Fallacious reasoning

[Gr8wight]

We are all familiar with many of the logical fallacies that are used to support beliefs. I have recently engaged in discussions with several people about religion, and been hit with some of the most popular in that field, like:

The Bible is the best selling book of all time. Millions of people believe in it. Therefore there must be something to it.
or

Scientists cannot explain some aspects of the theory of evolution, therefore evolution did not occur.

Yet, it is possible for both sides of an argument to fall into the trap of using a logical fallacy, and we must always guard against unwittingly using them ourselves. What are some of the arguments you have heard skeptics use that were fallacious in nature?

Edited to add: On any skeptical topic, not just religion.

[Timothy]

"There's a million dollars here if you demonstrate your ability. What possible reason could you have for not applying, showing your ability, and gaining a cool million? Your ability (it is haughtily and chidingly implied) does not exist."

- Timothy

[Stellafane]

Actually, I'm all for it.

Oops, reread the OP -- thought it said "fellacious reasoning."

Never mind.

[sciguy]

I"d think one of the easiest to fall into on the skeptic's side of a debate would be the "appeal to authority".

Unless you're a practicing astronomer / biologist / geneticist / paleontologist / etc, any evidence you're going to bring to the table will be second hand. At first glance, "the Journal of {whatever} says..." is little different from "the Bible says..." or "the National Enquirer says...".

The skeptic may know (or at least assume) that a given professional periodical / research group / etc has peer review, double-blind testing protocols, and independently duplicated experimental results. The supporting evidence underneath a given theory is what makes science science. But if both sides aren't clear on that (and accept it's importance), a skeptic may take the road of just saying "my cite is better than your cite because it's science", which isn't going to help anything.

[Red Siegfried]

As far as appeals to authority go, at least we know who wrote that paper on astronomy and what the methodology of the experiment was. With the Bible, we don't know these things. Almost everything that isn't some kind of universal, self-apparent truth (if there is such a thing) is an appeal to authority, but there are degrees of authority which indicate that some are more likely to be authoritative than others.

Also, dogma is one of the lowest levels of authority in terms of accuracy. The conclusions of a scientific experiment are inherently more likely to be accurate by their very nature, since they are reviewed and corrected with greater frequency and care than any religous text.

So yes, some appeals to authority are more equal than others. :)

[dubfan]

I"d think one of the easiest to fall into on the skeptic's side of a debate would be the "appeal to authority".

Unless you're a practicing astronomer / biologist / geneticist / paleontologist / etc, any evidence you're going to bring to the table will be second hand. At first glance, "the Journal of {whatever} says..." is little different from "the Bible says..." or "the National Enquirer says...".

The skeptic may know (or at least assume) that a given professional periodical / research group / etc has peer review, double-blind testing protocols, and independently duplicated experimental results. The supporting evidence underneath a given theory is what makes science science. But if both sides aren't clear on that (and accept it's importance), a skeptic may take the road of just saying "my cite is better than your cite because it's science", which isn't going to help anything.

That's a fair criticism, and one that is burning up the Loose Change thread as we speak. The trouble is, what is to be done when the subject of debate (for example) is an enormously complex engineering problem, requiring specialized knowledge, tools, analysis, modeling, and access to physical evidence? Does it invalidate an argument to say that a professional engineer with access to those things is more qualified to offer an opinion than an armchair photogrammetrist with tinfoil on his head?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's a fair criticism, and one that is burning up the Loose Change thread as we speak. The trouble is, what is to be done when the subject of debate (for example) is an enormously complex engineering problem, requiring specialized knowledge, tools, analysis, modeling, and access to physical evidence? Does it invalidate an argument to say that a professional engineer with access to those things is more qualified to offer an opinion than an armchair photogrammetrist with tinfoil on his head?

If neither party can agree to a common third person as an authority on the subject, then you have reached an impasse, imho.

[gfunkusarelius]

ad hominem is the most common one i see around here. people often see someone who believes in religion or bigfoot, whatever, as being an idiot and many a skeptic has taken a cheap shot at someone arguing a point with them.

[dubfan]

If neither party can agree to a common third person as an authority on the subject, then you have reached an impasse, imho.

Right -- and this is the reason it's probably next to useless arguing with a CT. They don't trust anything, least of all anything that is tainted with the stain of "authority".

[sciguy]

So yes, some appeals to authority are more equal than others. :) Absolutely, but if the other side isn't aware or isn't informed of the underlying checks and balances on a given skeptical citation, from their point of view the skeptic is making a poor case.

Look at it this way:

You're walking through the desert, and come across two small (< 1 foot tall) pyramids. On the first is written "A is false..", on the other "A is true..". Curious, you dig down into the sand a bit around them.

Just below the sand on the first is written "John said so". On the second you read "James said so".

You dig some more, and on the first pyramid you reach the bottom. On the second, however, the writing goes on:

...who has been studying the field for B years.
...based on an experiment carried out with protocol P
...which was independently validated by X, Y, and Z
...consistent with known laws D, E, and F
...predicts additional phenomenon Q, which was confirmed by R using methodology S
...etc


Obviously, the second pyramid makes a much better argument for A being true than the first made for A being false. However, a debate must include that level of detail (in this analogy, by digging through the sand), either implicitly or explicitly, for the "authority" being quoted to be valid.

And, sadly, if no consensus can be reached on what constitutes "authority" (or "evidence" for that matter), then there can't be any real discussion, things will eventually devolve into the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" vs "Yuh-huh!"

And thus flamewars are born... ;)

[gnome]

I suspect sometimes detailed digging can be avoided by posing the hypothetical: "If I confirmed this by digging through footnotes and whatnot, would it change your mind?"... then if the other person says, "No, because..." it has been established that the accuracy of the facts to be researched are not an issue for them, and their objection is due to something else.

Of course, that won't stop them questioning the accuracy of those facts later, to confuse the issue.

[Hastur]

Remember, it's not an appeal to authority to say:
"Here is my argument [* * *]; Authority X agrees with me, saying [paraphrase with cite]."

[Hellbound]

I have to say that what people here are calling "Appeal to Authority" is not quite it.

Appeal to Authority should, more correctly, be labelled Appela to False Authority. It's when you cite someone who is not an authority, or cite an authority in one field to support a theory in an unrelated field. Examples are people quoting Einstein. Quoting Einstein on physics is not an Appeal to Authority...quoting Einstein on religion is.

Likewise, quoting Dawkins on Evolution is not an appeal to authority, but trying to take something he may have said about aerospace engineering and present it as evidence would be.

It is not a fallacy to quote a recognized expert concerning matters related to his field of expertise. It's when you try to use his expertise in one field to imply or presume expertise in others that it becomes a fallacy.

[Pardalis]

Could "I think, therefore I am" be a fallacy? Because you can't deny the existence of people, but alot of people don't use their capacity to think.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Right -- and this is the reason it's probably next to useless arguing with a CT. They don't trust anything, least of all anything that is tainted with the stain of "authority".

Yes, and no. If it is only, for example, geggy and I have discourse on the subject, then it would be a waste of time. I don't trust his CT website sources, and he doesn't trust the NIST report. If, however, their is a third-party observer, who may trust one source over the other, then the debate may still have merit.

ed: because spelling after midnight is _hard_

[Rasmus]

Could "I think, therefore I am" be a fallacy? Because you can't deny the existence of people, but alot of people don't use their capacity to think.

First of all, I can deny - or at least doubt- the existence of people. that kinda lies at the heart of "I think, therefore I am." and despite my failable knowledge of the world around me, it is possible for other entities to exist without exhibiting thought.

You're using backwards there:

If p then q. -> not-q, therefore not-p.

Of course I can't for the life of me remember the name of THAT fallacy.

Rasmus.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

First of all, I can deny - or at least doubt- the existence of people. that kinda lies at the heart of "I think, therefore I am." and despite my failable knowledge of the world around me, it is possible for other entities to exist without exhibiting thought.

You're using backwards there:

If p then q. -> not-q, therefore not-p.

Of course I can't for the life of me remember the name of THAT fallacy.

Rasmus.

Denying the antecedent
If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.

Denying the consequent
If P, then Q.
Q is false.
Therefore, P is false.

[Rasmus]

Denying the antecedent
If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.

Denying the consequent
If P, then Q.
Q is false.
Therefore, P is false.
Cheers!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Cheers!

Sláinte

[Pardalis]

I just thought

if P, then Q
is Q, then P?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I just thought

if P, then Q
is Q, then P?

Are you asking if P and Q are, in fact, identical? If so, no. In logical operators, iirc,
P → Q
P
⊢ Q

which is different from
P = Q

[Pardalis]

Are you asking if P and Q are, in fact, identical? If so, no. In logical operators, iirc,
P → Q
P
⊢ Q

which is different from
P = Q

(this is very interesting btw)

Is P=Q the same as Q=P ?

[Pardalis]

Or could

P → Q = Q → P ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or could

P → Q = Q → P ?

Yep, think of them as a truth table (<-> is the same as =)

p|q|p <-> q
-----------
T|T|T
T|F|F
F|T|F
F|F|T


which is different than the previous two fallacies which violate this truth table:

p|q|p -> q
----------
T|T|T
T|F|F
F|T|T
F|F|T



This is really causing me to dust off the old archives in my brain. Can't we talk about set math?

[Pardalis]

Yep, think of them as a truth table (<-> is the same as =)

p|q|p <-> q
-----------
T|T|T
T|F|F
F|T|F
F|F|T



I feel dizzy...;)

I'm not sure I understand. What is exactly p|q|p ?

[Elaedith]

Surely denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are fallacies.

Denying the consequent leads to a valid conclusion.

[Pardalis]

But could "I think" be the consequent of "I am"?

Could the assumption that thought is the proof of existence be a fallacy, since existence might as well exist without thought?

(I'm sorry if I don't make much sense, I'm a novice at these things ;))

edited for better English

[Rasmus]

But could "I think" be the consequent of "I am"?

Could the assumption that thought is the proof of existence be a fallacy, since existence might as well could exist without thought?

(I'm sorry if I don't make much sense, I'm a novice at these things ;)

Ah, in that case, you want to have a look at Descartes.

It's pretty much the idea from the Matrix-Movie: Since everything might be simulated, imagined or otherwise un-real you cannot be sure of the existance of anything. You might just be dreaming about reading this text on a screen that also is no more than a figment of your imagination ....

The only thing that you can be certain of, is that you are thinking. You are contemplating these words, without knowing if they are there at all, after all.

So, the entitiy that thinks is neccesarily you. You might be stored in goo in an energy plant, or you could be one of Dr. Hfuhruhurr brains, or maybe you're a green alien that is just having a weired dream. Whatever it is that creates the impression of the computer screen, it does create it within you, therefore you must exist.

That is all you can definitely know: You think, therefore you exist.

You might exist without thought - you wouldn't know about it, though.
you can never know what else exists, or if others think: Just because you imagine they exist and claim that you are thinking doesn't make it so. ;)

I hope oyu are now completely confused.

Rasmus.

[deBergerac]

This is not exactly a fallacy I find with all sceptics but more with a subgroup of sceptics

When it comes to religion I often feel that atheist use the straw man rhetoric. It might be only because I am not an atheist myself both often I feel that although well read on bible passages atheists has less knowledge of mainstream religious believes.

Please note that the fundamentalists are as strange to me as to any other sceptic or perhaps even more so, but often when I here atheist describe religion I fully agree with them that I would not want to believe in a god like that. Only problem is that I do not believe in a god like that, but many atheists seem to have a very fixed mind frame when it comes to what you have to believe in to be a Christian.

I think it is always important to actually listen to what the other person is saying before you start to argue. If you are only arguing against your own preconceived ideas of a person’s opinion it is no surprise if the person will only answer with a blank face.

[gruk]

(this is very interesting btw)

Is P=Q the same as Q=P ?

Normally, = is shorthand for an equivalence relation (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EquivalenceRelation.html) and they're symmetric, transitive and reflexive.

Symmetric:
A=B -> B=A

Reflexive:
A=A

Transitive:
A=B, B=C -> A=C

[Roboramma]

But could "I think" be the consequent of "I am"?

Could the assumption that thought is the proof of existence be a fallacy, since existence might as well exist without thought?
I don't see why it would be a fallacy - there might be existence without thought, but I don't know how there could be thought without existence.
And if that's true (it seems like it to be, since there very definition of there being something is that it exists, if there is thought, thought exists, which means something exists, and therefore there is "existence").

Anyway, if that's true, then "I think therefore I am" is a valid conclusion.

I think, though, that the problem lies in the word "I". What is "I"? Does "I" exist? If we are using "I think" to prove that "I" exist, we've already assumed our conclusion. Of course if I think I must exist, because I'm the one who's thinking. But can we take as a given that "I think"? I don't know.
Hammy likes to say, "thought exists". I think that's about as far as this argument can be taken, "there is a thing that we call thought, and it exists, though what "we" are, is hard to say."

Maybe I'm not making any sense...

[politas]

This is not exactly a fallacy I find with all sceptics but more with a subgroup of sceptics

When it comes to religion I often feel that atheist use the straw man rhetoric. It might be only because I am not an atheist myself both often I feel that although well read on bible passages atheists has less knowledge of mainstream religious believes.

Please note that the fundamentalists are as strange to me as to any other sceptic or perhaps even more so, but often when I here atheist describe religion I fully agree with them that I would not want to believe in a god like that. Only problem is that I do not believe in a god like that, but many atheists seem to have a very fixed mind frame when it comes to what you have to believe in to be a Christian.

So the impression of God to be gained by reading the bible is not the god you believe in? You're effectively cherry-picking which parts of the bible to believe in?

If so, you're in exactly the same position we are, except that atheists have less that we agree with in the bible.

[Roboramma]

So the impression of God to be gained by reading the bible is not the god you believe in? You're effectively cherry-picking which parts of the bible to believe in?

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as they don't think that the bible can tell them anything about god. The problem is those believers who pick and choose from the bible, but still somehow think that the bible is what's telling them about god, rather than their own predispositions.

[deBergerac]

So the impression of God to be gained by reading the bible is not the god you believe in? You're effectively cherry-picking which parts of the bible to believe in?

If so, you're in exactly the same position we are, except that atheists have less that we agree with in the bible.

Yes definitely. And most of those who call themselves Christians agree that there are a lot of different ways to interpret the Bible. Many also agree to that the bible was written by people, with all the faults people have. The bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.

My point is that it is then not very productive to argue against Christianity from the point that all Christians believe in every letter of the Bible. To keep to the topic of the tread, I find a common mistake is to have preconceived ideas about the other person’s believes. The example I use is just one I encounter frequently.

[brodski]

&quot;There's a million dollars here if you demonstrate your ability. What possible reason could you have for not applying, showing your ability, and gaining a cool million? Your ability (it is haughtily and chidingly implied) does not exist.&quot;

- Timothy
Can you tell me why this is a fallacy?

[Aepervius]

Can you tell me why this is a fallacy?

The falacy is to jump from "unwilling to desmonstrate X" to "X does not exist".

I am unwilling to demonstrate publicly (for example with photo of my male part) that I am of Male gender. Some do not want on this forum show their boob (wint, the fire, wink). The unwillingness to desmontrate does not mean she is not female, nor does it mean I am not male. Still the unwillingness to demonstrate can cast doubt on our respective geneder, since you have no proof of them :).

Hope this does not break rule 4, 6, 8 and whatnot.

[Gr8wight]

This is not exactly a fallacy I find with all sceptics but more with a subgroup of sceptics

When it comes to religion I often feel that atheist use the straw man rhetoric. It might be only because I am not an atheist myself both often I feel that although well read on bible passages atheists has less knowledge of mainstream religious believes.

Please note that the fundamentalists are as strange to me as to any other sceptic or perhaps even more so, but often when I here atheist describe religion I fully agree with them that I would not want to believe in a god like that. Only problem is that I do not believe in a god like that, but many atheists seem to have a very fixed mind frame when it comes to what you have to believe in to be a Christian.

I think it is always important to actually listen to what the other person is saying before you start to argue. If you are only arguing against your own preconceived ideas of a person’s opinion it is no surprise if the person will only answer with a blank face.

This is one of the traps I have found myself falling into in the past. I have made statements like, "Religious people believe X," only to hear from numerous people who tell me, "I believe in God, but I don't believe X."

That is part of why I started this thread. I am trying to learn how to recognise logical fallacies, not only when others use them, but also when I use them.

Further to your comments about atheists, I have talked to people who run the gammut from, "only people who believe exactly as I do will go to heaven," all the way to, "I believe that everyone, even sinners, will go to heaven." From a skeptical point of view, both of those views cannot be true.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I feel dizzy...;)

I'm not sure I understand. What is exactly p|q|p ?

There are three columns in the truth table
(1) p
(2) q
(3) p<->q (p implies q and q implies p, or p=q)

Then you go through each combination of True and False for p and q and evaluate p<->q

[deBergerac]

This is one of the traps I have found myself falling into in the past. I have made statements like, "Religious people believe X," only to hear from numerous people who tell me, "I believe in God, but I don't believe X."

That is part of why I started this thread. I am trying to learn how to recognise logical fallacies, not only when others use them, but also when I use them.

I have the same experience as you have and the only thing I can think of to do to avoid it is to actually listen to people first and then try to argue my point of view.
Though I am not actually sure if it is a fallacy since your arguing can be perfectly valid just not well aimed.
You are not necessarily making a mistake if you tell a person who believes in free energy engines that there are no support for the healing powers of crystals, the point is he probably does not care.



Further to your comments about atheists, I have talked to people who run the gammut from, "only people who believe exactly as I do will go to heaven," all the way to, "I believe that everyone, even sinners, will go to heaven." From a skeptical point of view, both of those views cannot be true.
Of course both viewpoints cannot be true. And personally I find it very unrewarding to talk about what is true concerning religious believes.
(Maybe God has one heaven for those who cannot stand people who have a different opinion and another heaven for reasonable people) :)

Actually he would need one separate heaven for each group of people who cannot stand people with a different opinion, based on their specific believes. Lumping them all together would probably be more like hell to them, unless they love to argue. ;)

[Stellafane]

I am unwilling to demonstrate publicly (for example with photo of my male part) that I am of Male gender.

Understandable...but would you do if for a million dollars?

[kitakaze]

ad hominem is the most common one i see around here. people often see someone who believes in religion or bigfoot, whatever, as being an idiot and many a skeptic has taken a cheap shot at someone arguing a point with them.Yes, and some are facetious and some just plain spaz. *cough* thaiboxerken *cough*

[Hellbound]

A note on ad hominem as well:

Ad Hominem is not just a fancy word for insults. Ad Hominem is discrediting the person, and using that as evidence the theory is discredited. Even discrediting the person is not, necesarily, a fallacy.

Example A, Ad Hominem:
Person A: WEll, Dr. Bob says that this is true, and he's an expert in the field! Here's a link to his research paper!
Person B: Yeah, well Dr. Bob was arrested last year for DUI, so he's obviously wrong.

Person B commited an Ad Hominem.

However, if the only evidence of the claim lies in ther persons word, then examination of relevant aspects of that person are no longer fallacious.

Example B, not Ad Hominem:
Person A: I saw a flying saucer last night!
Person B: Aren't you a habitual LSD user?
Person A: I still saw it!
Person B: Here's a link to a psychological report showing PErson A was diagnosed as a compulsive liar.

You can see the difference between these two, rather simple, examples.

Also note that Ad Hominem does not refer to insults, but only when the attacks on the person are used to discredit the argument.

Example C, not Ad Hominem:
Person A: I believe in fairies! They were photographed in England!
Person B: You know those photos have been shown to be fake, right? Here's a link to the investigation.
Person A: Oh, yeah, sure. I don't believe it, no matter what you say!
Person B: You;re an idiot.

That's not Ad Hominem, that's just a conclusion based on evidence.

:D

[Kimpatsu]

Actually, I'm all for it.

Oops, reread the OP -- thought it said "fellacious reasoning."
The way to test that is to suck it and see.
:D

[Kimpatsu]

Could "I think, therefore I am" be a fallacy? Because you can't deny the existence of people...
Solipsists do all the time.

[Dr B]

Regular discussion with Woo's nearly always reveals fallacies of logic, reason, biased habits of thought, engrained hueristics, and often delusion. It is crucial we get a full and proper understanding of them (how they occur, why they are persuasive, how to avoid them) rather than just document them (though of course, there is some overlap here) or point and laugh at people who have displayed these processes.

It is not enough to simply tell someone - you are wrong (though we should acknowledge it). To many Woo's - the rules of logic do not apply, and herein lies the problem.

Some argue that such thought is irrational, others that it is rational, just based on different premises (questionable ones) - a kind of special form of rational. However, this may not be the most important aspect to the debate.

Fallacies I have encountered the most in conversation and debate are (i) the absence of evidence carries the same weight as the presence of confirming evidence (wrong :D ), (ii) Science cannot explain everything (yeah, but that does not mean pseudoscience can explain anything....), (iii) science is limited (true - but that does not mean those limitations have any implications for the existence of the paranormal - a quite basic science of probability can be used to show ESP / PK, etc, if indeed if exists), (iv) science is closed-minded (oh really?), and the one I love is,..."well I am entitled to my opinion"......Indeed you are, but that has no bearing on its truth. Your entitlements are not in question, the evidence for the paranormal and provisional scientific truth is.

You are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to be wrong!!!!! :jaw-dropp

Is it me or are Woo's becoming worse? I kind of really enjoy looking at complicated silly reasoning of the big woo ideas from years ago. The more specific and scientific they try to be - the more they fall over and you can see they dont have a clue. Modern-day Woo's seem to have no argument and do not seem bothered by this fact.....hhhmmm:eye-poppi

[BlackCat]

This isn't really a logical fallacy, but I see it happen fairly often. Skeptics will take on a woo or fundie, and provide a slew of responses to the OP. Woo/fundie only has to pick and choose what they want to respond to, usually easy questions, and forgets the rest. Skeptics will rush in and provide another slew of responses. Rinse and repeat.

I know that everyone wants to voice their opinion, that's why this happens, but in a way, it's counter-productive, because it becomes difficult to force the woo/fundie to answer specific questions.

Not fallacious reasoning, but something that skeptics do.

BlackCat

[rwguinn]

This isn't really a logical fallacy, but I see it happen fairly often. Skeptics will take on a woo or fundie, and provide a slew of responses to the OP. Woo/fundie only has to pick and choose what they want to respond to, usually easy questions, and forgets the rest. Skeptics will rush in and provide another slew of responses. Rinse and repeat.

I know that everyone wants to voice their opinion, that's why this happens, but in a way, it's counter-productive, because it becomes difficult to force the woo/fundie to answer specific questions.

Not fallacious reasoning, but something that skeptics do.

BlackCat
That is in large part the reason I have pretty much ceased posting on the "loose scre... er, um ...change" thread.
Although I have a great deal of experience in "how things break" and why, the loosers don't want to hear or respond to it. My expertise is documented-proven-I took and passed the 8 hour professional engineers exam, as administered on a National level, along with 30 years as a loads, stress, and structural dynamics engineer.
Gravy has take the point over there, and I assume if he needs expert opinion I am capable of giving, he'll ask.

The big thing woo's forget (or ignore) about science is that you don't have to know how it works right away. You do have to show that it works--more than once, and consistently.

[gnome]

Of course both viewpoints cannot be true. And personally I find it very unrewarding to talk about what is true concerning religious believes.
(Maybe God has one heaven for those who cannot stand people who have a different opinion and another heaven for reasonable people) :)

I can't stand people who can't stand people who have a different opinion, I don't think they deserve heaven. :D

Actually he would need one separate heaven for each group of people who cannot stand people with a different opinion, based on their specific believes. Lumping them all together would probably be more like hell to them, unless they love to argue. ;)

And as you pass this room, be VERY quiet, please folks. They think they're the only ones here.

[Aepervius]

Understandable...but would you do if for a million dollars?

Most certainly. With notoriarised affidavit, and 5 willing witness. Fotographied under all angle (with a wide lens naturally :):)).

But then again some would not do it for 1000000 dollar. So unwillingness still does not prove inexistence.

ETA : In my case the willingness only proves I am a greedy shameless guy.

[Dr B]

I disagree somewhat with the suggestion it is not a fallacy of reason - it is. It is a fallacy and a mistake to recruit your right to an opinion in an attempt to establish it's truth or provide evidential support for it. Maybe I should have made that last bit more specific ;)

That is how certain people use the entitlement argument - as a form of empirical support almost. So to me it is a fallacy of reason - though perhaps not a fallacy of pure logic per-se. Either way, it is a fallacy as recruiting your rights does nothing to establish its truth - yet Woo's think it does.

As long as you do not recruit it as support for your argument - there is no fallacy. When we discuss science and truth - your personal human rights to opinions is not in question.

[rwguinn]

I disagree somewhat with the suggestion it is not a fallacy of reason - it is. It is a fallacy and a mistake to recruit your right to an opinion in an attempt to establish it's truth or provide evidential support for it. Maybe I should have made that last bit more specific ;)

That is how certain people use the entitlement argument - as a form of empirical support almost. So to me it is a fallacy of reason - though perhaps not a fallacy of pure logic per-se. Either way, it is a fallacy as recruiting your rights does nothing to establish its truth - yet Woo's think it does.

As long as you do not recruit it as support for your argument - there is no fallacy. When we discuss science and truth - your personal human rights to opinions is not in question.

As I once told a an Air Force Lt. --" If your background is not in structural dynamics and analysis, you are not entitled to an opinion on this"
Ther are certain issues and occurences that are not subject to opinion. 2+2=4 in decimal notation is one such. Whether the woos or even the skeptic community cares for it or not, there are things for which wishful thinking and wanting things otherwise do not carry any weight whatsoever.
The biggest fallacy I see is arguing from a semantic point. Quite often 2 folks are saying the exact same thing, yet get into a knock-down-drag-out over the meaning of the word "is" (generically speaking, of course) Cough cough ***CF Larsen**cough...

[Dr B]

Ah I see what you mean and totally agree. I think I am making a different point however. Nontheless very interesting stuff.

I am not talking about facts so established it would be stupid to have an 'opinion' on them that was different to the fact itself.

I am talking aboout merely recruiting your entitlement to an opinion, as defense and support of it (no more no less).

Nice suggestions though and lots to think about - as you say, we may be repeating oursleves here.....;)

[Red Siegfried]

I don't know about anyone else but I'll show anyone mine for a cool million.

Does that make me a whore? And is that a bad thing? :)

[luchog]

Yet, it is possible for both sides of an argument to fall into the trap of using a logical fallacy, and we must always guard against unwittingly using them ourselves. What are some of the arguments you have heard skeptics use that were fallacious in nature?

Edited to add: On any skeptical topic, not just religion.
Well, there's one well-known "skeptic" on this board who is particularly fond of argumentum ad ignorantum, special pleading, appeal to authority, cherry-picking, and false dichotomy. These seem to be common traps for skeptics to fall into, particularly appeal to authority and argumentum ad ignorantum. Argumentum ad persecutam seems to make a too-frequent appearance as well; particularly among the more militant atheists.

[Stellafane]

But then again some would not do it for 1000000 dollar. So unwillingness still does not prove inexistence...

True, but when the person in question claims a particular ability (for example, being psychic) and charges people for the service, and yet that person refuses to be tested for a million dollars even though all they need to do to win is demonstrate the ability they claim to exhibit every day, I believe it's very justified and logical to conclude that person is a knowing fake.

[Stellafane]

I don't know about anyone else but I'll show anyone mine for a cool million.

Does that make me a whore? And is that a bad thing? :)

As GB Shaw (supposedly) once demonstrated, we are all whores, it's just a matter of price.

[Gr8wight]

Well, there's one well-known "skeptic" on this board who is particularly fond of argumentum ad ignorantum, special pleading, appeal to authority, cherry-picking, and false dichotomy. These seem to be common traps for skeptics to fall into, particularly appeal to authority and argumentum ad ignorantum. Argumentum ad persecutam seems to make a too-frequent appearance as well; particularly among the more militant atheists.

Could you give some examples? Not specific examples, of course, but general examples which illustrate how a skeptic might employ those fallacies.

[Morrigan]

A note on ad hominem as well:

Ad Hominem is not just a fancy word for insults. Ad Hominem is discrediting the person, and using that as evidence the theory is discredited. Even discrediting the person is not, necesarily, a fallacy.

True, many make this mistake. Calling someone an idiot is an insult, but is not necessarily an ad hominem. If I say "your argument is wrong *because* you're an idiot", then it's an ad hominem. Your argument could be true, and you could still be an idiot. :D But saying "your argument is wrong, AND by the way you're an idiot", that's not an ad hominem, that's just being mean. :)

Of course, I am using the impersonal you here. :)

[articulett]

We are all familiar with many of the logical fallacies that are used to support beliefs. I have recently engaged in discussions with several people about religion, and been hit with some of the most popular in that field, like:


or



Yet, it is possible for both sides of an argument to fall into the trap of using a logical fallacy, and we must always guard against unwittingly using them ourselves. What are some of the arguments you have heard skeptics use that were fallacious in nature?

Edited to add: On any skeptical topic, not just religion.

I got these fabulous example of fallacious arguments from another website--
300 reasons God exists:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(Skeptics may be a godless minority, but our intelligence, irreverance, and fabulous senses of humor cannot be surpassed).

[articulett]

Well, there's one well-known "skeptic" on this board who is particularly fond of argumentum ad ignorantum, special pleading, appeal to authority, cherry-picking, and false dichotomy. These seem to be common traps for skeptics to fall into, particularly appeal to authority and argumentum ad ignorantum. Argumentum ad persecutam seems to make a too-frequent appearance as well; particularly among the more militant atheists.


You know skeptics prefer concrete examples. If there is something to be learned or a valid view or "truth" you would like to explore or innuendo you want to make, it helps to be specific and give examples. Otherwise it sounds like: "atheists are mean". A valid opinion, but just an opinion...ultimately unproductive in furthering knowledge or understanding. I might be one of the militant atheists per your definition...or I might have an opinion as to who you are referring to. I might see things differently or learn something about how you see things. Without further examples, I shall conclude that you're pulling your view straight out of your arse--your feelings are hurt because someone doesn't believe in YOUR god (which is the real true one, of course--everyone knows Scientology is whacked and those Muslims are extreme...).

[Pyrrho]

Well, there's one well-known "skeptic" on this board who is particularly fond of argumentum ad ignorantum, special pleading, appeal to authority, cherry-picking, and false dichotomy. These seem to be common traps for skeptics to fall into, particularly appeal to authority and argumentum ad ignorantum. Argumentum ad persecutam seems to make a too-frequent appearance as well; particularly among the more militant atheists.

Could you give some examples? Not specific examples, of course, but general examples which illustrate how a skeptic might employ those fallacies.

Appeal to Ignorance: "We don't know if psychic powers exist, therefore they do not exist."

Special Pleading: "We're skeptics, so we shouldn't be criticized for fallacious reasoning."

Appeal to Authority: "Big Name Skeptic X says it isn't so, so it isn't so."

Never heard of argumentum ad persecutam, but I'd guess it would go something like this: "Skepticism has many enemies, therefore we are right."

[Ladewig]

True, but when the person in question claims a particular ability (for example, being psychic) and charges people for the service, and yet that person refuses to be tested for a million dollars even though all they need to do to win is demonstrate the ability they claim to exhibit every day, I believe it's very justified and logical to conclude that person is a knowing fake.

Exactly, many of these people do it on TV everyday or do it on TV every time Larry King invites them to do so or construct websites devoted to describing in great detail how and how often they do it. The photograph analogy fails.