The 10 Commandments of Logic

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT MY OWN WORK, I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY...but it is awesome you will love it.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF LOGIC

01. Thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument
[ -Ad Hominem- ]

02. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
[ -Straw Man Fallacy- ]

03. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the all.
[ -Hasty Generalization- ]

04. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true.
[ -Begging The Question- ]

05. Thou shalt not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
[ -Host Hoc / False Cause- ]

06. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
[ -False dichotomy- ]

07. Thou shalt not argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false.
[ -Ad Ignorantum- ]

08. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
[ -Burden of Proof Reversal- ]

09. Thou shalt not assume "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection
[ -Non Sequitur- ]

10. Thou shalt not argue that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
[ -Bandwagon Fallacy- ]

And no, I am not trying to take all of the fun out of politics.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

There are about 8 others worth mentioning, but these are probably the most common ones.

 

[DDD]

There is not that a day goes by without the 1st logical fallacy in the list is being used.

 

[Imperium populi]

I like it. Reminds me of mister spock.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

very nice

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

There are about 8 others worth mentioning, but these are probably the most common ones.

would like to see those also

 

[ashurbanipal]

Unfortunately, some of these are misrepresentations of the fallacies in parentheses. For example, number 04. reads "Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true" and calls it, in brackets, "Begging the Question." Assuming one of your premises is true is not begging the question--at some point, any argument must assume its premises (otherwise, we would end up with an endless chain of arguments in favor of the next level of premises). Assuming your conclusion as one of your premises is begging the question. Others on the list can be counter-exampled. I hate to be a kill-joy, but logic is important, and misunderstanding fallacies all-too-commonly leads to people reaching bad conclusions.

 

[Xelor]

would like to see those also

Well, if I may, I'd add:

• Tu quoque, poisoning the well, and the other types of ad hominem lines of reasoning.
• Petitio principii
• Argument by (repeated) assertion
  • Argument by Repetition
  • Argument by assertion
• Relative privation
• Equivocation
• Sunk Costs
  [video=youtube_share;vpnxd31y0Fo]https://youtu.be/vpnxd31y0Fo[/video]
• Argumentum ad misericordiam

Anyone who clicks on the links above and explores at least two of the sites referenced will observe that there are literally hundreds of specific fallacies. Accordingly, it takes a good deal of work to learn them all and, in turn, evict them from one's arguments; however, their appearance in one's arguments necessarily invalidates all or part of an argument and, depending on the materiality of the invalid component of the argument, an argument's conclusion.

Critical to eschewing fallacious reasoning is understanding the nature of the point (conclusion) one endeavors to argue. One of the most common failings I observe arises before a speaker/writer pens to paper their very first word. Often enough, communicators assume they are in a position to argue for their conclusion and/or that the conclusion they advocate can be deductively sound or inductively cogent. One's being thus deluded is far more fundamental to the inadequacy of an argument than is any fallacy one may insert into the argument; it is a failure to comprehend the full nature of that about which one'd argue. Naturally, not understanding fully a topic's gravamen will result ineluctably in one's including fallacious lines of reasoning in arguing for or against it.

 

[AncientGeek]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT MY OWN WORK, I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY...but it is awesome you will love it.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF LOGIC

01. Thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument
[ -Ad Hominem- ]

02. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
[ -Straw Man Fallacy- ]

03. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the all.
[ -Hasty Generalization- ]

04. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true.
[ -Begging The Question- ]

05. Thou shalt not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
[ -Host Hoc / False Cause- ]

06. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
[ -False dichotomy- ]

07. Thou shalt not argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false.
[ -Ad Ignorantum- ]

08. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
[ -Burden of Proof Reversal- ]

09. Thou shalt not assume "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection
[ -Non Sequitur- ]

10. Thou shalt not argue that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
[ -Bandwagon Fallacy- ]

And no, I am not trying to take all of the fun out of politics.

Love it. But it leaves out one of the most important: tu quoque (whatabout)

 

[Vadinho]

Well, if I may, I'd add:

• Tu quoque, poisoning the well, and the other types of ad hominem lines of reasoning.
• Petitio principii
• Argument by (repeated) assertion
  • Argument by Repetition
  • Argument by assertion
• Relative privation
• Equivocation
• Sunk Costs
  [video=youtube_share;vpnxd31y0Fo]
• Argumentum ad misericordiam

Anyone who clicks on the links above and explores at least two of the sites referenced will observe that there are literally hundreds of specific fallacies. Accordingly, it takes a good deal of work to learn them all and, in turn, evict them from one's arguments; however, their appearance in one's arguments necessarily invalidates all or part of an argument and, depending on the materiality of the invalid component of the argument, an argument's conclusion.

Critical to eschewing fallacious reasoning is understanding the nature of the point (conclusion) one endeavors to argue. One of the most common failings I observe arises before a speaker/writer pens to paper their very first word. Often enough, communicators assume they are in a position to argue for their conclusion and/or that the conclusion they advocate can be deductively sound or inductively cogent. One's being thus deluded is far more fundamental to the inadequacy of an argument than is any fallacy one may insert into the argument; it is a failure to comprehend the full nature of that about which one'd argue. Naturally, not understanding fully a topic's gravamen will result ineluctably in one's including fallacious lines of reasoning in arguing for or against it.

I beg to differ that using one of these in an argument loses that argument by default. Say I was arguing with you about the sum of two numbers. You argued incorrectly over and over again. At some point, I say "listen you idiot, two plus two is four, now shut the hell up." Would that mean I lost the argument or my patience?