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.
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.
---------------------------------- List of fallacies
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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."
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? "
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?"
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 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.]
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."
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?"
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. "
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".
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."
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"
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? ".
The appeal to the authority uses the admiration of a famous person to seek support for an assertion. For example:
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.
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.
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 ... "
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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. "
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])
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! "
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 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 .
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.
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.)
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. "
This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) to a complex issue.
"high taxes are an impediment to business, yes or no?
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 .
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 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'. "
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? "
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. "
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."
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 .
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."
