The Fallacy Thread

[DoPo]

I loathe loaded questions. Loaded questions just sicken me like venom is dripping out of the mouth of the speaker.

for example "Have you stopped being an asshat?" implying i was already an asshat.

I was asked something like that once, I responded with, "Have you?"

It was epic...

Anyways, I personally hate the idea of corrilations. The ones like, this guy shot up his school with an Uzi, and he played Counter-strike. Thus videogames make people violent. I know there a correct term for it, but it escapes me ATM.

Yes "Have you?" counters most of those loaded questions.

And the fallacy you listed is called correlation does not imply causation fallacy Or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, no, no - it does. If anybody tries to use that, just confirm that correlation means causation. For example, we all know that if there is a fire, there would be firetrucks. The bigger the fire, the more firetrucks. Therefore, if we remove the firetrucks, we'll also remove the fires. They must see the logic there.

 

[Sunrider]

We do however know that the mind can be decieved into percieving something incorectly. While im using this well worn second hand arguement while there is no proof that everything we percieve is an illusion the is also no proof that there is not, there is no evidence that you exist and that I am not having a conversation with myself or even a computer program.

As long as there is nothing indicating that everything we perceive is an illusion, I see no reason to believe that it is. I don't like repeating myself. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Everything else is fantasy and guesswork, yet again.

Also, see "Fallacy of Ignorance".

 

[artanis_neravar]

I loathe loaded questions. Loaded questions just sicken me like venom is dripping out of the mouth of the speaker.

for example "Have you stopped being an asshat?" implying i was already an asshat.

I was asked something like that once, I responded with, "Have you?"

It was epic...

Anyways, I personally hate the idea of corrilations. The ones like, this guy shot up his school with an Uzi, and he played Counter-strike. Thus videogames make people violent. I know there a correct term for it, but it escapes me ATM.

Yes "Have you?" counters most of those loaded questions.

And the fallacy you listed is called correlation does not imply causation fallacy Or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, no, no - it does. If anybody tries to use that, just confirm that correlation means causation. For example, we all know that if there is a fire, there would be firetrucks. The bigger the fire, the more firetrucks. Therefore, if we remove the firetrucks, we'll also remove the fires. They must see the logic there.

...oh...my...god!! and if we remove the police, we'll also remove the crime!!! And, get rid of all the food and there will be no more hungry people! quick alert the Swedes, we must get this man a Nobel Prize!!

The fallacy linking Three Mile Island to when Nuclear power is bad, no Idea what it is called but I hate that one.

 

[artanis_neravar]

We do however know that the mind can be decieved into percieving something incorectly. While im using this well worn second hand arguement while there is no proof that everything we percieve is an illusion the is also no proof that there is not, there is no evidence that you exist and that I am not having a conversation with myself or even a computer program.

As long as there is nothing indicating that everything we perceive is an illusion, I see no reason to believe that it is. I don't like repeating myself. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Everything else is fantasy and guesswork, yet again.

Also, see "Fallacy of Ignorance".

Come on man, the late Douglas Adams already proved that. The Universe is infinite, which means there are an infinite number of planets. We know that not every planet is inhabited with life, so when you attempt to determine what fraction or percentage of planets are inhabited you are left with a finite number being divided by infinity. Since any finite number divided by infinity is zero (0) then we know that no planet has life, and anyone we meet is just a figment of our imaginations.

 

[Sunrider]

Come on man, the late Douglas Adams already proved that. The Universe is infinite, which means there are an infinite number of planets. We know that not every planet is inhabited with life, so when you attempt to determine what fraction or percentage of planets are inhabited you are left with a finite number being divided by infinity. Since any finite number divided by infinity is zero (0) then we know that no planet has life, and anyone we meet is just a figment of our imaginations.

Last I checked, I was talking about our planet. To discuss the unknown is pointless, because that too becomes guesswork and baseless speculation. It is uncertain whether or not the universe is finite or not as it is right now too.
If you are claiming that no planet has life because of a calculation that isn't possible to do right now, you are just wasting my time. I won't bother to reply anymore. Keep your guesswork to yourself, I'm not interested.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Come on man, the late Douglas Adams already proved that. The Universe is infinite, which means there are an infinite number of planets. We know that not every planet is inhabited with life, so when you attempt to determine what fraction or percentage of planets are inhabited you are left with a finite number being divided by infinity. Since any finite number divided by infinity is zero (0) then we know that no planet has life, and anyone we meet is just a figment of our imaginations.

Last I checked, I was talking about our planet. To discuss the unknown is pointless, because that too becomes guesswork and baseless speculation. It is uncertain whether or not the universe is finite or not as it is right now too.
If you are claiming that no planet has life because of a calculation that isn't possible to do right now, you are just wasting my time. I won't bother to reply anymore. Keep your guesswork to yourself, I'm not interested.

You know I would have thought the fact that I was referencing an extremely well known (especially amongst the geek and nerd cultures) comedy writer would have given away that I was making a joke, but apparently I was incorrect.

I apologize for wasting your obviously extremely precious time. You know that time that you have been using to argue with someone. About something entirely stupid. On the Internet.
^
|
That was sarcasm by the way, just in case you misunderstood.

 

[johnnyLupine]

We do however know that the mind can be decieved into percieving something incorectly. While im using this well worn second hand arguement while there is no proof that everything we percieve is an illusion the is also no proof that there is not, there is no evidence that you exist and that I am not having a conversation with myself or even a computer program.

As long as there is nothing indicating that everything we perceive is an illusion, I see no reason to believe that it is. I don't like repeating myself. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Everything else is fantasy and guesswork, yet again.

Also, see "Fallacy of Ignorance".

Oddly "if you can't show it, you don't know it" works equally well questioning reality as well as doubt. By all means show me without a shadow of a doubt that you percieve whatever you keep your computer screen rested on exactly the way it is in reality or indeed that it is not some illusion.

 

[artanis_neravar]

We do however know that the mind can be decieved into percieving something incorectly. While im using this well worn second hand arguement while there is no proof that everything we percieve is an illusion the is also no proof that there is not, there is no evidence that you exist and that I am not having a conversation with myself or even a computer program.

As long as there is nothing indicating that everything we perceive is an illusion, I see no reason to believe that it is. I don't like repeating myself. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Everything else is fantasy and guesswork, yet again.

Also, see "Fallacy of Ignorance".

Come on man, the late Douglas Adams already proved that. The Universe is infinite, which means there are an infinite number of planets. We know that not every planet is inhabited with life, so when you attempt to determine what fraction or percentage of planets are inhabited you are left with a finite number being divided by infinity. Since any finite number divided by infinity is zero (0) then we know that no planet has life, and anyone we meet is just a figment of our imaginations.

I just... What?

I don't think that's how either math or logic works <_<

Which is why it is one of my favorite parts from the Hitchhikers Guide series @.0

Edit: the link was unintentional that is just my go to emote face.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

There's a series of campaign ads on New Zealand TV at the moment, made by British American Tobacco Ltd, campaigning against the plain-packaging for cigarettes that the government wants to introduce here.

One such ad features imagery of people holding up placards that say "If I don't like something, it should be BANNED".

Another ad features supermarket shelves of various products, all with plain packaging.


For those of you keeping track, that first ad is a good example of a stawman, and the second is the slippery-slope fallacy.

You're a Kiwi too, don't tend to bump into many online outside NZ based sites.

I think the whole thing is stupid in general, it takes away personal responsibility. For example, these days, everyone knows smoking is bad for you, but some choose to do it anyway, changing the packaging isn't going to do anything.

The logic behind it seems pretty flawed to me in general.

 

[WanderingFool]

I loathe loaded questions. Loaded questions just sicken me like venom is dripping out of the mouth of the speaker.

for example "Have you stopped being an asshat?" implying i was already an asshat.

I was asked something like that once, I responded with, "Have you?"

It was epic...

Anyways, I personally hate the idea of corrilations. The ones like, this guy shot up his school with an Uzi, and he played Counter-strike. Thus videogames make people violent. I know there a correct term for it, but it escapes me ATM.

Yes "Have you?" counters most of those loaded questions.

And the fallacy you listed is called correlation does not imply causation fallacy Or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You know what I love the most about "Have You", nobody every thinks about that response. Every person that has asked me a loaded question has never thought about me simply using "Have You" to counter them. It hilarious!

 

[chozo_hybrid]

You're a Kiwi too, don't tend to bump into many online outside NZ based sites.

I think the whole thing is stupid in general, it takes away personal responsibility. For example, these days, everyone knows smoking is bad for you, but some choose to do it anyway, changing the packaging isn't going to do anything.

The logic behind it seems pretty flawed to me in general.

That's true I guess.

I suppose they think the current packaging is too enticing for some people, and plain packaging will help in that regard.
Though, how enticing the label on a cigarette packet can actually get is quite limited, I would've thought.

I work at a supermarket, and I have to say, they are all kind of plain anyway, with just the name in a preferred font. Plus there's the health warnings with nasty images on them. I don't think anyone thinks "Oh my god, the lettering on this pack is darling! I have to try these smokes."

 

[Redingold]

I loathe loaded questions. Loaded questions just sicken me like venom is dripping out of the mouth of the speaker.

for example "Have you stopped being an asshat?" implying i was already an asshat.

I was asked something like that once, I responded with, "Have you?"

It was epic...

Anyways, I personally hate the idea of corrilations. The ones like, this guy shot up his school with an Uzi, and he played Counter-strike. Thus videogames make people violent. I know there a correct term for it, but it escapes me ATM.

Yes "Have you?" counters most of those loaded questions.

And the fallacy you listed is called correlation does not imply causation fallacy Or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Very minor point, but post hoc ergo propter hoc is not the same as correlation does not imply causation. The proper term for that is cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc refers to assuming that because one event follows another, that they are related. This is subtly different from cum hoc ergo propter hoc, where the events are simultaneous or the ordering does not matter.

It's really a very minor point, but I was reading about this earlier and I wanted to correct someone.

 

[Nouw]

There's a series of campaign ads on New Zealand TV at the moment, made by British American Tobacco Ltd, campaigning against the plain-packaging for cigarettes that the government wants to introduce here.

One such ad features imagery of people holding up placards that say "If I don't like something, it should be BANNED".

Another ad features supermarket shelves of various products, all with plain packaging.


For those of you keeping track, that first ad is a good example of a stawman, and the second is the slippery-slope fallacy.

I feel rather stupid for asking this, but aren't those fallacies against plain-packaging?

 

[Nouw]

I feel rather stupid for asking this, but aren't those fallacies against plain-packaging?

Yep. That's what those ads are about.
They're run by British American Tobacco Ltd. They don't want plain packaging because it will hurt their product.

Aaah I see. I never really understood the packaging fiasco despite reading it from to time in the paper. Is it being enforced yet?

 

[AJvsRonin]

Related to that, I'd like to choose the "Y, therefore X" argument. And because this post already made use of the word evolution, I'll just take the illogical "evolution cannot explain everything, therefore God" statement.
Can't remember the name of that one though but I'm sure as soon as I post and close the tab I'll remember.

If I understand you correctly I think you're referring to "god of the gaps" where god is shifted to where the limit of scientific knowledge is and as science figures it out they shift it to the next edge and so on. Shifting the goal posts effectively.

 

[wintercoat]

And sorry to Godwin's law this thread already, but I don't really get it when people are so quick to compare things to Nazis and Hitler because they have superficial similarities,

You didn't Godwin the thread, you pointed out that Godwin's Law is a fallacy. Which it is.

OT: Chewbacca Defenses are fun, but infuriating.

And the correct name for said fallacy would be Equivalence Fallacy.

Hitler used Equivalence Fallacies! D:<

OT: No True Scotsman. It's just so arrogant, it makes me want to punch things.

Hitler also was No True Scotsman!

D: Won't Hitler please think of the children!!!

That's another one that really annoys me. Appeals to Emotion are used frequently, especially in threads about abortion or gun control over in R&P. It's really annoying when you come prepared with facts and citations, and all they do is shout "Murder!!!!! D:" at you.