Inurl: Viewer Frame?=refresh

Cold reading

By David Andres Galeano

Throughout history mankind has seen people seeking advice visit others who claim to be able to predict the future. What is not so well known are the arts and methods used to deceive those who come to them for any advice or comfort. This delusion to believe that consultation is sometimes shocking, that the seer has a deep and supernatural about his life. Such techniques are often accompanied by various atmospheres Arts: tarot cards, astrological charts on sheets of paper or computer screens, gravel in a cup of coffee, raw eggs in a glass of water, reading the lines of the hands, etc..

The bland truth behind the testimonies that were passed on these seers, by credulous patients, is actually a very simple technique called cold reading. This is to tell the person consulting, phrases that are obvious or so general that could be applied to anyone, or information that the visitor is drawn through a careful analysis of their verbal responses, body language well. All this is seasoned with an excellent set of words to confuse the person who has recourse to them in the vain hope of knowing what the future holds.
cold reading is based in the analysis of reactions and responses revealed by the person at the time of being read his fate. To view a detailed study, this technique can be broken down into several phases. 1. Visual analysis of the person
The first phase involves an analysis of the individual at the moment in which enters the psychic session. This analysis may include the following elements:

1.1. Individual's gait
When the patient is going to see exhibits slow movements and rigid or stooped postures, can be interpreted as medical conditions, the most common being the spine. Very clumsy or unsteady movements may suggest a personality to some extent, consistent with the way they move.

1.2. Interaction visualization l
a person's eyes can tell a lot about your inner state. His mood, his feelings, his state of worry, etc, are discernible in facial expression, especially in the eyes. Furthermore, the view direction can indicate the nature of the patient. Indicate low or evasive eyes almost always a shy person, which can be correlated in their safety when making choices and dealing with others. By contrast, a patient's gaze fixed on the teller's eyes usually indicates a person stronger and more confident.

1.3.
way of speaking How you talk about someone, including correct grammar, semantics, intonation, volume and emphasis, among others, can provide many valuable insights about your life. You can know their socio-cultural background, level of education, their potential interest, etc. Extrapolating from these data can guess the patient's problems, based on the typical problems of its social sector. For example, if someone is detected low socioeconomic, you might surmise problems and economic concerns. If someone is very high tier, you might suggest that is the problem of meaning in life, or that nothing was filled internally. There would be a good chance of succeeding.

1.4. dress
The personal appearance may indicate, to some degree, how much self-esteem is the patient, the level of frivolity, excess or a lack of cleanliness, etc.

1.5. Unfortunately
appearance in the environment in which we move, the aesthetic appearance of a person can open or close many doors. A very attractive person may have serious problems with the opposite sex, this is a gold mine that a psychic can extract information shameless for their sessions. On the other hand, a beautiful woman can often feel that the value on looks alone physical, which some may find it annoying.

2. Patient's character reading
At this stage there will be a psychological description of the patient's personality. It must use cunning data obtained in the first phase, like a good deal of ambiguity and flattering ideas for the patient. One could give hundreds of examples:
"You are a very intelligent person": many people consider, or wish to be considered intelligent.
"is sometimes shy but sometimes behaves very bold": this statement, which seems very accurate, is quite ambiguous because all we change our behavior in different circumstances.
"You have hidden abilities that has not benefited, but that will help a lot in the future" would anyone want this to be true. That desire to believe is a reason that makes the patient will accept it as true, or at least possible.
In each sentence is issued, the psychic should be aware of patient's reactions of surprise, indicating successes and lines that can continue to earn more credulity of the client. In contrast, in negative cases, you must qualify the statement failed, relativizing and diluting.

3. Laying of "networks" and drama
The third stage of cold reading is to build networks, which is to issue vague statements to get information to the patient. Based on information obtained in the first and second phase, the patient can throw more or less ambiguous descriptions for details. As always, this must be done in a very vague, but at the same time it must be very attentive to the patient's body reaction. In the instant it detects a positive response, either by an expression of surprise or a nod, the seer needs to strengthen its success to the patient orally. Otherwise, you must divert attention from the failure, either, reducing its importance, saying that "although it has not happened, will happen soon," or concealing the error, diverting to new data that accounts for the patient. One key to a good impression on the patient is to be as inaccurate as possible, using pauses to increase the inaccuracy of the reading, without the patient realizing it. For example: "You ... (pause) ... or someone close to you ... (pause) ... is at grave risk of ... (pause) ... or perhaps already victim of an accident ... "

The aim of the breaks is to give an appearance of accuracy, when in fact what is done is the opposite: the range of possibilities open to the reading is correct. Thus, in the previous reading lay the network in two different directions: either one is at risk for accident, or has had, and the victim may be the query, or any other person he knows. This proliferation of possibilities is responsible for the patient to remember someone who matches the description. The probability that someone oo someone you know this person has had in the past an accident is very high, indeed, risks of accidents are everywhere. It is virtually certain that some of the options must be accepted by those who visit. If the person recognizes someone who has been involved in an accident, you probably respond by giving the identity of the victim: "Yes!, The husband of my sister had an accident last year." The Seer and take a very strong point in its favor.

With the way the patient responds to the preceding sentence can be derived, inter alia, the severity of the event: If you change your face and is sad, it is likely that the accident has been severely incapacitated or dead, while if the person responds with enthusiasm by the correctness of the medium, it is almost certain that the victim was recovered. Just a bad mood is captured in who gets to read, even before the patient responds, you can add something like: "... and this person seems to have suffered great harm ... (pause) ... is may be dead. " This would put the final nail to the disbelief of the patient. The Print exerted on it would be very profound.

is clear that on an issue like this could make a myriad of vague statements of which get a host of data on the patient's life. For example: "Someone got all the pain of this accident," the accident, suffered much, "this accident will mean an economic gap," or hundreds of things like that. He said only an idea about things everyday events, a truism, and the psychic and has a gaping gullible high precision of its readings.

4.
predicting the future has already been shown how to obtain information about the past and present of a person, also now has the credulity and wonder of the patient, which will keep him in a receptive attitude about anything that is said. The time is right to "predict" events, since in this case, mistakes can not be detected immediately. It is more relaxed stage of psychic session. All you have to do now is play with probabilities. For example:

"Next year you will develop a disease" means any person suffers a disease at least a year, whether mild or severe.

"Next month you will undertake a project": the ambiguity of the phrase is that any human endeavor, however simple that is, it can be seen as a project.

"Soon you will receive something you've been waiting for" playing with the expectations of any person, at a time that is left so ambiguous that it can provide hundreds of interpretations.

"You are going to marry" is a statement very likely, and the level of confidence at this stage and would have won the psychic, would be believed without any difficulty.

5. Justification elusive faults
To make a good read should bear in mind the ever accept a mistake depredicción but hide as far as it can. For this, the consultant should feel as he had committed the error. For example:

guess: You've received an offensive last month.
Consultant: To my knowledge I have not received any offense.
guess: Well it says: "you know." This offense did
the people behind them and were very dear to you which you would never suspect.

In this case, the seer has everything to gain because he confuses the questioner with his statements, the error leads to a field in which the patient can not verify the truth or falsity of the statement - heads I win, lose label you.

Final considerations. Since
are explained the phases of the cold reading, is useful to show an example of reading that includes all aspects considered. As we can see, the diviners play with probabilities, using drama for information on the fly, and are based on a speech made by obvious phrases, ambiguous and unverifiable. To master it and make a good impression, the seer must have an excellent sense of observation and a good pun, requiring the patient to cooperate in reading. The following example
reading, dramatization represented properly, could leave gaping to anyone:

"Some times you are extroverted, affable, sociable while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. You've found it unwise to reveal to others with too much honesty. Prefer a bit of change and variety, and dissatisfaction occurs you see surrounded by restrictions and limitations. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. Even if your personality has weaknesses, are often able to compensate.
have many untapped capabilities that have not yet become an advantage for yourself. You tend to be critical with yourself. You have a great need to please others and to feel admired. "

Surely the reader has had to be somewhat shocked to have found a rather high correlation between this paragraph and its own personality. The reality is that the example does not say hardly anything. It illustrates several principles that we have discussed ambiguous phrases as "Even if your personality has weaknesses, are often able to compensate" readings which always holds one of two options as "Some times you are extroverted, affable, sociable while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved "use of secret desires of the patient and has many untapped capabilities that have not become an advantage for yourself" universal truths for any human being like "I see you surrounded produces dissatisfaction restrictions and limitations ", etc.

exact situations guess allegedly during a session, are only information taken on the spot by people who are experienced in these techniques. Such is the versatility of cold reading, which can be used by a phone which has been partly due to the proliferation of services such as psychic and astral lines of blind and scammers.

is outrageous how they use unscrupulous people to deceive others in order to line their pockets. Also sad to see how people are not aware of the gear used by psychics, astrologers, tarot readers, psychics and other frauds, end enacting enthusiastic testimonials about how successful were these soothsayers in their reading. A victim a good cold reading end up as a swashbuckling defender of the powers of the seer.

Thus, a gullible person will never make any of the following questions: If you guess the future, why not warn of upcoming science science pathologies to be brought forward to finding a cure? Guess why the next issue of the lottery will fall and so filled with money and not have to pursue its commitment to read poorly luck in a garage? Why not warn the governments of different nations on a difficult future for their country and thus avoid it? ...

You may be asking these questions to psychics, to respond with arguments which empty, meaningless, and ad hoc justifications ... In the same way they justify their failed predictions.

How Can I Press My Moms Boobs

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a proposal presented as a true statement, but it is only apparently.

And to me that this matter?

Logical Fallacies are commonly used to justify arguments or positions that are not justifiable using reason. Often mask deception, misrepresentation, or fraud. Learn to recognize the logical fallacies is helpful not to be deceived. ----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------

Fallacies of distraction:

These Fallacies are characterized by the illegitimate use of the operator Of course, in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of some proposition.

Changing the subject:

The fallacies in this section change the subject to discuss the person giving the argument, rather than on the reasons for believing or not in the conclusion. Although sometimes it is useful to cite authorities, it is rarely appropriate to discuss on the person rather than on the argument.

motivation Appealing for support

The fallacies in this section have in common the practice of appealing to emotions or psychological factors, so they do not offer reasons to believe in the proposition.

Inductive Fallacies

Inductive reasoning based on inference from the properties a sample of the properties of the population as a whole.

Fallacies involving statistical syllogisms

A statistical generalization is a statement which is usually true but not always. Very often these are expressed using the expression "most" as in "Most conservatives are in favor of the cuts in programs social "Other times the word" generally "is used, as in" Conservatives generally favor cuts in social programs. "And others do not use a specific word, as in" Conservatives prefer cuts in social programs ".

Fallacies involving statistical generalizations occur because the generalization is not always true. So, when an author is a generalization statistics as if it were always true, the perpetrator is liable to fallacy.

causal fallacies

is common in a discussion, concluded that one thing causes another. But the cause-effect relationship is complex. It's easy to make a mistake. In general, we can say that C causes the effect E if and only if:
Generally, if C happens, happens E and
Generally, if C does not happen, it happens E
say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example:

say that if you scratch a match (phosphorus), light because:
Generally, when scraped a match, lights (unless the match is wet), and
Generally, when the match is not scraped, no lights (except when lit with a flame)
In many instances, also requires a causal statement be supported by natural law. For example, the statement 'scraping a match causes it to turn is supported by the principle "the friction causes heat and heat produces fire"

Wrong background

These fallacies have in common general decision not to prove that the conclusion is true.

Fallacies of ambiguity

The fallacies in this section are all instances in which a word or phrase is used in a very unclear. There are two ways this can happen:
The word or phrase can be ambiguous, in which case more than one meaning is clear.
The word or phrase is vague, in which case there is a clear meaning. Category Fallacies

These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. However, constituent parts may have different properties than would any of them separately.

Fallacies Non-Sequitur

The term non sequitur literally means "does not follow." In this section we describe fallacies which occur as a result of invalid arguments.

Syllogistic fallacies

The fallacies in this section refer to invalid categorical syllogisms.

Fallacies of explanation

One explanation is that form of reasoning that attempts to answer the question "Why?". For example, through an explanation to answer questions like, "Why is the sky blue?". A good explanation should be based on a scientific theory or empirical. The explanation about why the sky should be offered in terms of the composition of the sky and theories of light reflection.

Fallacies of definition

To clarify our words or concepts, we use a definition. The purpose of the definition is to establish the exact meaning of a word. A good definition must take the author to understand the word or concept without outside help. For example, suppose you want to define the word "apple." If the definition is successful, then the reader should be able to distinguish and only those blocks that exist. If the reader omits some apples, or include some other things (like pears), or can not distinguish between what is an apple or not, then the definition fails.

Read the article commpleto originally published on the website of ARP-SAPC. ----------------------------------------------


---------------------------------- List of fallacies

• Accent

The stress is a fallacy which is based on the change of meaning which is obtained by altering parts of a statement are emphasized. For example:

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

and

"We should not speak ill of our friends "

Be particularly attentive to this kind of fallacy in the Internet, where they can misinterpret the emphasis of what is written.

• Ad hoc

As mentioned above, there is difference between reasoning and explanation. If we are interested in proving A and B offer as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we want to prove the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, but an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an explanation after the fact does not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, the following is an explanation Ad hoc:

"I was cured of cancer."

"Praise the Lord, He is your healer."

"So what will cure the others who have cancer?"

"Uh, well ... God's ways are mysterious."

• Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, then A is true." To understand why this is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implications given above. Here's an example:

"If the universe was created by a supernatural being, we would order and organization at all. And we see order, not randomness, so it is clear that the universe had a creator"

This is contrary to the denial of history.

• amphibole

The amphibole occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical formulation. For example:

"Premise: Belief in God fills a much needed gap."

• Anecdotal evidence

One of the simplest fallacies is to depend or rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:

"There is ample evidence that God exists and is doing miracles today. Last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was healed. "

is very valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point, but such anecdotes do not actually prove anything to anyone. A friend can say that saw Elvis at the supermarket, but those who have not had the same experience will require more than anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can be very powerful and impressive especially if the audience wants believe it. This is Part of the explanation of urban legends. Stories that are verifiably false as stories have circulated for years.

• Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy to declare that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "it has always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad novitatem .

"For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. The Christian must be honest and true to have endured so much, even in the face of persecution."

• Argumentum ad baculum, or use of force

A use of force occurs when someone calls on the force (or threat thereof) to press and do accept a conclusion. This fallacy is commonly used by politicians and can be easily summarized as "might makes right." The threat has come not necessarily from the person with whom you argue. For example:

"... consequently, there is sufficient evidence of the truth of the Bible. Those who refuse to accept the truth will burn in hell."

"... anyway, I know your address and phone. Did I tell you that I have a license to carry a weapon? "

• Argumentum ad crumenam

is the fallacy of believing that money is a standard of fairness. Those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite of Argumentum ad Lazarum . For example:

"The Microsoft software is undoubtedly higher. "Why else would Bill Gates get so rich?"

• Argumentum ad hominem

literally means "argument directed at the man." There are two varieties.

The first is the abusive. If you refuse to accept a claim, and justify their refusal to criticize the person who made that statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You say that atheists can be moral people. However, I happen to know that you left his wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion does not depend on the virtues of the person affirms. A less obvious argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was asserted by some other easily criticized personality. For example:

"What do you suggest we do, we close the Church? Hitler and Stalin would agree with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try to persuade someone to accept a statement you made, referring to the particular circumstances of that person. For example:

"... therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope not discuss it, because I see him happy and content with their leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you will say that affirmative action is bad. You're white."

This particular form of argumentum ad hominem, in which it is alleged that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

is not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who makes a statement. If a person is a known liar and perjured This made him less credible as a witness. Not prove, however, that his testimony is false in this case. Not alter the reliability of any logical reasoning to make.

• Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when one says that something must be true simply because it has been proven false. Or, equivalently, when you say something is false because it has not proved its veracity.

(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until proven to be true. In law, for example, assume someone's innocence until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is right. No one can prove opposite. "

"Of course there is no telepathy and other psychic phenomena. No one has shown evidence that they exist."

In scientific research, we know that an event can produce some evidence of its occurrence, and that the absence of that evidence can be used validly to infer that the event did not happen. However, it does not prove with certainty.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require the presence of a huge volume of water on earth. The earth is not even a tenth of that water, even if we have the that is frozen at the poles. Therefore, this flood did not happen. "

Of course it is possible that some unknown process has made the water disappear. Science then demand a likely and plausible theory to explain his disappearance.

Still, the history of science is full bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Sciences of England was persuaded by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars, was physically impossible because it would require a flag the size of Ireland, which would be impossible to flaming. "

[Fortean Times Number 82.]

• Argumentum ad Lazarum

is the fallacy of assuming that the poor are more upright and virtuous than have more money. This fallacy is the opposite of the Argumentum ad crumenam . For example:

"Monks are more likely to have a perception of the meaning of life, and who have renounced the distractions of wealth."

• Argumentum ad logically

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that the statement is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious reasoning. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at accurate conclusions.

"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, discarding the top six in the bottom we have 16/64 = 1 / 4."

"One moment I can not cancel each other six times that no more!"

"Oh, so what I want to say is that 16/64 is not equal to 1 / 4, right?"

• Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the appeal to pity, also known as special pleading. This fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the acceptance of a conclusion, for example:

"I did not kill my parents with an ax. Please do not condemn me, I'm suffering a lot as an orphan. "

• Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that it is possible that a statement is true or accepted as true the more often heard. Thus, the argumentum ad nauseam is the one that employs constant repetition, saying the same thing over and over again until you get sick of hearing it.

In Usenet, his arguments will be less the more often heard to repeat, because people tend to ignore them and put them in their "kill files".

• Argumentum ad novitatem

is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitatem , is the fallacy of saying that something is better or more correct simply because it is newer.

"BeOS is a better choice as OpenStep operating system, because it has a newer design."

• Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to that of argumentum ad populum . Is to say that the more people hold or believe in a proposition, the more likely to be certain it is. For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a remarkable effect of preventing and deterring crime. To suggest that it is not the face of such evidence is ridiculous."

"But I say that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something in it"

• Argumentum ad populum

Also known as appeal to the people. One commits this fallacy if you attempt to gain acceptance from a statement appealing to a large group of people. Often such fallacy is characterized by using emotional language. For example:

"Pornography should be banned. It is violence against women."

"For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the Bible. This view has had a major impact on their lives. What you need evidence that Jesus is the son of God? Are you trying to tell me all these people are stupid and is wrong? ".

• Argumentum ad verecundiam

The appeal to the authority uses the admiration of a famous person to seek support for an assertion. For example:

" Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God"

This type of argument is always wrong. For example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely respected authority in a particular field, if you are discussing this topic. For example, we can distinguish between:

"Hawking found that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer "

Hawking is a physicist, and therefore we can reasonably expect their views about the radiation of black holes is well informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it questionable if he is qualified to talk about artificial intelligence.

• audiatur est altera pars

People often discussed based on assumptions that do not bother to say. The audiatur principle altera pars est is that all the premises of an argument must be declared explicitly. It is not, in the strict sense, a fallacy if it fails to declare everything to be assumed, however one looks at it suspiciously.

• Fork

fallacy is also called "black or white." The bifurcation occurs when presenting a situation as having only two alternatives, when in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:

"Ora man was created as the Bible tells us, now evolved from inanimate chemicals by the action of random, as scientists tell us. The last thing is very unlikely, so ... "

• Circulus in demonstrating

This fallacy occurs if one assumes as a premise the conclusion that you want to go. Generally, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a sound reasoning. For example:

"Homosexuals should not hold public office. Therefore, any public official who is revealed as a homosexual will lose his job. Then, homosexuals will do anything to hide his secret, and will be susceptible to blackmail. Therefore, homosexuals should not public office. "

Note that the reasoning is entirely circular, the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has been used as a reason why the British Secret Service has officially banned the homosexuals in their ranks. Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God. "

circular arguments are surprisingly common. If you've reached a conclusion, it is easy to make an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else.

• Complex question fallacy of the question or fallacy of the assumption

is the interrogative form of begging controversy. An example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you already stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes an exact answer to something that was never questioned. This trick is usually used by lawyers during interrogations, when they ask questions such as:

"Where he hid the money he stole?"

Similarly, politicians are leading questions as:

"Until when will this EU interference in our affairs?"

or

"Judge plans two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something that is false or has not been proven yet.

• fallacy of composition

Fallacies of composition are to conclude that a property shared by a number of things in particular, is also shared by the sum of these entities, or ownership of parts of an object must also be a property of the whole object. Examples:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low-mass components, and therefore is very light."

"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore, the cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

• Accident inverse or hasty generalization

This fallacy is the opposite of the fallacy of accident . Occur when there is a general rule by examining only a few specific cases are not representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was not a sincere Christian. Then, all Christians are not sincere."

• conversion of a conditional

This fallacy is an argument of type "If A then B, then if B then A".

"If you lower the quality of education, the quality of the discussion of Internet issues worse. Therefore, if we see that the level of debate is worse in the coming years, we know that the quality of education continues to fall. "

This fallacy is similar to that of Affirmation of the consequent , but formulated as a conditional clause.

• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

is similar to Post hoc ergo propter hoc . consists in saying that because two events occur together time, they must be causally related. It is a fallacy because ignores other factors that may be the (s) cause (s) of events.

"Culture and education have been declining since the advent of television. Clearly, watching television impedes learning."

This fallacy is a special case of the more general case pro Non cause.

• Denial of the antecedent

This fallacy is an argument of type "A implies B, A is false, then B is false." The truth table for implications it easier understand why this is a fallacy.

Note that this fallacy is different because pro Non cause. That is the form of "A implies B, A is false, then B is false", where A not involving B at all. Here the problem is not that the implication is invalid but the falseness of A does not allow any deductions from B.

"If the God of the Bible appeared to me, personally, would prove with certainty that Christianity is true. But God never appeared, so the Bible must be a work of fiction."

This is contrary to the fallacy Affirmation of the consequent .

• Fallacy of the accident, or dicto simpliciter broad generalization

A broad generalization occurs when a rule is applied to a particular situation, but the characteristics of that particular situation they that the rule does not apply to the case. Is the error made when going from general to specific.

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so they should not to like atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by people trying to judge moral and legal questions by mechanically applying general rules.

• Fallacy of division

is the opposite of fallacy of composition . Is to assume that the ownership of something must apply to their parties, or ownership of a collection of bodies is shared by each member.

"You study at a school for the rich. Therefore you must be rich."

"Ants can destroy trees. Then, this ant can destroy a tree. "

• mistake or fallacy of four terms

The mistake occurs when a keyword is used with one or more meanings of the same reasoning

"John is right to play soccer. Then you must be skilled with opener despite being left-handed. "

One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose carefully the terminology before you start thinking and avoid words like" right "can have several meanings. ( = working right, right = hand preferably using right [or right foot, in the case of football])

• The extended analogy

is assumed that the reference to two or more different situations in a debate on a rule general, is an affirmation that such situations are similar to each other.

Here's a real example taken from an Internet discussion about legislation anticriptográfica:

"I think it is always wrong to oppose a law violating it."

"That position is odious: it implies you would not have supported Martin Luther King. "

" Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for black liberation? How dare you! "

• ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion

The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is to say that an argument supports a particular conclusion when in fact not logically has nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he holds that teachings of Christianity are true beyond any doubt. If you then argue that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well they show, not prove the first point.

Unfortunately, this kind of irrelevant arguments are generally successful, because they see the alleged conclusion with benevolent eyes.

• The fallacy of natural law or recourse to nature

The appeal to nature is a common fallacy in political discussions. One version is to make an analogy between a particular conclusion and one aspect of the natural world, and then declare that such a conclusion is inevitable that the natural world is similar.

"Nature is characterized by competition. The animals fight each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It how does the world of nature. "

Another way to appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are a product of nature, must imitate the behavior observed in nature, and do otherwise is unnatural.

"For assumption that homosexuality is unnatural. When was the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating? "

Robert Anton Wilson deals with this type of fallacy at length in his book" Natural Law ". A recent example of" appeal to nature "taken to the extreme is the Unabomber Manifesto .

• The fallacy of" No True Scotsman ... "

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You discussed me saying that your friend Angus likes sugar oatmeal. Then I say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is an example of an ad hoc change used to correct an assertion, combined with an attempt to change the meaning of the words used in the original statement. It can be called a combination of fallacies.

• Non cause pro cause

The fallacy "Non pro cause cause" occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event but has not really been proven as cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin, I prayed to God and my headache disappeared. Then, God cured my headache"

This is known as the fallacy of false cause. Two specific forms of fallacy as pro non causes are fallacies because cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

• Non sequitur

A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is derived from premises that are not logically connected with it. For example:

"Since Egyptians did so much excavation to build the pyramids, were versed in paleontology."

(The non sequitur is an important ingredient of humor. Still, they are fallacies.)

• or beg begging the controversy

This fallacy occurs when premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. For example:

"Aliens abduct innocent victims every day. The government must know what happens. Then the government is in cahoots with the aliens. "

• Plurium interrogationum, or many questions

This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) to a complex issue.

"high taxes are an impediment to business, yes or no?

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc

The fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc is when something is assumed as the cause of an event simply because of that happened before event. For example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism. Then, we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

This is another type of fallacy of false cause .

• The goldfish

comment This fallacy is when someone introduces irrelevant material to the matter under discussion, so as to divert our attention to a different conclusion.

"You can say that the death penalty is an ineffective to prevent crime, but ... "And the victims of crime? How do you think they feel the relatives of the victims to see that the man who murdered his son is kept in prison at their expense? Is it okay to be paid for food and accommodation for the murderer of his son? "

• Reification or hypostatization

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing .

"I noticed you described him as 'evil'. Where is that evil in the brain? You can not prove it, so I say no, and no man is 'evil'. "

• shifted the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on person who says something. The transfer of the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad ignorantiam , the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

For further discussion of this idea, see the " Introduction to Atheism .

"Well, I do not think the gray aliens have taken control of the United States government. Can you prove you did not? "

• The slippery slope argument

This argument says that if an event occurs, other equally dangerous events occur. There is no evidence hazardous events that are caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana the , more people begin to crack cocaine and heroin, and we have to legalize them as well. Soon we will have a nation full of drug addicts. Then, we can not legalize marijuana. "

• Scarecrow

The fallacy of the scarecrow is when misrepresents the position of another so it can be easily attacked, then destroyed the wrong position and concludes that the original position has been destroyed. It is a fallacy because it is the real reason you want to question. [NT in the same way that you want to pass a straw man by a man flesh and blood.]

"To be an atheist, you must believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. To be convinced with absolute certainty, must examine the entire universe and the places where God can be . I obviously did not, his position is not defensible. "

The above argument appears once a week in the newsgroups on the Internet dedicated to the discussion of atheism. If you can not distinguish what is wrong with this reasoning, read the document "Introduction atheism."

• Tu quoque

This is the famous fallacy of "you too." Occurs when one argues that an action is acceptable because your opponent was also made. For example:

- "You're being abusive without proponértelo."
- "So what? You too have been."

This is a personal attack, and therefore a special case of Argumentum ad hominem .

• undistributed middle fallacy, fallacy "A is based on B" or fallacy "... a kind of ..."

These fallacies occur when you try to say that things are similar in some ways but in reality does not specify how they are similar. Examples:

"History may not be based on faith? So Does the Bible is not a form of history?."

"Islam is based on faith. Christianity is based on faith. Islam is a type of Christianity."

"Cats are a form of animals based on organic chemistry. The dogs are a form of animals based on organic chemistry. Then the dogs are a form of cats."

Original English mathew © 1995-1997. All rights reserved.

translated into Castilian by Sergio .

Note: "Logic and Fallacies" is a chapter taken from Atheism on the Web