Logical Faliciousness

Louis_Cypher's picture

 This expands on a recent comment on a recent posting here...

 

A lot of people when debating or arguing on this and other forums will toss out the name of a Logical Fallacy as if that in itself is a show stopper.

Some of the favorites are;

Ad Hominem, something that gets thrown in to block any derogatory commentary, but it isn't the game ender people hope for. 

If I say "Your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are an asshole." 

THAT is an Ad Hominem.

If I say "Your arguments are wrong AND you are an Ass Hole," 

That is an Observation.

Being an asshole doesn't mean one can't be right on any particular issue, just as being right on an issue doesn't mean one is NOT an anal orifice.

Hitler loved dogs and built great highways. (reducto ad Hitlerium)

It's also NOT an Ad Hominem to point out that someone is not qualified to speak on an issue. Kent Hovind comes to mind, a self aggrandizing fraud, who claims educational experience he simply does not have. Pointing out that he is not qualified to speak on scientific matters is NOT an Ad Hominem.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, In a discussion about science, the non scientist simply doesn't get a vote.

 

The Straw Man is one of those 'shotgun' fallacies, tossed out frequently with no relevance to the discussion at hand. A straw man is a diversion, a way to switch the flow of discussion onto a lesser topic, thus avoiding the main contention or premise. It's not arguing something the other guy never said, that's just a lie. 

Rephrasing an argument is NOT a Straw Man, it's a standard and valid debate technique.

The Straw Man is much more subtle than that. Pointing out a spelling error is an example. How often has a thread been completely derailed because someone brings up a spelling error or grammatical mistake, thus ensuring that the next twelve posts will be about obscure definitions and variant spellings.

In short, just because you claim Fallacy, it ain't necessarily so...

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

danatemporary's picture

A-holes they're the baby so you've got to love them

Louis_Cypher wrote:

  Ad Hominem, something that gets thrown in to block any derogatory commentary, but it isn't the game ender people hope for. 

If I say "Your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are an asshole."

.. In short, just because you claim Fallacy, it ain't necessarily so...

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

  Ad Hominem

 If you stoop to that level, you arent going to be winning any points.  Most of the animosity and rancor you find on boards is due to  the anonymity of the net.  No-one sitting  face to face, would ever get half of the insultatory 'guff' you hear in exchanges.   I try to view everyone as  a resource  on the board. In so doing, if someone is out of sorts on a particular day it shouldnt be something to get upset over.

 

 

 

EXC's picture

Louis_Cypher wrote: In

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 

In short, just because you claim Fallacy, it ain't necessarily so...

  

We can call it the Cypher fallacy: Claiming an argument is fallacious that ain't, in order to discredit an opponent.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

harleysportster's picture

Louis_Cypher wrote: This

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 This expands on a recent comment on a recent posting here...

 

A lot of people when debating or arguing on this and other forums will toss out the name of a Logical Fallacy as if that in itself is a show stopper.

Some of the favorites are;

Ad Hominem, something that gets thrown in to block any derogatory commentary, but it isn't the game ender people hope for. 

If I say "Your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are an asshole." 

THAT is an Ad Hominem.

If I say "Your arguments are wrong AND you are an Ass Hole," 

That is an Observation.

Being an asshole doesn't mean one can't be right on any particular issue, just as being right on an issue doesn't mean one is NOT an anal orifice.

Hitler loved dogs and built great highways. (reducto ad Hitlerium)

It's also NOT an Ad Hominem to point out that someone is not qualified to speak on an issue. Kent Hovind comes to mind, a self aggrandizing fraud, who claims educational experience he simply does not have. Pointing out that he is not qualified to speak on scientific matters is NOT an Ad Hominem.

 

 

 

I agree on this one.  There are theists, both on here and in real life, that I have been able to have discussions with. There have been others that are complete assholes, and I am an asshole back to them when that happens. 

My idea of the golden rule is : Treat me well and I'll treat you well. Treat me like shit and I'll treat you twice as bad. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

"...To paraphrase Bill

"...To paraphrase Bill Maher, In a discussion about science, the non scientist simply doesn't get a vote..."

 

This of course is true, in a world where scientific truth is determined by votes.

I also agree that ad hominem is thrown out alot, and it has many different forms.

For me 'ad hominem' really is a fallacy "to the man". In other words, the truth of a statement or the validity of an argument is being determined by some aspect of the person making the argument. The truth of a statement or argument validity should really only be determined by the statement and argument itself.

These therefore are all ad hominem fallacies:

1) Statement X is wrong because you are an a$$hole.

2) Statement X is wrong because you don't have a degree in biology.

3) Statement X is wrong because you belong to a certain group of people.

4) Statement X is true because you are a scientist.

5) Statement X is true because you are always a thoughtful person who doesn't make mistakes.

 

All these statements are suggesting truth is determined by WHO is talking.

 

Louis_Cypher's picture

Sockra Tease wrote:"...To

Sockra Tease wrote:

"...To paraphrase Bill Maher, In a discussion about science, the non scientist simply doesn't get a vote..."

 

This of course is true, in a world where scientific truth is determined by votes.

I also agree that ad hominem is thrown out alot, and it has many different forms.

For me 'ad hominem' really is a fallacy "to the man". In other words, the truth of a statement or the validity of an argument is being determined by some aspect of the person making the argument. The truth of a statement or argument validity should really only be determined by the statement and argument itself.

These therefore are all ad hominem fallacies:

1) Statement X is wrong because you are an a$$hole.

2) Statement X is wrong because you don't have a degree in biology.

3) Statement X is wrong because you belong to a certain group of people.

4) Statement X is true because you are a scientist.

5) Statement X is true because you are always a thoughtful person who doesn't make mistakes.

 

All these statements are suggesting truth is determined by WHO is talking.

 

Statement 2 is pretty self serving... No, when discussing biology, and you do not have a background education in the field, your opinions simply do not carry the same weight as those who do. It's more of a question of who is more credible, the person who has put in the time and effort to gain an education in a field, or a bystander taking uneducated pot shots based on personal prejudice.
 

Statement 4 is something I don't think I've ever actually used and seldom seen... usually when some crackpot wants to make a point, they may dredge up a cherry picked out of context quote from a reputable scientist or as is often the case, find a minimally skilled scientist that agrees with their point of view and presenting them as a 'leading figure' in the field. Behe comes to mind...
 

I don't actually object to your other statements as examples of ad homs... except when you are saying someone is RIGHT for fallacious reasons, it's more an Appeal to Dubious Authority, not an Ad Hominem.

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

Louis_Cypher wrote:Sockra

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

"...To paraphrase Bill Maher, In a discussion about science, the non scientist simply doesn't get a vote..."

 

This of course is true, in a world where scientific truth is determined by votes.

I also agree that ad hominem is thrown out alot, and it has many different forms.

For me 'ad hominem' really is a fallacy "to the man". In other words, the truth of a statement or the validity of an argument is being determined by some aspect of the person making the argument. The truth of a statement or argument validity should really only be determined by the statement and argument itself.

These therefore are all ad hominem fallacies:

1) Statement X is wrong because you are an a$$hole.

2) Statement X is wrong because you don't have a degree in biology.

3) Statement X is wrong because you belong to a certain group of people.

4) Statement X is true because you are a scientist.

5) Statement X is true because you are always a thoughtful person who doesn't make mistakes.

 

All these statements are suggesting truth is determined by WHO is talking.

 

Statement 2 is pretty self serving... No, when discussing biology, and you do not have a background education in the field, your opinions simply do not carry the same weight as those who do. It's more of a question of who is more credible, the person who has put in the time and effort to gain an education in a field, or a bystander taking uneducated pot shots based on personal prejudice.
 

Statement 4 is something I don't think I've ever actually used and seldom seen... usually when some crackpot wants to make a point, they may dredge up a cherry picked out of context quote from a reputable scientist or as is often the case, find a minimally skilled scientist that agrees with their point of view and presenting them as a 'leading figure' in the field. Behe comes to mind...
 

I don't actually object to your other statements as examples of ad homs... except when you are saying someone is RIGHT for fallacious reasons, it's more an Appeal to Dubious Authority, not an Ad Hominem.

 

LC >;-}>

 

I agree. When discussing biology, a layman's opinions do not carry the same weight as a studied biologist. However, I tend to notice when I make my arguments against the rationality of Evolution Theory, I am usually confronted with the reply that I do not have a degree in the biological sciences so what do I know? (Essentially, an irrational reply). The implication being that Evolution Theory is a biological science. Biology is the science; Evolution Theory is a set of inferences placed upon the science. I could easily counter, "what does a biologist necessarily know about Evolution when they are separate things?" Just because someone has degrees in Christian studies from a college doesn't necessarily mean they are experts in the Islamic religion. They are different studies. Evolution is not biology. Dfferent things.

I must admit I have many times encountered Statement 4. When I press and press for evidence, I usually get the argument ad hominem: some scientists have said the evidence exists, so it must be true. I don't tend to suggest that they are arguing from dubious authority, because I don't really need to see the credentials of the person cited to see that the argument is simply stating the case must be true BECAUSE it is stated by a scientist.... "and you're not a scientist, so of course he would know better than you". It doesn't seem to matter that the point in question has nothing to do with a scientific matter but a matter of validity of argument - whether the point is a non sequitor nor not. It is not a matter of science but a matter of reasoning and logic, something for which you don't have to be a scientist or biologist to do.

 

 

ex-minister's picture

Sockra Tease wrote:  The

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

 

The implication being that Evolution Theory is a biological science. Biology is the science; Evolution Theory is a set of inferences placed upon the science. I could easily counter, "what does a biologist necessarily know about Evolution when they are separate things?" Just because someone has degrees in Christian studies from a college doesn't necessarily mean they are experts in the Islamic religion. They are different studies. Evolution is not biology. Dfferent things.

 

 

 

Do you feel the same about the theory of gravity and atomic theory, should they be a separate study and not in a physics or chemistry class?

How about germ theory? Are you saying that shouldn't be in a biology class?

 

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote:

 Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/

ProzacDeathWish's picture

harleysportster wrote:My

harleysportster wrote:

My idea of the golden rule is : Treat me well and I'll treat you well. Treat me like shit and I'll treat you twice as bad. 

       

                      Are you paraphrasing Sonny Barger ?  That sounds familiar.

 

 

 

 

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth

harleysportster's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

My idea of the golden rule is : Treat me well and I'll treat you well. Treat me like shit and I'll treat you twice as bad. 

       

                      Are you paraphrasing Sonny Barger ?  That sounds familiar.

 

 

Yep. That is not exactly how he put it though.  It was in his book "Credos from the Open Road" or some title like that, I used to have it but I don't remember. I can't remember another quote of his that I liked about shit-talkers, but it was along the lines of "Some people just oughta go to fucking Words Anonymous,". 

I met him at a book signing one time. Nice enough guy, but I would not want to get on his bad side. 

The dominant club in my state are the Outlaws though, not the Hells Angels. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

ProzacDeathWish's picture

harleysportster wrote: Yep.

harleysportster wrote:

 

 

Yep. That is not exactly how he put it though.  It was in his book "Credos from the Open Road" or some title like that, I used to have it but I don't remember. I can't remember another quote of his that I liked about shit-talkers, but it was along the lines of "Some people just oughta go to fucking Words Anonymous,". 

I met him at a book signing one time. Nice enough guy, but I would not want to get on his bad side. 

The dominant club in my state are the Outlaws though, not the Hells Angels. 

 

      I think he stated it "Treat me good, I'll treat you better...treat me bad, I'll treat you worse."   In Texas the Bandidos are the ruling club.  I guess I should stop hijacking this thread, now....

 

 

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth

harleysportster's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

      I think he stated it "Treat me good, I'll treat you better...treat me bad, I'll treat you worse."   In Texas the Bandidos are the ruling club.  I guess I should stop hijacking this thread, now....

 

 

I believe that is how he phrased it. I've seen some Bandido chapters in Mississippi, but I do not know any of the Bandidos personally. On the East Coast, where I grew up, the dominant club was the Pagans. When I gave up religion and was shunned by my family "until I repented my sinful ways". It was a Pagan that I rented a room from that sort of introduced into the biker world. I was already in my early twenties when I decided to grow my hair long, get tattoos and piercings and just piss society off in general. I think that was my way of getting back at the church for what I felt was "stealing most of my childhood and teen years." 

I never actually prospected or joined a club, I was a hangaround for a couple of lesser known ones, but always liked claiming the title of "Independent."  Which carries alot more weight than the wannabe posers and pretenders. 

I guess I am hijacking the thread, too.  Hehe.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno