ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 10th January 2017, 06:46 PM   #681
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I don't see any reason to take psychologyconcepts.com seriously.
Oh.

Well people using logic usually explain why they hand wave things away.

Might want to give it a try
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Last edited by The Big Dog; 10th January 2017 at 07:22 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 09:57 PM   #682
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh.

Well people using logic usually explain why they hand wave things away.

Might want to give it a try
Two reasons.

1. Logical fallacies are not a scientific issue.
2. Even if 1 is wrong, psychologyconcepts.com is from an unknown author with no verified expertise or credentials.

If you disagree, let me know.

Last edited by I Am The Scum; 10th January 2017 at 09:58 PM.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 07:08 AM   #683
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Two reasons.

1. Logical fallacies are not a scientific issue.
2. Even if 1 is wrong, psychologyconcepts.com is from an unknown author with no verified expertise or credentials.

If you disagree, let me know.
I disagree. One ordinarily evaluates the actual substance of the claim.

1. is a non sequitor
2. is an ad hominem
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:06 AM   #684
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I disagree. One ordinarily evaluates the actual substance of the claim.

1. is a non sequitor
2. is an ad hominem
Not an ad hominem.

A: I claim X (is probable) because P said X and P is an authority.
B: P is not an authority.

Here, A is engaged in appeal to authority, which is a decent inductive argument if indeed P is both trustworthy and knowledgeable. If P is not both of those, then appeal to authority is fallacious.

When B rejects P's authority, then, B is not engaged in an ad hominem, but rather in rebutting the appeal to authority.

You were implicitly relying on the authority of that website, since you cited it for its (bad) explanation of tu quoque. To dispute the authority of the website or the author is not an ad hominem in this context.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:17 AM   #685
badnewsBH
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 226
Apologies if this has been posted before.

I believe a tu quoque fallacy is basically trying to use an arguer's possible hypocrisy as a reason to invalidate his/her argument. The example I remember is a doctor telling you not to smoke (because it's bad for you), even though he/she smokes. The fact that the doctor does it doesn't make the point about smoking wrong.
badnewsBH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:29 AM   #686
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Phiwum summed it up nicely*. Both of my contentions are variations on the appeal to authority.

*Sucks if you can't read his posts
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:39 AM   #687
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by I. Am The Scum View Post
Phiwum summed it up nicely*. Both of my contentions are variations on the appeal to authority.

*Sucks if you can't read his posts
Wrong.

The statement stands on its own merits. Which you refuse to address.

And of course fail to support with contrary authority because of course you don't.

Protip: even if it was an appeal to "authority" that does not falsify the statement, now does it? Of course not. You have been swindled into the fallacy fallacy.

Fantastic.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:49 AM   #688
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong.

The statement stands on its own merits. Which you refuse to address.

And of course fail to support with contrary authority because of course you don't.

Protip: even if it was an appeal to "authority" that does not falsify the statement, now does it? Of course not. You have been swindled into the fallacy fallacy.

Fantastic.
Translation: I'm going to ignore everything everyone has said, and spout random fallacies.

Protip: Stop the condescending comments. You might actually have people willing to engage with you. You are not better than us.

Fantastic.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:23 AM   #689
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong.

The statement stands on its own merits. Which you refuse to address.

And of course fail to support with contrary authority because of course you don't.

Protip: even if it was an appeal to "authority" that does not falsify the statement, now does it? Of course not. You have been swindled into the fallacy fallacy.

Fantastic.
Even if it was a fallacious appeal to authority, it doesn't make the conclusion false, but it does make it unsupported thus far. That it contradicts clearly authoritative sources like SEP makes it appear unlikely to be true.

But there is a nuance here. We're speaking of a definition, and different persons may use different definitions. The question here is what is the most useful definition for our purposes. Again, since we're speaking of critical thinking, not psychology, SEP has the edge.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:46 AM   #690
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The statement stands on its own merits.
There's that bare assertion fallacy you were looking for earlier.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:42 PM   #691
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
There's that bare assertion fallacy you were looking for earlier.
Quite right. In assessing whether a fallacy was committed, context matters.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:53 PM   #692
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
There's that bare assertion fallacy you were looking for earlier.
I chuckled.

Link to an objective third party source, with a detailed discussion of the basic principles involved, and you claim that constitutes a bare assertion fallacy?

That is charming!

Although we are setting a record for posts hand waving away a link explaining a basic concept without ever once actually addressing the content of the link!

I think that is utterly marvelous, as rarely do you see a simple link cause so many skeptics to run screaming away from it.

Man, lets take another look, shall we?

Quote:
An appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy in which one attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by showing that the person making the argument has been unable to act in accordance with the position being argued for. By showing the person to be acting in a hypocritical manner, it is hoped that the audience will no longer take the argument seriously and that the argument will be dismissed.
I heard and my inward parts trembled, At the sound my lips quivered. Decay enters my bones, And in my place I tremble
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:04 PM   #693
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I heard and my inward parts trembled, At the sound my lips quivered. Decay enters my bones, And in my place I tremble
If only! I think you haven't yet heard all the reasons why you are wrong. If you had, all the victory crowing would look even worse (if that's possible).
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:26 PM   #694
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I chuckled.
Not as much as I did.

Quote:
An appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy in which one attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by showing that the person making the argument has been unable to act in accordance with the position being argued for. By showing the person to be acting in a hypocritical manner, it is hoped that the audience will no longer take the argument seriously and that the argument will be dismissed.
You're hilarious. This isn't a particularly good or clear description, the source is hardly authoritative, and it doesn't even support your position. You never did show how agreeing with the argument discredits the opponent or dismisses the argument. Pointing out that Trump voters are inconsistent is not in itself a tu quoque.

Your argument on the other hand, which uses an inappropriate accusation of fallacy instead of addressing the hypocrisy of Trump voters, finds that fallacy fallacy you were looking for.

It's all pretty funny, actually.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:40 PM   #695
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Not as much as I did.



You're hilarious. This isn't a particularly good or clear description, the source is hardly authoritative, and it doesn't even support your position. You never did show how agreeing with the argument discredits the opponent or dismisses the argument. Pointing out that Trump voters are inconsistent is not in itself a tu quoque.

Your argument on the other hand, which uses an inappropriate accusation of fallacy instead of addressing the hypocrisy of Trump voters, finds that fallacy fallacy you were looking for.

It's all pretty funny, actually.
Quote:
You never did show how agreeing with the argument discredits the opponent or dismisses the argument.
How many times have I stated:

Quote:
the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.
I have also explained, with links, naturally, that the tu quoque fallacy is intended to discredit/dismiss the argument by attacking the hypocrisy of the poster, and specifically not addressing the substance of the argument.

Say, how about another link? OK!

The Fallacy of Tu Quoque occurs in our reasoning if we conclude that someone's argument not to perform some act must be faulty because the arguer himself or herself has performed it. Similarly, when we point out that the arguer doesn't practice what he or she preaches, and then suppose that there must be an error in the preaching for only this reason, then we are reasoning fallaciously and creating a Tu Quoque. This is a kind of Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy.

Hot damn, yet another example from me to you, supporting my post and destroying yours.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:48 PM   #696
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Your argument on the other hand, which uses an inappropriate accusation of fallacy instead of addressing the hypocrisy of Trump voters, finds that fallacy fallacy you were looking for.
Now I do not typically do this, but in this case I really wanted to highlight this quote, because it absolutely stands out in all possible ways, so I have created a second post to do so.

"instead of addressing the hypocrisy of Trump voters." Keep in mind, gentle readers, that the entire subject of the thread was why the poster did not vote for Clinton. Yet astonishingly this post suggests that I should have addressed the "hypocrisy" of the "trump voters" and that by not falling for the obvious fallacy, the blatant ad hominem attack on the poster, the crude attempt to derail the topic, that I was the one at fault for not taking the bait of the derail!

That is gobsmacking, and the clearest possible example of the veracity of my position.

Thanks to you eerok, you have inadvertently stumbled into the finest argument possible in support of my position.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 11th January 2017 at 02:26 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:38 PM   #697
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
...
I don't know what your gobbledygook is supposed to mean.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 11th January 2017 at 02:39 PM.
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:46 PM   #698
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Read this slowly to maximize comprehension: You responded to an argument but you dismissed it inappropriately rather than address it.

I don't know what your gobbledygook is supposed to mean.
Read this slowly to maximize comprehension: The 'argument" was "inappropriate" in that it was an obvious fallacy, a blatant ad hominem attack on the poster, and a crude attempt to derail the topic.

I am impressed, tho, that you keep repeating I should have responded to it and therefore totally derail the thread in responding to a grossly fallacious attack against the original poster.

I get that you don't know my "gobbledygook" is supposed to mean, and i am impressed that you so readily concede it..
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.