go right back into hivemind when they see another red vs green thumb war in the comments they will asume that the one with green thumbs must be right. i wish the hivemind would die out because it's not only a major source of the ********* that's on this site but it's actualy harmfull to the world around, like how autism is now an insult? never before had anyone used my diagnosis as an insult towards me but that changed thanks to the online "jokes" about autism=stupid and/or cringe worthy. what feels worse is the fact that i trusted this site, i have been on here for over four years, so it feels like because people agree it's ok to treat autist bad online that people even started hating me because i stated how much it hurt me on a day to day basis, maybe i sound whiny but honestly i dont care, i just hope some of you truely understand, i become sad when people **** on me and somthing that i had to deal with every day of my life, i come here because i just want to smile and joke around, but more and more of this site has seemed to become hate post, cringe post (about people you bully online), feel posts (wich is usualy more enraging than sad) or just a spite post pointed towards the people you can hurt with it... not that i belive that it's the entention, but this site is turning into a poor version of a school yard bully, it's preety ******* sad. and i know there has always been a hivemind on here, it's nothing new, but the hivemind is becoming a huge piece of **** that just want cheap ego boosts
#117 to #38
-
reaperssprint (07/15/2015) [-] Favorite thing:
"Look at the thumbs, you've lost the argument"
Especially when there's been one vote from an anonymous. Goid times.
"Look at the thumbs, you've lost the argument"
Especially when there's been one vote from an anonymous. Goid times.
#120 to #117
-
skelebones (07/15/2015) [-]
for me the anon votes come from the hundred or so ppl on my block list. the eurotrash, the retards, the retards that swear up n down they arent retards, the haters, the troll n ******** accounts, etc. and there are A LOT of them on my blocklist.
hell whenever i am bandwagoned into oblivion i block the first 5 or 6 downthumbers because they were the idiots that started the bandwagon.
and because i exist purely in the comments i get alot of anon thumb downs because the cant do it logged in anymore
hell whenever i am bandwagoned into oblivion i block the first 5 or 6 downthumbers because they were the idiots that started the bandwagon.
and because i exist purely in the comments i get alot of anon thumb downs because the cant do it logged in anymore
#121 to #120
-
reaperssprint (07/15/2015) [-] Reminds me of the first and only person I ever blocked. He couldn't argue any of my points directly and continuously tried to insult me personally. He then started going through my comments list and would respond to comments from all different content. So I blocked him.
The asshole then tried to call me out on it claiming I blocked him because I couldn't win against his argument.
The asshole then tried to call me out on it claiming I blocked him because I couldn't win against his argument.
#125 to #121
-
skelebones (07/15/2015) [-]
lol i had one guy openly declare he would downvote every comment i ever made. and he actually did. lol assholes like him are why admin did the site mod to deactivate the thumb buttons on old comments
#163 to #38
-
JonathanNowFuckYou (07/15/2015) [-] You might be a faggot... have you considered that?
#42
-
garymotherfingoak (07/15/2015) [-] good comp, but there's a glaring flaw with this one.
an idiot that makes a stupid comment and gets -500 thumbs for it could easily pull this pic out and use it as his only defense for his comment, basically shouting "everyone that disagrees with me is wrong who cares about facts its just a bandwagon"
an idiot that makes a stupid comment and gets -500 thumbs for it could easily pull this pic out and use it as his only defense for his comment, basically shouting "everyone that disagrees with me is wrong who cares about facts its just a bandwagon"
#52 to #42
-
thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] Except that there is no flaw, you are creating your own situation that is irrelevant to its point and making it a flaw.
#53 to #42
-
shmengels (07/15/2015) [-] i'm pretty sure by attacking those who have opposing views not only is the op committing a false dichotomy (refusing to acknowledge alternate viewpoints), but also attacking them for being so-called band wagoners rather than their counter arguments. when you think about it the op has more fallacies than the band wagoners.
#150
-
raskonock (07/15/2015) [-] But always remember kids, the "Argument from fallacy". Argumentum ad logicam is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
#167 to #150
-
schneidend (07/15/2015) [-] I'd say it depends on the fallacies in question, and how many there are. If their entire argument is based on a fallacy or they completely disregard refutations due to fallacious appeals, then they don't have an argument to begin with.
#45
-
zanntaggerung (07/15/2015) [-]
Using a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, right? Is there a logical fallacy to describe that?
#49 to #45
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] True, you could be completely right about your argument. The logical fallacy just means that you have set up your argument in such a way that the logic is wrong. It is like if you did a math problem completely wrong, but still got the right answer.
#51 to #49
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] or more like you skipped a step. A logical fallacy in an argument is an indicator of a flaw/weakness in the argument that can be used to break the argument apart. So it is something to be aware of when arguing. The less logical flaws you have the stronger your argument is.
#63
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] This is how you spot people who haven't actually learned the logic about why something is fallacious. An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, nor is it necessarily about infallibleness, but justification.
Appealing to an established, valid authority as justification for an argument is perfectly fine, because in terms of probability he's more likely right than someone who's not an expert.
If you ask a judge about legal matters in his field of specialization, then use his authority in an argument, this is perfectly valid.
Appealing to a proclaimed expert in the field who's not is appealing to false authority.
Appealing to an established, valid authority as justification for an argument is perfectly fine, because in terms of probability he's more likely right than someone who's not an expert.
If you ask a judge about legal matters in his field of specialization, then use his authority in an argument, this is perfectly valid.
Appealing to a proclaimed expert in the field who's not is appealing to false authority.
#94 to #89
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] With the irony being that you're making an appeal to authority-fallacy by using a website as an authority on the subject. Just because something is written on the internet, doesn't make it true. The fallacy is FAR more complex than is being stated here, as I already explained.
I could make a valid argument from authority to my own expertise, as I have the degree to teach argumentation logic.
I could make a valid argument from authority to my own expertise, as I have the degree to teach argumentation logic.
#96 to #94
-
infernis (07/15/2015) [-] My argument is not that this must be correct because it is written on that website or that it is infallible, the website is providing a definition which I am using in a debate and you may challenge that definition.
The problem is not getting your facts from a reliable source, the problem is saying that because this person said so, it must be true.
>If you ask a judge about legal matters in his field of specialization, then use his authority in an argument, this is perfectly valid.
Yeah, no. You can't dismiss an argument about legal matters just because a judge told you how something works. Instead, you need to give the judge's reasoning as to why something works that way. If the judge didn't cite any paragraphs or other sources and just answered your question with yes or no, then you can't use it in an argument, because it's important what it is that's being said, not who says it.
The problem is not getting your facts from a reliable source, the problem is saying that because this person said so, it must be true.
>If you ask a judge about legal matters in his field of specialization, then use his authority in an argument, this is perfectly valid.
Yeah, no. You can't dismiss an argument about legal matters just because a judge told you how something works. Instead, you need to give the judge's reasoning as to why something works that way. If the judge didn't cite any paragraphs or other sources and just answered your question with yes or no, then you can't use it in an argument, because it's important what it is that's being said, not who says it.
#102 to #96
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] Except that when we're dealing with fallacies, we're dealing with formal logic, so you have to deal with the definitions used in formal logic. And these are far more complex than yours.
And no. Let's use a syllogism
p1) a judge states a thing about a legal matter
p2) the judge is a valid authority on the matter
c) what the judge states is likely true
As long as this argument is cogent, this is sufficient justification for the argument.
Re-edit because of massive grammar mistakes.
And no. Let's use a syllogism
p1) a judge states a thing about a legal matter
p2) the judge is a valid authority on the matter
c) what the judge states is likely true
As long as this argument is cogent, this is sufficient justification for the argument.
Re-edit because of massive grammar mistakes.
#103 to #97
-
infernis (07/15/2015) [-] Then my definition may or may not have been simply wrong, but it wasn't an appeal to authority because I did never suggest that it was infallible.
Not to mention the basic gist is the same:
"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true"
vs
"Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true."
>what the judge states is likely true
>other person asks why what the judge says counts more than what a random person says
>"because a judge is a valid authority on the matter"
>You said that because an authority thinks/says something, it must therefore be true
I'll say it again, "because judge said so" alone is not a valid argument, you need to give reasons why he said so and those reasons may be challenged, as is the case with any other argument.
If you attempt to shut me up by telling me a judge told you this, then it's totally fine for me to demand that you tell me what reasoning the judge based his statement on.
If your response would be "He didn't need to give any, he's a person of authority after all", then it's perfectly valid to disregard his statements.
Not to mention the basic gist is the same:
"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true"
vs
"Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true."
>what the judge states is likely true
>other person asks why what the judge says counts more than what a random person says
>"because a judge is a valid authority on the matter"
>You said that because an authority thinks/says something, it must therefore be true
I'll say it again, "because judge said so" alone is not a valid argument, you need to give reasons why he said so and those reasons may be challenged, as is the case with any other argument.
If you attempt to shut me up by telling me a judge told you this, then it's totally fine for me to demand that you tell me what reasoning the judge based his statement on.
If your response would be "He didn't need to give any, he's a person of authority after all", then it's perfectly valid to disregard his statements.
#107 to #103
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] "Then my definition may or may not have been simply wrong, but it wasn't an appeal to authority because I did never suggest that it was infallible. "
Definitions can't be wrong in your case, they're incorrigible propositions. They just don't apply here.
Infallibility is not relevant to arguments, as I've said.
You seem to be genuinely interested in this subject so I'd advice you to get this:
www.amazon.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning-Edward-D
It's my textbook on the subject.
Definitions can't be wrong in your case, they're incorrigible propositions. They just don't apply here.
Infallibility is not relevant to arguments, as I've said.
You seem to be genuinely interested in this subject so I'd advice you to get this:
www.amazon.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning-Edward-D
It's my textbook on the subject.
#110 to #107
-
infernis (07/15/2015) [-] >Infallibility is not relevant to arguments, as I've said.
****** , both of our sources state clearly that one needs to think their authority is correct under any circumstances for it to be an appeal to authority.
If I had said "this website says you're wrong and therefore you are wrong", it would have been an appeal to authority.
But what I said was "here is this website's take on the subject, what do you think?"
Ergo, your original claim "you're making an appeal to authority-fallacy by using a website as an authority on the subject" is wrong, because I didn't ever use that website as an authority on anything.
I appreciate the advice (even though I'm not gonna spend ~€100 on a textbook), but could we please come back to what I said in >>#103
My whole argument can be summed up in one sentence:
Even when a knowledgeable person on the subject makes a statement, that statement can still be wrong and must have supporting evidence to it, it is not a valid argument on its own just because an authority uttered it.
****** , both of our sources state clearly that one needs to think their authority is correct under any circumstances for it to be an appeal to authority.
If I had said "this website says you're wrong and therefore you are wrong", it would have been an appeal to authority.
But what I said was "here is this website's take on the subject, what do you think?"
Ergo, your original claim "you're making an appeal to authority-fallacy by using a website as an authority on the subject" is wrong, because I didn't ever use that website as an authority on anything.
I appreciate the advice (even though I'm not gonna spend ~€100 on a textbook), but could we please come back to what I said in >>#103
My whole argument can be summed up in one sentence:
Even when a knowledgeable person on the subject makes a statement, that statement can still be wrong and must have supporting evidence to it, it is not a valid argument on its own just because an authority uttered it.
#111 to #110
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] " ****** , both of our sources state clearly that one needs to think their authority is correct under any circumstances for it to be an appeal to authority. "
So thinking something correct is infallible now? Get a book on basic phenomenology while you're at it.
So thinking something correct is infallible now? Get a book on basic phenomenology while you're at it.
#114 to #111
-
infernis (07/15/2015) [-] If I think someone is correct under any circumstances and can't be questioned then I guess that means I think they're infallible.
Of course, I'm just a mere non-native speaker, so I'm sorry if I triggered you with my poor grasp on proper use of English vocabulary.
Once again, thanks for the advice, would you now please adress my points in >>#103 and >>#110, the last paragraph in particular?
Of course, I'm just a mere non-native speaker, so I'm sorry if I triggered you with my poor grasp on proper use of English vocabulary.
Once again, thanks for the advice, would you now please adress my points in >>#103 and >>#110, the last paragraph in particular?
#115 to #114
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] I'm not a native speaker myself, but sure.
"Even when a knowledgeable person on the subject makes a statement, that statement can still be wrong and must have supporting evidence to it, it is not a valid argument on its own just because an authority uttered it."
Why would evidence mean that a statement cannot be wrong?
"Even when a knowledgeable person on the subject makes a statement, that statement can still be wrong and must have supporting evidence to it, it is not a valid argument on its own just because an authority uttered it."
Why would evidence mean that a statement cannot be wrong?
#119 to #115
-
infernis (07/15/2015) [-] Where are you from? I'm curious.
>Why would evidence mean that a statement cannot be wrong?
I don't think I implied that, there is a difference between what someone perceives as "cannot be wrong" and what is actually the case.
If I ask a judge if murder is illegal and he tells me 'yes, it is', and I accept that without asking him to quote where in the code of law it says that, then that would mean that I think he cannot be wrong, otherwise I surely would've asked.
But this doesn't mean the judge was actually correct, because he gave no evidence to support his claims, if he had said "It is illegal under paragraph X", then that would be something that can be verified and if true, I could use "Judge told me it was illegal under paragraph X" in an argument without making an appeal to authority.
This is so basic that your source doesn't even list it, because it is expected of experts to not answer questions with 'yes' or 'no', but instead give their reasoning.
>Why would evidence mean that a statement cannot be wrong?
I don't think I implied that, there is a difference between what someone perceives as "cannot be wrong" and what is actually the case.
If I ask a judge if murder is illegal and he tells me 'yes, it is', and I accept that without asking him to quote where in the code of law it says that, then that would mean that I think he cannot be wrong, otherwise I surely would've asked.
But this doesn't mean the judge was actually correct, because he gave no evidence to support his claims, if he had said "It is illegal under paragraph X", then that would be something that can be verified and if true, I could use "Judge told me it was illegal under paragraph X" in an argument without making an appeal to authority.
This is so basic that your source doesn't even list it, because it is expected of experts to not answer questions with 'yes' or 'no', but instead give their reasoning.
#95 to #89
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
Here, a site that actually get it right and touched on the complexity of the issue.
Here, a site that actually get it right and touched on the complexity of the issue.
#69 to #63
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] The fault is not the trusting in the authority's knowledge, it is failing to argue with the evidence they use. The appeal to authority is a statement of, because this person says it is true, it must therefore be true. It is one of several logical fallacies that religions fall into quite often.
"The Bible is God's literal word and you must follow it because my paster, an expert on the field of the Bible and God, claimed it as so" Do you see why this is a problem?
"The Bible is God's literal word and you must follow it because my paster, an expert on the field of the Bible and God, claimed it as so" Do you see why this is a problem?
#92 to #69
-
midkupficker (07/15/2015) [-] Except that that a paster is not an expert on god or the bible, he's an expert on interpretation of the Bible according to a specific denominations theology, at best.
Religious scripture cannot have a valid argument from authority because scriptural "truth" is metaphysical nature, let alone the abundance of disagreeing "authorities".
Expertise on god is something similar, except that's it even worse because we have evidence of scripture existing, not of a god.
So in both these cases no authority can be valid to establish an argument, so it's always a false/questionable authority.
Religious scripture cannot have a valid argument from authority because scriptural "truth" is metaphysical nature, let alone the abundance of disagreeing "authorities".
Expertise on god is something similar, except that's it even worse because we have evidence of scripture existing, not of a god.
So in both these cases no authority can be valid to establish an argument, so it's always a false/questionable authority.
#178 to #92
-
alucardhell [OP]ONLINE (07/15/2015) [-] Then go to a logical argument about evolution, and an argument that shows that just because there is a fallacy doesn't mean it is wrong.
p1) A biologist states Humans and Chimps evolved from a common ancestor
p2) Biologists are a valid authority on evolution
c) what the biologist says is true
While factually the 2 postulates are correct, the logic is flawed however because you never used evidence to support your argument, you are depending on a single source's word. To successfully defend an argument you must present evidence, not someones statements. It is a logical debate, not a courtroom or presidential debate (both of which are rhetoric not logic).
p1) A biologist states Humans and Chimps evolved from a common ancestor
p2) Biologists are a valid authority on evolution
c) what the biologist says is true
While factually the 2 postulates are correct, the logic is flawed however because you never used evidence to support your argument, you are depending on a single source's word. To successfully defend an argument you must present evidence, not someones statements. It is a logical debate, not a courtroom or presidential debate (both of which are rhetoric not logic).
#142
-
mrforte (07/15/2015) [-] Remember kids, being right doesn't win an argument, being better at arguing does. If you wholeheartedly believe something to be true, there should be no reason to argue that point with others.
Unless the basis of the argument is perfectly objective and provable,almost no one will ever change their mind on the matter because of an argument. Arguing the point may even do more harm than good, since both people will end up on the defensive, closing their minds further to outside ideas.
If you truly wish to propagate your ideas, than be prepared to entertain conflicting ideas without feeling the need to accept them. This way, the second party may be more willing to do the same.
Unless the basis of the argument is perfectly objective and provable,almost no one will ever change their mind on the matter because of an argument. Arguing the point may even do more harm than good, since both people will end up on the defensive, closing their minds further to outside ideas.
If you truly wish to propagate your ideas, than be prepared to entertain conflicting ideas without feeling the need to accept them. This way, the second party may be more willing to do the same.
#34
-
themissingpants (07/15/2015) [-]
These sir are wonderful and i imagine will come in handy. Thanks. would love to see more
