Blogs

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity

Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL11AFPI

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 139, Logical Fallacy Lesson 11, Argument From Personal Incredulity

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
LFL10: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
And Now LFL11: Argument From Personal Incredulity

First off, I am considering this as the third part of my ninth logical fallacy lesson. So to fully understand this area of fallacy I'd read my 137th blog, and then my 138th blog, before you read this blog (my 139th). So go read Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof, followed by Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, then this blog, Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 10: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Logical Fallacy Lesson 10: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL10AAI

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 138, Logical Fallacy Lesson 10, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
And Now LFL10: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

My original source of logical fallacy knowledge, Glen Whitman's "Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate" essay, misspelled Ignorantiam as Ignorantium - so I consequently misspelled it as well in my last blog. Sorry. It's with an "a" not a "u." Well, according to most internet sources. I got 922 google hits for "Ignorantium" and 128,000 for "Ignorantiam," so I'm going to go ahead and bet on "Ignorantiam" as the correct spelling - although it really doesn't matter.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL9SBP

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 137, Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
And Now LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

A logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning. Stupidity - to put it bluntly. As a matter of fact - how frequently you make logical fallacies pretty much is what determines how stupid you are. If you a logical fallacy prone I will start referring to you, and correctly, as an idiot.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Appeal to Emotion

Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Appeal to Emotion
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL8ATE

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 133, Logical Fallacy Lesson 8, Appeal to Emotion

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
And Now LFL8: Appeal to Emotion

A logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning. Stupidity - if you will. It's more than just being mistaken. Its applying arguments and facts wrong. Like... Tanning on a beach to relieve sunburn or crossing your fingers to fix a broken leg. It's just... Stupidity. Unfortunately human beings love this stuff and not only fall for it, but try to pass it off as valid reasoning. The embodiment of this is religion, of course, but today I'll be looking specifically at a certain kind of fallacy, not all fallacies. This blog is on the specific logical error known as Appeal to Emotion.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith

Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL7ATF

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 132, Logical Fallacy Lesson 7, Appeal to Faith

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
And Now LFL7: Appeal to Faith

Appeal to faith is probably the bottom of the bottom of logical error. Even worse than bald assertion, I'd say. Appeal to faith is trying to use belief, alone, to try and prove something. Here is the common documentation of the fallacy:

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

Samuel's picture

Gender Controversy

Gender Controversy
Category: Romance and Relationships

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 131, Gender Controversy

This blog is the speech I'll be giving in my Interpersonal Communications class this Thursday. Tommarow. I'll be part of a team of four members, all talking about Conflict Resolution. My speech will be last, and once they know how synical I am, they're going to be stateing a disclaimer before I speak. I get my very own disclaimer! Joy.

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

Samuel Thomas Poling

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 A.D.

Interpersonal communications

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 6: Argumentum Ad Nauseam

Logical Fallacy Lesson 6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL6AAN

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 130, Logical Fallacy Lesson 6, Argumentum Ad Nauseum

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
And Now LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum

Logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning, an underhanded trick, a lie, or something else invalid during any debate, discussion, or argument. Once such fallacy is Argumentum Ad Nauseum.

To be honest, every time I write a logical fallacy lesson, I feel like saying, "this is the fallacy I hate the most." I thought that for every fallacy I wrote about thus far, with the exception of Red Herring, because that one isn't so frustrating.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 5: Ad Hoc

Logical Fallacy Lesson 5: Ad Hoc
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL5AH

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 129, Logical Fallacy Lesson 5, Ad Hoc

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
And now LFL5: Ad Hoc

In the past I've said how logical fallacies (errors in logical reasoning) are often intertwined. If you commit one fallacy, it's likely you've committed another. Well, here is one such common fallacy that easily goes hand in hand with Non Sequitor, Bald Assertion, and Red Herring. In fact, I believe those four often come together in a pack. And there is nothing I hate more than that pack. I'll call it the "Great Pack of Stupidity."

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion

Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL4BA

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 128, Logical Fallacy Lesson #4, Bald Assertion

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
And now LFL4: Bald Assertion

A logical fallacy is an error in logic. That is to say: A logical fallacy is stupidity. What makes an idiot an idiot is how often they believe and fall for fallacies. If you do so often, you are not as intelligent as the person who does not fall for them as often. Intelligence is all about reasoning. Fallacy is flawed reasoning. So if you value intelligence it is important you know what good and bad logic is. To the intelligent, this is typically somewhat automatic. They know the fallacies, whether or not they have looked up the name of the fallacy before.

Samuel's picture

Politician Poling

Politician Poling
Category: News and Politics

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 126, Politician Poling

This blog will be divided into sections using dashed lines.
The first is an introduction.
The second is me as I would be on a campaign.
The third is me as I would be a Senator.
The fourth is me as I would be a President.
And the fifth is a conclusion.

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

Introduction

My dream. Maybe unlikely, but thinking that way won't do anyone any good.

As it stands now I'll probably be going into law soon. Defense Paralegal leading into Defense Attorney. Then after that I'll stop defending the law and start working on it as a politician. Senator seems to be my dream job. I'd also love to be president.

Syndicate content