GameBanshee Forums

Nevertheless, my statement is no less true.

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
<STRONG>@CE: LOL, you super-smartarse! </STRONG>

Yes, I'm horrible.
And I'm getting worse

Excuse me for this Fable, but I can't resist posting some of my favorite logical fallacies even though I know they are often used in the "masses of people being duped" situation, ie politics.


Argumentum Ad Hominem (against the person)


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes a personal attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

"1+1=2 can't be correct because you are an idiot."

Circumstantial material about A's personal characterististics, true or false, do not have any bearing on the quality of the arguments A presents.

Two examples, one direct and one indirect:

A: Based on these arguments, I have come to the conclusion I don't believe in a God.
B: Well, I'm not surprised, since you're the kind of person who only care about material possessions.

A: I don't think it has to do with my profession, I just don't believe God exists.
B: Well, Stalin and Hitler would have agreed with you.

Argumentum Ad Hominem Tu Quoqube (you too)

A makes claim X.
B claims A is inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

"1+1=2 can't be correct because last week you said 1+1=3"

A might be a hypocrite, but that does not automatically mean his claims are wrong or his arguments invalid.

Example:

A: Based on these arguments, I conclude that smoking is dangerous for your health.
B: But you smoke yourself, so it can't be that dangerous!

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to authority)

A is claimed to be an authority on subject S (or another subject T).
A makes claim X about subject S.
Therefore, X is true.

"1+1=2 can't be correct because this famous math professor/Britney Spears/the newspaper say 1+1=164"

Three types:
The authorithy is legit, but that does not mean it is always correct or unbiased
The authority is not legit within the area discussed and thus, the reference is irrelevant to the topic.
The authority is not identified, and thus the quality of the reference can't be examined.

Examples:

A: Based on these arguments, I've concluded I don't believe astrology can predict life events.
B1: But professor Capricorn at Aries Lab says astrology is a good predictor of life events, and he should know.
B2: But professor Mitochondria said she thinks astrology can predict life events, and she has won the Nobel prize in medicine for her work on mRNA. Do you really think you're smarter than her?
B3: But I've read in numerous books that astrology predicts future life events!

Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)

A claims X and presents P, that creates pity.
B feels sorry about P.
Therefore, claim X is true.

"1+1=2 can't be correct, I'm dying from cancer, so please, grant me that 1+1=164!"

It might be morally important to listen to claims of pity, but how much a person suffers is not related to the quality of their arguments or whether their conclusions are correct or not. Feeling sorry for A should not be confused with feeling that every claim made by A has to be correct.

Example:

A: Please, professor B, I really must have a high grade.
B: Unfortunately, I have to give you a low grade since you missed the final exam and did not write the essay.
A: But I really need a high grade! If I don't get it, I won't get the fellowship and I will never get an opportunity to make a good career! My entire life will be ruined!

I don't know the Latin name, in English it's commonly called Red Herring

I'm not sure know how to formalise this, some other smartarse maybe knows?

Irrelevant material is introduced, attention is diverted from the original topic and the arguments pro or contra this topic. Instead, attention is brought to the new material, and might be directed towards a different conclusion.

Example:

A: Besed on these arguments, I don't think rising the income tax is an efficient solution of the financial problems in the public health care.
B: How can you say that? It must be horrible to have to wait for months for surgery, and in-patients are actually lying all over the corridors. This is not what people have payed tax for all their lives! Do you think it's right that people who have worked all their lives and paid their tax should be treated like this?

Oh, the art of rhetorics

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Another fallacy, very common in Sweden:

Most people would say "Everything is relative, as Einstein said".

I don't know if this is a typically Swedish misconception due to translations, but Einstein never said everything is relative, it was Greek philosopher Protagoras who said this. Einstein said "time is relative".

I can’t believe how many people don’t believe that aliens working for the government abducted Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earheart, and Bigfoot then traveled back in time and used them to assassinate President Kennedy and frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

Then, there's the fallacy (which keeps popping up on this board) that Tolkien either originated fantasy writing, or else had a tremendous impact on it. In fact, he was one in a long tradition of fantasy writers dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century; his style was borrowed (and he acknowledged it); the LOTR didn't sell well for more than a decade after its publication; and there wasn't a fantasy novel that was influenced by it before 1978.

Money dosen't make you happy.....

That's bull - hand me 50 million dollars (or more - please I dare you to try it ) and I'll show you one happy camper

The US was founded as a democracy, where all could be "free and equal." This mixes words of Thomas Jefferson, and attitudes of 1930's populists. It's wrong.

The US began its history as the largest slave-owning nation in the world, and continued this policy until 1863. Blacks, native Americans, and women were disenfranchised, as well as men under the age of 21, and men who couldn't show proof in the form of a certified deed that they owned any land.

The president was not chosen by national vote. He and the vice-president were chosen from a large slate of candidates agreed among the House of Representatives, which was elected. Nor did they vote along any party or constituency lines. In fact, the election of 1804 was deliberately thrown--Aaron Burr had the votes, but he didn't want the job, since he preferred to run Tamany Hall (the first great American political machine, which controlled New York City all the way into the mid 20th century). Burr instructed more than thirty representatives to vote for Jefferson, which gave Burr the second largest number of votes, and the powerless position of the vice-presidency. (It also left him free to live in NYC, which he wanted. This backfired on him when he tried to take over the then-southwest portion of the country as a monarchy, and Jefferson, who had the presidential power, let him dangle in midair by the balls.)

The Senate wasn't an elected body until the turn of the 20th century. Its members were chosen by the governors of each state.

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: fable ]