Logical Fallacies That Grind Your Gears
- Thread starter Watcheroftrends
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope, a Strawman is taking the stance of another person in an argument, then putting weighted words that were never said or meaning that was not intended up as if to say "this is what you said, Herp a derpa derp" and then arguing with that viewpoint instead of the original.WanderingFool said:
That might not be the best explanation. Try this one:
Imagine you are about to fight another person, but when it comes to the face-off you find your opponent wailing on Straw dummy (strawman) that looks like you, but obviously isn't you. He then proceeds to pummel the inert strawman and, after tearing apart the fake, you looks at you and goes "I win".
You were substituted with a dummy by your opponent who claimed it was you he was fighting.
In the context of debating, this would be taking something you didn't say (but they claim you have), then debating with that instead of your actual argument.
This is usually done by either drastically simplifying a view point or by ditching unique nuances to your argument, just to bash the "idea" of your argument. More often then not, the "idea" they have of your argument does no justice to your actual argument.
In slightly rarer uses, they just make shit up. Strawmanning is a dickish thing to do. I can't imagine any debate where it can be used in any way that isn't underhanded or subversive.
I don't know the name for this one, but the argument that just because some Xs are also Ys means that all Xs are Ys. I've noticed it most often in threads relating to some stupid/racist/homophobic religious person or group, and people asserting that all religious people must be stupid or racist or homophobic, which is simply untrue.
I also dislike the fallacy fallacy, which is the assumption that an argument is false just because it has a fallacy. Of course, an argument with a fallacy is probably not a good argument, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it can't be used to prove a specific point.
I also dislike the fallacy fallacy, which is the assumption that an argument is false just because it has a fallacy. Of course, an argument with a fallacy is probably not a good argument, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it can't be used to prove a specific point.
Can I name a few?
Appeal to Popularity (You can see it all around this site)
Hasty Generalization (Again....)
And lets just go with good ol Bias, my favorite.
I tend to get aggravated when I see these because I hate fallacies from my love of psychology (and the research I have started), and my love of my religion. Try to have a discussion and religion just gets bashed for no reason.
Appeal to Popularity (You can see it all around this site)
Hasty Generalization (Again....)
And lets just go with good ol Bias, my favorite.
I tend to get aggravated when I see these because I hate fallacies from my love of psychology (and the research I have started), and my love of my religion. Try to have a discussion and religion just gets bashed for no reason.
Ditto.MasochisticAvenger said:
I believe the term you're looking for is Godwin's Law. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]Baron_Rouge said:
Agreed. Going along with proof for a moment; where people disregard evidence to the contrary because it's... contrary to their position. Usually said evidence is also met with additional fallacies; why argue against it when the author is bias or the methodology is shaky? Or when they claim something is inaccurate, but they lack the evidence to support the statement. They assume the hypocritical positions that only their evidence is accurate therefor permissible while anything you provide is falsafied hogwash.Loonyyy said:
The 2nd most irritating one is the appeal to possibility. Russell's Teapot being the prime example of that. I don't have to accept the possibility of anything absurd. It's usually coupled with the burden of proof too.
So really anything that has to do with proof.
Victim blaming in general.
Where the hell do you get of blaming a 3 year old for getting hit by a car?
Where the hell do you get of blaming a 3 year old for getting hit by a car?
False dichotomy, false equivalency, the grey fallacy, agree to disagree - all kind of related. Basically when someone with an incredibly stupid opinion or clearly incorrect argument tries to appeal to some middle ground or generate support/validity for his/her nonsense under the idiotic assumption that every opinion or point of view is inherently worthwhile.
Examples: suggesting creationism deserves equal stage time with evolution... declaring the officiating of a basketball game corrupt because one team shot twice as many free throws... giving equal say to an academic expert and a politician on a scientific issue...
Sometimes people are just stupid and/or wrong, and they should be treated as such.
Examples: suggesting creationism deserves equal stage time with evolution... declaring the officiating of a basketball game corrupt because one team shot twice as many free throws... giving equal say to an academic expert and a politician on a scientific issue...
Sometimes people are just stupid and/or wrong, and they should be treated as such.
Straw Man, I guess. Though it bothers me less when they misrepresent my point than when they try (with varying degrees of subtlety) to change the argument. I always point to Thank You For Smoking's ice cream debate as an example of that...
People do this sort of thing a lot. And it's at that point when I lose interest in the discussion. Why? Because at that point you don't really care about the discussion either. You're just doing whatever you feel you need to do to "win" the argument.
Not many of the other fallacies bother me much. Slippery-Slope I'm totally fine with. When we've seen the slippery-slope in action, I don't fault anyone for thinking the slide will continue. This is at least how I view a lot of consumer issues (relating to cut content, DLC, DRM, etc) in gaming.
People do this sort of thing a lot. And it's at that point when I lose interest in the discussion. Why? Because at that point you don't really care about the discussion either. You're just doing whatever you feel you need to do to "win" the argument.
Not many of the other fallacies bother me much. Slippery-Slope I'm totally fine with. When we've seen the slippery-slope in action, I don't fault anyone for thinking the slide will continue. This is at least how I view a lot of consumer issues (relating to cut content, DLC, DRM, etc) in gaming.
No. That's the whole point of the slippery slope fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is taking an argument to its logical extreme. The slippery slope fallacy mimics the pattern of reductio ad absurdum but the conclusions drawn are completely baseless.Res Plus said:
I'm kind of embarrassed for you if you think those arguments use sound reasoning.
All logical fallacies really bother me...
The main one probably is that logic doesn't matter. I'm usually very calm but that statement usually throws me into a rage.
If anything you present is not based on logic the information and conclusions drawn can only be faulty.
Examples
I know you're (emotion): Said as if the person is a clairvoyant
If everyone does it it's okay: Appeal to the herd arguments bother me
I just feel that (emotion): As if feelings give an argument validity
X said you said/did Y: Blind hearsay is also rage inducing
X told me to so I did it: Blind obedience to authority when it's not required scares me
There is a laundry list and particularly why I don't get into arguments with people. Most people are really really bad at logic
The main one probably is that logic doesn't matter. I'm usually very calm but that statement usually throws me into a rage.
If anything you present is not based on logic the information and conclusions drawn can only be faulty.
Examples
I know you're (emotion): Said as if the person is a clairvoyant
If everyone does it it's okay: Appeal to the herd arguments bother me
I just feel that (emotion): As if feelings give an argument validity
X said you said/did Y: Blind hearsay is also rage inducing
X told me to so I did it: Blind obedience to authority when it's not required scares me
There is a laundry list and particularly why I don't get into arguments with people. Most people are really really bad at logic
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Probability is a math thing, so comparing math to logic before saying probability can't be used in logic confuses me. The most probable conclusion is the most probable thing to be true, the finding of which is the reasonable conclusion. But, again, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.Filiecs said:
Excuse me while I take an immature giggling break...ToastiestZombie said:
[small]Heh heh heh! Shoving his gayness down a guys throat! Heh.[/small]
Okay, I'm back.
Why, good sir, the arguing over fictional events-- searching for clues, shifting through text, reading the author's blog-- is a healthy mental exercise that keeps those fans off the streets! With out it, they'd be like football fans: committing random acts of violence and brutality whilst yelling really loudly!Ryan Hughes said:
Moreover, I am lead to believe "canon" means "things accepted to be part of a fictional universe", as co-opted from terminology about the Bible. Do you or the rabid fanboys subscribe to some alternate definition?
I was once in an argument that included, at one point, the mention of sea salt. I was saying something like "[some words] into the ocean and get the salt" and the person I was talking to basically decided that I was wrong because I said "into the ocean" when talking about "sea salt"
Another thing that happens all too often is when people act like everything is meant to be taken literally to avoid being wrong. I've had to say "I didn't realize I was talking to someone who hasn't developed abstract thinking" far too many times
Another thing that happens all too often is when people act like everything is meant to be taken literally to avoid being wrong. I've had to say "I didn't realize I was talking to someone who hasn't developed abstract thinking" far too many times
You are lead to believe that by the very people who misuse the term. As I said, smart people misuse it all the time.The Thinker said:
As briefly as I can explain: The word should used only to denote factual occurrences, not ones that take place within a fictional space. The Bible is key, because those that established biblical canon believed that the actual authorship could ultimately be attributed to God. The argument of canon revolves around whether or not the book was divinely inspired.
600 years later: Beowulf was written, but all we have today as an "original" document is a fire-burned tome from about 1,100 A.D. There are parts where the characters basically drop what they are doing to pray and worship the Christian God, but those parts seem a bit out of place. This leads to a legitimate canonical argument. Were those pieces in the original story? or were they added later by a Christian scribe to bring an older tale into the realm of Christendom? This deals not with the characters or the fictional world, but with who actually wrote the poem. It deals with a factual event.
After the character of Sherlock Holmes became popular, many other people wrote books featuring the character. Sir Doyle objected to this, as he was the person who invented the character. These other works are considered non-canon. NOT because of what happens in the fictional space, but because of the fact of their authorship.
Now, we have massive so-called "intellectual properties" with so many differing authors that no one can seem to keep things straight. This was started by comic companies and continued by IPs like Star Trek and Star Wars. None of these canonical arguments apply because authorship is clearly marked, and ultimately leads back to the holder of the IP. Yet, when differing authors have stories that conflict, as long as both are recorded and under the auspices of the IP holder then both should be considered "canon," as there is no real-world conflict, only a fictional one.
Using "canon" to denote which fictional storyline is the "true" storyline is about as much of a logical fallacy as anything else I can think of. Also, while the meaning may have changed slightly to accommodate these sprawling fictional spaces, if you were to use the term in front of someone like me -with a background in literary theory and literature- it would just make you seem like a person who cannot discern fantasy from reality. In fact, if it is true that people have made Star Wars / Trek religions, then that just reenforces that point.
Sweeping generalisations, slippery slopes and dragging in probability theory when it doesn't belong are my top three.
"If you disagree, it's because you're not as sexy and manly as me."
You got the dumbshit pickup-artist wannabes saying that people who respect women are spineless virgins who let women walk all over them, and you got the people who respect women saying that the pickup-artist wannabes are spineless virgins who are angry that women won't fuck them.
And spineless virgins like me have to ask, "are you sure that you guys can't tone this down a bit?"
You got the dumbshit pickup-artist wannabes saying that people who respect women are spineless virgins who let women walk all over them, and you got the people who respect women saying that the pickup-artist wannabes are spineless virgins who are angry that women won't fuck them.
And spineless virgins like me have to ask, "are you sure that you guys can't tone this down a bit?"
That's close, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm referring to is when someone accuses you of completely liking or hating something purely because you don't subscribe to their way of thinking. For example:Loonyyy said:
Person A: EA is the worst company in the world, and they completely ripped me off. I bought one of their games and it isn't compatible with my computer.
Person B: Well, you should have checked the specifications before buying the game. It isn't really EA's fault in that scenario.
Person A: Oh, you're just an EA fanboy!
or
Person A: I really love My Little Pony! It's the best thing ever!
Person B: I checked it out, and it was okay. I don't believe it is the best thing in existence, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
Person A: What?! You hate My Little Pony?! How dare you!!!
Its called faulty generalization, hasty generalization, or hasty induction pending on the person. The reason it happens so many times is because it is a very instinctual/intuitive approach to the world and evolutionarily advantageous. Heuristics make the world a much simpler and thus quicker to process. The opposite of it is slothful induction (willfully ignoring a strong inductive argument) in case you are curious.ohnoitsabear said:
I was going to say the fallacy fallacy as well. So many people use it in some variation "Oh I see you've resorted to (insert fallacy), guess that means I'm right". It drives me nuts when people point out fallacies and then turn around and make one.
I don't know if it has a particular name for this specific type of scenario, but it is a Affirming the consequent fallacy. The formal fallacy goes something likeMasochisticAvenger said:
If A->B
B
Therefore A
In this case
A would be a "EA Fanboy" or "Person who hates MLP"
B would be someone who believes "Their scenerio was not EA's fault" or "MLP is not the best thing ever".
For this example assume all fanboys take the side of what they are a fan of in all cases)
EA Fanboy -> Does not think the situation was EA's fault
A person does not think the scenario is EA's fault -> EA Fanboy
For this example assume that the semantics of MLP hater is "Someone who thinks that MLP is among the worst, or is the worst show ever created"
MLP Hater -> Does not think the show is the greatest ever made
Person does not think the show is the greatest ever made -> MLP hater
Clearly the same fallacy as
A->B
B
Therefore A
The same can be said for pretty much all "You agree with one piece of group X's position, you must belong to group X" type arguments
Godwin's law. Actually allow me to amend that, people who call out Godwin's law as a feeble attempt to invalidate other's arguments. Godwin's law has nothing to do with validity, it merely states that the longer an argument or debate goes on the more likely a comparison to Hitler will be made. Also Hitler comparisons are simply more likely to be invalid because it is likely it will devolve into either guilt by association (Hitler ate sugar) or Ad hominem (Yeah well you're Hitler!). Hitler and World War 2 comparisons are not inherently invalid and it bugs me when somebody yells Godwin's law at the first sight of the topic rather than actually refuting the point.