List of fallacies indicative of invalid arguments

[Chagos]

Moral relativism could be the start of a whole new thread. J.M. Roberts in his book "History Of The World" (Penguin Books, 2002) discusses the moral relativism of slavery in depth because in ancient times (actually anytime before 1861 with the U.S. Civil War) slavery was an institution which was viewed as a given.

On Page 62, he states:

"Babylon, like every other ancient civilization and many of modern times, rested on slavery. Regular slave markets existed."

Non sequitur

 

[Chagos]

From time to time certain people will need to be muted with the ignore feature. It all really depends on their own behavior.

There is no way around it.

Doing so cleans up the drivel nicely however.

I've only had to do this twice here so far, including just now.

non sequitur combined with ad hominem

 

[Chagos]

#47 on the wiki list --

Argumentum ad populum. Asserting that because something is popular it is therefore correct.

In girlie talk, this is when someone says, "Everybody knows ... ."

girlie talk here more likely would be something like "buzz off you pompous male child". :shoot

 

[Chagos]

#48 on the wiki list --

Guilt by association. This is a form of ad hominem when it is used against people, and an association fallacy when used against similar concepts.

Just what was it you were trying to say?

 

[Chagos]

#22 on the wiki list --

Loaded questions. These are rhetorical questions that induce guilt no matter how you answer them. A clever rhetorician can load up almost any question.

The proper response is to call attention to the loaded question rather than fall into the trap of trying to answer it:

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?"

The proper response is actually to ignore it altogether.

 

[Chagos]

#24 on the wiki list --

Law of averages. The incorrect belief that separate independent outcomes are more or less probably given a set of prior outcomes.

I am however guilty of this whenever I play roulette in Vegas or Reno. I confess.

because you fall prey to the gambler's fallacy which holds the law of averages to actually be a law. Your above definition is however wrong since the probability principle of the law of large numbers would thus have to be abolished. Which would mean bye bye to science.

 

[Chagos]

#26 on the wiki list --

Present-ism. Assuming modern moral standards equally apply to the past. This fallacy is often used in the discussion of slavery.

:bs

Today's moral standards need not apply to the past. They may, however.

What you mean is recentism BTW.

 

[Chagos]

#34 on the wiki list --

Raising the bar. Demanding more evidence when sufficient evidence to support a conclusion has already been presented.

and that's one of those I'd spend more time on in understanding.

If I were you.

 

[Chagos]

Sounds like an appeal to authority...

I don't see any authority in that post:mrgreen:

 

[Ockham]

and that's one of those I'd spend more time on in understanding.

If I were you.

Oops! You just lost a debate point there from the debate judge.... watch out or you'll make the "list". :lamo

 

[Riveroaks]

Ockham is just like the GOP on ACA -- ever critical but with no reasonable alternative to offer.

That's called verbosity.

 

[Chagos]

#2 on the wiki list --

Appeal to probability. This one gets used here a lot by the religious philosophy students when they say an infinity times any possibility equals certainly.

It does not.

There is no substitute for good sound philosophical inquiry and/or science.

That's a dumb and rather ad-hominem description, designed to denigrate a certain group.

A far better example would have been to say that with all the hackers about, your computer is going to be hacked if you don't install an active firewall. The stress that it WILL be hacked evidenced neither by the number of hackers lurking nor by the absence of a firewall. But anyone with a bit of sense will advocate firewalls to the less savvy.

 

[Ockham]

Ockham is just like the GOP on ACA -- ever critical but with no reasonable alternative to offer.

That's called verbosity.

Aww... no more ignore message replies? I'm flattered.

 

[Chagos]

#10 on the wiki list --

Argument from ignorance. This is another girlie trick. "Since we don't know if it is true then it must be true."

Very funny indeed. Comes up a lot though.

I believe I've already covered your obsession with girlies.

 

[Chagos]

#15 on the wiki list --

Argumentum ad hominem -- the most often used fallacy. This fallacy is at the mental level of an elementary or retarded high school student.....................

Yes, indeed. Just as its constant use is in baseless accusations designed to stifle critical appraisal of one's statements.

 

[Chagos]

#16 on the wiki list --

Shifting the burden of proof.

Normally someone making an assertion carries the burden of proof.

The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof is when someone says "prove me wrong."

Clever but deceitful.

Normally someone making an assertion carries the burden of proof.

Best try to remember that.

 

[Chagos]

I gave you a list.

I cannot help it if you are too blind or illiterate to read the list.

ad hominem

 

[Chagos]

Speculation is the source of all philosophical inquiry.

Ya gots ta start somewheres.

It's the start. It certainly shouldn't stop there.

 

[Chagos]

Remembering that, for the record, appeals to popularity and appeals to *false* authority are both erroneous basis for validation.

I love it whenever girlies say "but oh that's the most popular thing." Makes me want to shoot myself in the head just to escape from their presence.

Wondering what it makes them want to do.

Any idea what constitutes "tu quoque" BTW? That's what the post you quoted was about.

 

[Chagos]

It would be really nice if people in a democratic republic knew how to think critically.

But we all know that the overwhelming majority does not........................

Oh boy, do we and all!

And How!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chagos]

.........A quick example -- a college chem professor told our class that the second law of thermodynamics is proof itself of some kind of God simply due to the need for one as such. Otherwise nothing could ever have gotten started in the physical universe. It is the briefest proof of God that I have every heard -- one sentence based on a law of physics.

Apart from constituting no proof whatsoever for a god, it's also one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. I won't even insult logic by dragging it into here, the statement is simply pretentious.

 

[Chagos]

Oops! You just lost a debate point there from the debate judge.... watch out or you'll make the "list". :lamo

I tremble.

 

[Chagos]

Ockham is just like the GOP on ACA -- ever critical but with no reasonable alternative to offer.

That's called verbosity.

Verbosity simply signifies usage of many words as opposed to brevity. As such it's not a fallacy at all.

I could with some justification be accused of verbosity although why one would frame it as accusation I have no idea.

Salient point being that by what I've seen of Ockham's posts, he couldn't be accused of verbosity at all.

So, just another gaffe.

 

[Riveroaks]

I trust that everyone has a sense of what the common fallacies are now.

Hopefully my list helps to call attention to them.

I have noticed that ad hominem, raising the bar, shifting the burden, red herring, and verbosity seem to come up the most here.

 

[Ockham]

I trust that everyone has a sense of what the common fallacies are now.

Hopefully my list helps to call attention to them.

I have noticed that ad hominem, raising the bar, shifting the burden, red herring, and verbosity seem to come up the most here.

:lamo

I love how your posts show how taken with yourself you are.