Wanted: Logical Fallacy Examples

[Anti-sophist]

The original idea started off as a critique of intelligent design and a paper on the philosophical underpinnings of science and the scientific method. (The short version is that scientific notions are fundamentally unprovable, therefore scientific notions are never proven and are never "fact"). In the original argument, I reason that some "fallacies" have usefulness and some don't. Fallacies are useful when conclusions drawn are "more likely" to be true, on average. Since science cannot prove anything formally, it uses many of these "useful" fallacies to maximize the probability of being correct (think peer-review).

While working on it, I realized how similar the issues were with conspiracy theories, and have become really active in reading alot to get a feel for how they present arguments.

Keep in mind, by and large, I'm most interested in how facts get pinned together to form conclusions. I know you guys have enough problems just getting the facts right with CTers, but I still hope this proves an interesting read.

I'm really looking to fill in gaps with common CTer topics and/or techniques. If you have any "classic" CT lines that fit well that I could include, I'd really appreciate it.


Appeal to Intuition

Event X doesn't seem be explained by A.
Therefore, A is false.

Fallacy: The fallacy of 'appeal to intuition' is claiming that something is true because of your intuition. This is almost always used when intuition is used as a substitute for proof. Intuition should always be the start of research, not the end.

Value: Intuition is a very powerful mental heuristic. The reason we trust our intuition is because it is right far more often than it is wrong. Many situations, however, occur that do not follow our intuitions. For this reason, intuition alone is insufficient as proof. Used as a heuristic, intuition is an excellent tool. Almost all of science is based on using intuition as a starting point for research. However any convincing argument must be based on evidence beyond intuition. In general, the more experience someone has with a particular area, the better their intuition will be about this event. Experts in a particular field (those with alot of experience) tend to have better intuition than "lay-people" for events that occur in that particular field.

Common (incorrect) Appeal to Intuition Claims:
"The building didn't put up any resistance. Just LOOK at it!"
"The building fell too fast... I mean, if it wasn't demolished, it should have taken longer"
"How can 19 Arabs in caves kill 3000 people?"
"Doesn't this look just like a controlled demolition?"
"There's no way a plane could bring down a building..."
"How can a plane crashing straight down send debris 9 miles away?"
"Back, and to the right" (the classic, from JFK)


Appeal to Authority (Experts)
Dr. A is an expert.
Dr. A says X.
Therefore, X is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to authority comes in two very different varieties. The first is an appeal to authority's intuition or opinion, and the second is an appeal to authority's analysis. Please note, that appealing to an authorities intuition actually introduces two propositions to a system: (1) person A is an expert (2) person A believes X. Keep in mind that (2) is just an appeal-to-intuition, and (1) can very easily be a false premise (philosophically, this is a sticky question, still, because 'expertness' is very subjective).

Value: Appealing to authoritative intuition is just another Appeal to Intuition, with the knowledge that experts in a particular field likely have better intuition. It is important to distinguish that case from expert analysis. Appealing to authoritative analysis is not, in and of itself, a logical fallacy. The worth of this type of argument is as good as the analysis. In these situations, it's almost never incorrect to "appeal to authority". The quality of the analysis determines the value of the argument. Appealing to fallacious analysis, obviously, would be fallacy.


Appeal to the Majority (and sophistry)
It's commonly believed that A is true.
Therefore, A is true.

Fallacy: This doesn't come up often in the egregious form, but a specific flavor often does. Sophistry is using an argument or debate not to find or persuade towards the truth, but to persuade the crowd. Sophist reasoning is based upon using subtle fallacies and preying on the weakness of the crowd to gather support through fallacious means. Sophistry is about arguing to convince people, as opposed to get at the truth. Some of the classic hallmarks of sophistry: changing the subject quickly, misquoting, leaving out relevant details, and statistical fallacies. Changing the subject is the most common sophistry technique: You hit with a detail, and once the slightest weakness is raised in that detail, you move to the next detail. The Sophist will never allow the conversation to dwell on a single detail because none of them, individually, are strong (or even correct), but the overall impression to an observer is much more powerful than the sum of the individual parts necessarily dictate.

Value: The number of people (especially experts) who believe a particular theory IS of value. However, it is not proof. In a philosophical sense, absolutely none of science is provably true (we call the branch of knowledge of things that are provably true "mathematics"). As such, consensus of experts has been the de facto "truth" for centuries in science. That is not to say that all of science is based on fallacy, because good science does not assert its knowledge as "truth" but as "useful". In this sense, it is safe scientifically, to claim that consensus of experts is a very weighty argument. Many of the same rules apply, however, in the heuristic sense. Experts are better than laypeople, analysis is better than intuition, and consensus is better than individuals. Many experts with agreeing analysis is the highest scientific models can ever truly achieve. On the opposite end of the spectrum, is a single lay-person's intuition.

"Everyone knows..."
"Everyone here agrees..."
"38% of Americans..."
All forms of pandering to a crowd...



Circular Reasoning
Presuppose A
Events X, Y, and Z all appear to fit with A
Therefore, A is true

Fallacy: In the "positive" direction, Circular reasoning is a very dangerous fallacy. You can, obviously, prove virtually anything is true, if you presuppose some form of it. Virtually ALL conspiracy theories hinge upon circular reasoning. You must presuppose a conspiracy in order to use that conspiracy to discount evidence that doesn't fit the conspiracy. Also, circular reasoning in the "positive" reinforcement mode is almost always tied with circumstantial evidence. If you presuppose a conspiracy, then no evidence is "circumstantial" or "coincidental". Often someone using this fallacy will ask questions that presuppose things that are subtle.

Value: It should be noted that the "negative" direction of circular reasoning is not fallacious. In fact, it is very useful and very powerful (and used very often in science, and mathematics in the form of an indirect proof). In this sense, you presuppose A, and show that events X, Y, and Z do not fit with A, therefore A must be false. Circular reasoning, therefore, is useful for eliminating theories, but never for validating them.

"Shouldn't we find out who gave the tip to the investor to SELL on AA stock?" (Presupposing a tip)
"Why else would they run a drill on the day of the attack?" (Presupposing a reason)
"The NIST report? More government propaganda"
"The government made CNN change (correct) the story."
"And why should I believe the FBI?"
"How do I know those photos weren't doctored?"
"You obviously believe everything the government tells you"

[MG1962]

I like pretty much like your whole arguement - However the idea that scientific notion ca never attain the status of fact doesn't sit well with me

Example I have a notion that sea water is more boyant than fresh.

Take fresh water - test boyancy

Take salt water - test boyancy

Compare results for confirmation :)

[jhunter1163]

Oh, where to begin with this?

My favorite is the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, which CTists use with great elan:

B followed A.
Therefore A caused B.

This assumes that A and B are completely insulated from any outside influence. Much like CTists themselves.

[Oliver]

I´m not sure if i translated your message the right way:

Could you make some common examples to "Logical Fallacy Examples" so i may try to help you finding some?

[Anti-sophist]

Oh, where to begin with this?

My favorite is the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, which CTists use with great elan:

B followed A.
Therefore A caused B.

This assumes that A and B are completely insulated from any outside influence. Much like CTists themselves.

Oh, there was no doubt it was making it in. I was considering having an entire section based on statistical fallacies which I was going to include this one (it's a flavor of correletation implies causality). They also use false precision, biased samples, and the texas sharpshooter fallacy with great effort.


Example I have a notion that sea water is more boyant than fresh.

Take fresh water - test boyancy

Take salt water - test boyancy

Compare results for confirmation :)


If you really want to have this conversation, I will, but it might belong in a different thread. Heh. The gist of it is, yes, that 5 seconds ago, the object floated better in salt water, but what gaurentees do you have it will float better 5 seconds from now? If we examine the reasons you believe this "fact" holds into the future, you'll find that you, yourself, haven't personally verified every single thing you believe to be true.

[Oliver]

Is this a similar issue like the ones that came up in this threads?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64496
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63849

I guess boyancy means buoyancy - this is what makes some discussions hard to understand - some missspelling and i can not translate the whole issue. :blush: But i guess it´s a similar issue then the discussions in my mentioned discussions.

[MG1962]

If you really want to have this conversation, I will, but it might belong in a different thread. Heh. The gist of it is, yes, that 5 seconds ago, the object floated better in salt water, but what gaurentees do you have it will float better 5 seconds from now? If we examine the reasons you believe this "fact" holds into the future, you'll find that you, yourself, haven't personally verified every single thing you believe to be true.

Well for mine - Why wouldn't I just retest it in 5 seconds. Over time you are going to build data that suggests it is improbable that the solution is going change. Therefore rather than belief it becomes a matter of prediction or experience.

I get concerned when I see believe and facts getting mixed in the same sentence. And this is a favorite tactic of the CT - they seem to need you to believe a position, rather than weighing the evidence.

If you applied Ozrams razor to most of these arguements, they would fail badly.

[Oliver]

Let´s try it the "Ozrams razor"-way...

Theorist:

"Just look at the collapse of building seven. It´s so obvious that it was a controlled demolition."

Your argument against this statement?:


___________________________

[Foolmewunz]

Let´s try it the "Ozrams razor"-way...

Theorist:

"Just look at the collapse of building seven. It´s so obvious that it was a controlled demolition."

Your argument against this statement?:


___________________________

This could be a language issue. The discusssion is on 'debating and logic'. A logical fallacy is explained well at the below link. What is being examined is how to categorize the basic "truths" the CTers are espousing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

(It's not just a mental exercise. Being able to pinpoint the type of fallacy or propaganda your opponent is using is a great shortcut to derailing him. See LL's final thrashing of TS1234 in the now locked string for a GREAT EXAMPLE.)

[Oliver]

This could be a language issue. The discusssion is on 'debating and logic'. A logical fallacy is explained well at the below link. What is being examined is how to categorize the basic "truths" the CTers are espousing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

(It's not just a mental exercise. Being able to pinpoint the type of fallacy or propaganda your opponent is using is a great shortcut to derailing him. See LL's final thrashing of TS1234 in the now locked string for a GREAT EXAMPLE.)

Thank you, Foolmewunz. :) Im studying the german "( lat: ) fallacia" entry at Wiki right now and the "TS1234"-example you refer too, also.

[Anti-sophist]

Well for mine - Why wouldn't I just retest it in 5 seconds. Over time you are going to build data that suggests it is improbable that the solution is going change. Therefore rather than belief it becomes a matter of prediction or experience.

Repeatability does not imply truth. Let me explain it in a different way and show how a similiarly abused fallacy is used by CTers.

When you do a boyancy experiment, you test it under many conditions, and when you make a statement like "Saltwater is more buyoant than fresh water" you are also implying "under certain conditions". Every experiment ever conducted has (presumably) been done with a constant gravitational field, with specific physical constants defining the 4 forces, in certain temperature and pressure ranges. All of these conditions are implied in your statement. And for every implied assumption I can think of, there are probably 5 more that I'm not thinking of. These assumptions are all reasonably safe, but they are there. Therefore, your statement is overly general and can be misused by someone who doesn't understand the underlying assumptions.

The issue comes from extrapolating beyond the totality of the conditions done in experiment. Have you ever done a bouyancy test in a non-constant gravitational field? Has anyone? It's much safer to make predictions under conditions similar to those that have been tested (interpolation).


From a CTist perspective, take the following statement:
A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire.

I don't know if this statement is actually true, but for the sake of discussion, I accept it as true. This statement is logically identical to "Saltwater is more boyant than freshwater". Both have been tested under specific conditions, a specific amount of times. Just as a non-uniform gravitational field would make a boyancy experiment unique, so are the conditions of the fire at the world trade center.

As a side note, that statement suffers from a statistical fallacy, as well. The "steel frame" comment is meant as a restiction on the "set of all buildings". This is done on purpose because it fits the conclusion being drawn.
WTC1 was a steel frame building (True)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire (True, for the sake of disc.)
Therefore, the WTC1 did not collapse due to fire (Fallacy)


Identical logic:
WTC1 was a building over X feet tall. (True)
No building over X feet tall has ever been demolished. (True)
Therefore, WTC1 was not demolished. (Same fallacy).


Both of these conclusions are based on a misuse of the middle statement. The middle statement is a statistical fallacy of (artifically) restricting a particular set to find a correlation, and then implying causation. Essentially, you restrict the set to fit the conclusion you want to draw.

[David Wong]

Oh, where to begin with this?

My favorite is the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, which CTists use with great elan:

B followed A.
Therefore A caused B.



"Teen kills girlfriend after playing Grand Theft Auto."

[HappyCat]

One I hear alot is affirming the consequent. Such as, if P then Q. Q is true, so therefore P is true. You can dispel this fallacy easily by giving the example "If it is raining, then it is cloudy. It is cloudy, therefore it is raining."

Here is a CT example. They constantly cite explosions in the WTC as proof that the WTC had bombs in it. It goes "If there are bombs in the WTC, then we will hear explosions. We hear explosions, therefore there are bombs in the WTC". This simply does not work.

(It's not just a mental exercise. Being able to pinpoint the type of fallacy or propaganda your opponent is using is a great shortcut to derailing him. See LL's final thrashing of TS1234 in the now locked string for a GREAT EXAMPLE.)
I am interested in reading this. Can you please provide a link? I can't find what you are referring to.

[Oliver]

One I hear alot is affirming the consequent. Such as, if P then Q. Q is true, so therefore P is true. You can dispel this fallacy easily by giving the example "If it is raining, then it is cloudy. It is cloudy, therefore it is raining."

Here is a CT example. They constantly cite explosions in the WTC as proof that the WTC had bombs in it. It goes "If there are bombs in the WTC, then we will hear explosions. We hear explosions, therefore there are bombs in the WTC". This simply does not work.


I am interested in reading this. Can you please provide a link? I can't find what you are referring to.

It´s this thread, HappyCat:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64540&page=12

[slingblade]

If you applied Ozrams razor to most of these arguements, they would fail badly.


Not Ozram.

Ockham or Occam's Razor (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html):

A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are faced with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in-depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct; it merely establishes priorities.

A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''.

Actually, I prefer that last as Heinlein's Razor: "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."

[Wowbagger]

One mnemonic device for remembering logical fallacies is to put them together into a sentence.

No true Scotsman would offer a false choice to a straw man on a slippery slope!

In case you are unfamiliar with the above fallacies, I will offer an example of each:

No True Scotsman: "No truly patriotic American would challenge what our President says." (No need to explain why this is a fallacious argument, I hope.)

False Choice: "We must either spend money to solve global warming OR spend it to increase the number of jobs in the country." This is a false choice, because comprehensive solutions can be developed to resolve both problems.

Straw Man: "Evolution is a myth, because if we came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any monkeys around." I should not have to explain this one, either, but for those of you just joining us: It is a straw man because evolutionary theory has determined that modern monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor, that no longer exists in its ancestral form.

Slippery Slope: "If we allow gays to marry, then next we will allow rapists to rape and murderers to murder people." Obviously, this is wrong because murder and rape are crimes. Consensual love is the exact opposite of a crime.

Perhaps my examples are not relevant to conspiracy theories. (They were examples I was working on for my own writing), but I hope this helps, at least a little.

[MarkyX]

Let´s try it the "Ozrams razor"-way...

Theorist:

"Just look at the collapse of building seven. It´s so obvious that it was a controlled demolition."

Your argument against this statement?:


___________________________

All controlled demolitions have a series of flashes, loud bangs, and large number of squibs before the collapse. These are traits of a controlled demolition, but they are absent in the case of WTC7.

Not sure if Occam's razor applies here, but it does make a more sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

false dichotomy is another big CT fallacy

if F77 didnt hit the pentagon it must have been a missile

if the fires in WTC7 werent that bad it must have been CD

if the towers didnt collapse because the plane damage and fires, the govt must have blown them up

if larry wasnt talking abou tpulling the firefighters he must have been ordering a demolition

and so on and so forth

[einsteen]

All controlled demolitions have a series of flashes, loud bangs, and large number of squibs before the collapse. These are traits of a controlled demolition, but they are absent in the case of WTC7.


I've googled my ass off but here is some interesting stuff

1min30 , windows off, shockwave etc http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_cop.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv

http://loosechange.markblu.net/NEW_911_Eyewitness_Building7.mp3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1857737024722850596

[HappyCat]

I've googled my ass off but here is some interesting stuff

1min30 , windows off, shockwave etc http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_cop.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv

http://loosechange.markblu.net/NEW_911_Eyewitness_Building7.mp3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1857737024722850596
I am confused about what you are trying to show here. You are linking to CT websites, and you seem to be trying to refute the idea that:
All controlled demolitions have a series of flashes, loud bangs, and large number of squibs before the collapse. These are traits of a controlled demolition, but they are absent in the case of WTC7.
yet in these videos I see no flashes, nor do I see a large number of squibs. I hear people talking about loud bangs, yet I don't hear any on the video (although I am willing to accept that is because the video is not accompanied by good audio). Can you please clarify what you are trying to show? If you have come here to support the CT that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then I would say that a thread on logical fallacies is the correct place to be ;)

[einsteen]

Cattie, they are videos from TV channels, it's irrelevant where they are hosted.

Logical Fallacy... Anti-Sophist tries to disprove wtc7 CD with this example:

WTC1 was a steel frame building (True)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire (True, for the sake of disc.)
Therefore, the WTC1 did not collapse due to fire (Fallacy)

But he doesn't disprove it, Logically he is right that if a steel frame building collapsed due to fire these are the 3 exceptions and we should add these 3 to the possibilities, but the misstake is that it first should be proven that it collapses due to fire, that's a vague hypothesis.

[defaultdotxbe]

Cattie, they are videos from TV channels, it's irrelevant where they are hosted.

Logical Fallacy... Anti-Sophist tries to disprove wtc7 CD with this example:

WTC1 was a steel frame building (True)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire (True, for the sake of disc.)
Therefore, the WTC1 did not collapse due to fire (Fallacy)

But he doesn't disprove it, Logically he is right that if a steel frame building collapsed due to fire these are the 3 exceptions and we should add these 3 to the possibilities, but the misstake is that it first should be proven that it collapses due to fire, that's a vague hypothesis.
i think im goign to just stop trying to makes sense of your posts

[HappyCat]

Cattie, they are videos from TV channels, it's irrelevant where they are hosted.

Logical Fallacy... Anti-Sophist tries to disprove wtc7 CD with this example:

WTC1 was a steel frame building (True)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire (True, for the sake of disc.)
Therefore, the WTC1 did not collapse due to fire (Fallacy)

But he doesn't disprove it, Logically he is right that if a steel frame building collapsed due to fire these are the 3 exceptions and we should add these 3 to the possibilities, but the misstake is that it first should be proven that it collapses due to fire, that's a vague hypothesis.
I do not think he was trying to disprove CD, he was just saying that whether or not a steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire has no effect on whether or not wtc7 collapsed due to fire. It is not logically sound to say that "no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire before wtc7, wtc7 was steel frame, therefore wtc7 did not collapse due to fire". It is also not sound to conclude the opposite: "no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire before wtc7, wtc7 was steel frame, therefore wtc7 is an exception and is the first to collapse due to fire". There are no logical conclusions which can be drawn regarding the destruction of wtc7 given only that before wtc7 no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire.

[defaultdotxbe]

WTC1 was a steel frame building (True)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire (True, for the sake of disc.)
Therefore, the WTC1 did not collapse due to fire (Fallacy)


i believe the appropriate response ot this is "theres a first time for everything"

[Bell]

Before or after August 1945 no city was ever destroyed by an atomic bomb. Therefor Hiroshima and Nagasaki where destroyed by controled demolitions.

[MG1962]

When you do a boyancy experiment, you test it under many conditions, and when you make a statement like "Saltwater is more buyoant than fresh water" you are also implying "under certain conditions". Every experiment ever conducted has (presumably) been done with a constant gravitational field, with specific physical constants defining the 4 forces, in certain temperature and pressure ranges. All of these conditions are implied in your statement

Okay got it. You are refering to ideas becoming scientific law. Then using them out of context to prove something else.

And sorry for miss spelling buoyancy :(

[einsteen]

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~liz/images/cartoon_penguin_logic.gif

[MG1962]

Let´s try it the "Ozrams razor"-way...

Theorist:

"Just look at the collapse of building seven. It´s so obvious that it was a controlled demolition."

Your argument against this statement?:


Sure - "Truther theory" has a number of people setting enough charges in 7 hours to bring a 47 story building down. This has to be done in secret. It is experimental because such a tall structure has not be attempted before. It then has to be in such a way as to look an accident, Finally mechanisms need to be in place to avoid accidental or intentional disclosure by anyone involved

With the "Official" theory - for want of a better word. The building was damaged by falling debris, combined with the outbreak of extensive fires weakened the structure to the point of collapse.

Once we have the official NIST report we can see how deep the razor then cuts. Example if it takes a 100 pages of calculations to explain, but the CD take 3 pages of calculations - the razor swings back the other way.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Hmmm, I wonder what method police detectives and prosecutors use?

[MG1962]

Or we can go with the classic Chinese puzzle. Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes, a white animal with black stripes. Or an invisible animal with black and white stripes

[defaultdotxbe]

Or we can go with the classic Chinese puzzle. Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes, a white animal with black stripes. Or an invisible animal with black and white stripes

Gould, S. J. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould) (1983) Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
In particular refer to Chapter 29: How the Zebra Gets Its Stripes. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for black with white stripes, rather than white with black stripes comes from abnormal zebras where the 'stripes' form as dots and blotches rather than lines. These appear as white blotches on a black background, which is only understandable if it is normally a black animal with white stripes.


hope i didnt totally disillusion someone there, lol

[MG1962]

Hmmm, I wonder what method police detectives and prosecutors use?


A very good point. And the Hawthorn effect promises each will put their there own spin on evidence. I would suggest that this is the reason for the Judicial system being what it is. To attempt to put checks and balances in place, so that presumption doesn't overide facts

[MG1962]

One for the WTC

No intact toilet bowls where found from either building

The NIST does not explain why this was

Therefore the explosive charges must have been placed in the toilet bowls

or

The collapse of the building was caused by damage to the toilet bowls

[einsteen]

Or we can go with the classic Chinese puzzle. Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes, a white animal with black stripes. Or an invisible animal with black and white stripes

No it is a yellow-skinned animal with red hair that has been paint in black and white

[MG1962]

Gould, S. J. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould) (1983) Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
In particular refer to Chapter 29: How the Zebra Gets Its Stripes.

Which proves (Using CT logic) That the Chinese commumists had Gould killed because he ruined their really cool puzzle!

[GlennB]

Appeal to the Majority (and sophistry)
It's commonly believed that A is true.
Therefore, A is true.

Fallacy: This doesn't come up often in the egregious form, but a specific flavor often does. Sophistry is using an argument or debate not to find or persuade towards the truth, but to persuade the crowd. Sophist reasoning is based upon using subtle fallacies and preying on the weakness of the crowd to gather support through fallacious means. Sophistry is about arguing to convince people, as opposed to get at the truth. Some of the classic hallmarks of sophistry: changing the subject quickly, misquoting, leaving out relevant details, and statistical fallacies. Changing the subject is the most common sophistry technique: You hit with a detail, and once the slightest weakness is raised in that detail, you move to the next detail. The Sophist will never allow the conversation to dwell on a single detail because none of them, individually, are strong (or even correct), but the overall impression to an observer is much more powerful than the sum of the individual parts necessarily dictate.


(My bolding)

Eyup A-s. We've met over on the UK forum, where I'm Ignatz.

On that forum, chek is a stunning example of the bit bolded up there in your post. Won't stand still for a moment, and a classic case of "multiple outs". Unfortunately for him/her there's not much majority to appeal to, except the one in his head. Which is probably quite a powerful crowd.

I might also suggest that chek's endless attempts to encourage unwitting agreement could also be classed as sophistry.

p.s. your last comment over there about "case closed" really hit my funnybone :)

All the best

GB

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, we have our own sophistry poster boy - TS1234.

What interests me, in terms of logic, is whether they are conscious of this or just following their instincts. i.e. .... Do "chek" and "Truthseeker1234" know they're being sophists? Are they really appealing to crowd sentiment, or are they just grasping at logical straws, trying to win points, and sophistry is the easiest device? I find it hard to believe that TS, for instance, really thinks he's swaying anyone with his constant dodging of his own questions, starting new threads, changing of conditions, etc.... (I don't know "chek", so can't include him in the question other than from your references.)

I'm sure TS has read enough that he knows what sophistry is, but I'm equally sure he has no idea that he's defining the type. The great telltale sign of a sophist is their assumption (declaration) that they will show the world how brilliant they are by shredding your own pitiful logic into pieces. TS has stated this objective repeatedly.

[GlennB]

Oh, we have our own sophistry poster boy - TS1234.

What interests me, in terms of logic, is whether they are conscious of this or just following their instincts. i.e. .... Do "chek" and "Truthseeker1234" know they're being sophists? Are they really appealing to crowd sentiment, or are they just grasping at logical straws, trying to win points, and sophistry is the easiest device? I find it hard to believe that TS, for instance, really thinks he's swaying anyone with his constant dodging of his own questions, starting new threads, changing of conditions, etc.... (I don't know "chek", so can't include him in the question other than from your references.)

I'm sure TS has read enough that he knows what sophistry is, but I'm equally sure he has no idea that he's defining the type. The great telltale sign of a sophist is their assumption (declaration) that they will show the world how brilliant they are by shredding your own pitiful logic into pieces. TS has stated this objective repeatedly.

Well, having taken a strong public stance they both then encounter the same problem. Admitting error or just going away aren't possible, so what tactics are left? Evasion and deviousness.
At times chek appears to be blatantly trolling to avoid conceding a point, but I can only imagine he rationalises this away as legitimately irritating the "enemy".
I did spot TS make an outright admission of error once, mind.

[Anti-sophist]

Sophistry is rarely done on purpose. Groupthink is a very powerful notion, and so when Alex Jones is at GZ, in that video, looking at his crowd and riling them up, he's just affirming that people agree with them. It's like a self-reinforcing cycle.

Most of the CTers, in fact, not only use sophistry when they talk, but they are _convinced_ by it in the first place. I think the reason they use a large number of seemingly powerful details, together, in rapid-fire is because that's how they themselves have come to be convinced. They've never really analyzed any of the details in enough depth (and ignore any attempts to force them). They believe that the more details they have, the better their case. So as soon as they find one, they "freeze" it in their mind, so in the future they can rattle them off as fast as possible.

They believe that the more inconsitencies they can show, in the shortest period of time, gives the highest chance of successfully proving their point. They aren't interested in debunking those details, because they _know_ the truth, and the details themselves aren't really that important. The mindset, always, is they _know_ the truth, and so if you want to quibble about this particular detail, they will just give you 100 more. They never realize that all 100 of their details, if we quibble enough, are wrong.

[Oliver]

I never thought that deep into the Fallacy-Issue but it´s very interesting. Even if i have no clue how to use it. I guess i need some time to work with that.

My biggest, personal failure that initially let me believe in the theories was the "Appeal to the Majority (and sophistry)" and the fact, that i did not know that americans have a different view about "expression of opinion" - but i woke up very quickly after seeing the logical debunks to an issue wich was totally new to me. I never learned so much about 9/11 then in the last 2 months. Until then everything was clear to me.

So how is this usable to get them out of their way of thinking? I mean, a lot of them don´t want to hear the opposite to their believes. They fade everything away wich attacks their kind of thinking.

I posted the collected questions from my other thread over there and just very view of them responded, but those who did are a very good example to proof their Fallacies:

link (http://proxy.zidev.com/index.php?q=http%3A%2F%2Fs15.invisionfree.com%2FLo ose_Change_Forum%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D15691%2 6amp%3Bst%3D30)

[Anti-sophist]

Almost all conspiracy theorists suffer from a pathological case of circular reasoning gone very wrong. Virtually all of them presuppose a conspiracy, and then go through all sorts of lengths, under that assumption, to prove a conspiracy. It sounds ridiculous, but it's often there in subtle forms. It usually comes up towards the end when they say "Well, the basic difference is you trust the government, and I don't".

Fundamentally, it's equal to an aethist and a religous person debating about God. He doesn't have proof of God (without presupposing Him), so the religious person just believes. They don't have proof of a conspiracy (without presupposing it), so they just believe. It's very religious, in that sense, in nature (But don't tell them they sound religious, unless you really want to anger them.. that's the ultimate insult, to most of them.)

The mindset, in most of their minds, is not "What does the evidence tell me is true", it is "I know what is true, what evidence supports it?". There is pretty much no way to combat someone who believes that, short of forcing them to admit it, and then agreeing to disagree.

Fighting sophistry is almost entirely about a point-for-point debate. It must be structured such that you force them to stick to a single issue until they admit it's wrong (they won't). In a formal debate, it has to be enforced as "point-for-point". And you should be extremely diligent in slicing through rhetoric. Point out the fallacies as they happen, force the conversatio back to the facts, ask questions like "Why do you feel the need to substitute audience support for actual evidence?"

[Oliver]

Almost all conspiracy theorists suffer from a pathological case of circular reasoning gone very wrong. Virtually all of them presuppose a conspiracy, and then go through all sorts of lengths, under that assumption, to prove a conspiracy. It sounds ridiculous, but it's often there in subtle forms. It usually comes up towards the end when they say "Well, the basic difference is you trust the government, and I don't".

That seems to me to be true. I never met someone of them who supports the current gov AND believes in the theories. Beside the ones who believe in the gov but want to make money out of the "Movement".

Fundamentally, it's equal to an aethist and a religous person debating about God. He doesn't have proof of God (without presupposing Him), so the religious person just believes. They don't have proof of a conspiracy (without presupposing it), so they just believe. It's very religious, in that sense, in nature (But don't tell them they sound religious, unless you really want to anger them.. that's the ultimate insult, to most of them.)

Hahahaha... A great Idea to a new way to make "suicide by admin" - a new Thread called: "Okay Guys - what kind of stupid religion is this Truthmovement?" Thank you, i´m gonna test it if i have enough there.

The mindset, in most of their minds, is not "What does the evidence tell me is true", it is "I know what is true, what evidence supports it?". There is pretty much no way to combat someone who believes that, short of forcing them to admit it, and then agreeing to disagree.

This is pretty true - they believe and pick just the pieces that supports their theory. Why? "Religion", i guess.

Fighting sophistry is almost entirely about a point-for-point debate. It must be structured such that you force them to stick to a single issue until they admit it's wrong (they won't). In a formal debate, it has to be enforced as "point-for-point". And you should be extremely diligent in slicing through rhetoric. Point out the fallacies as they happen, force the conversatio back to the facts, ask questions like "Why do you feel the need to substitute audience support for actual evidence?"

Mhm, it´s a good point of you, but how can we force them to stay fair in a discussion in a "theory-supporting-administration" or a "theory supporting audience"? - They don´t want to hear your arguments. No matter if you are honest and straight...

[delphi_ote]

While working on it, I realized how similar the issues were with conspiracy theories, and have become really active in reading alot to get a feel for how they present arguments.
Careful. That's how I started posting about CT. :D

The similarities really are amazing, aren't they?

[Calcas]

Sophistry is rarely done on purpose. Groupthink is a very powerful notion, and so when Alex Jones is at GZ, in that video, looking at his crowd and riling them up, he's just affirming that people agree with them. It's like a self-reinforcing cycle.

Most of the CTers, in fact, not only use sophistry when they talk, but they are _convinced_ by it in the first place. I think the reason they use a large number of seemingly powerful details, together, in rapid-fire is because that's how they themselves have come to be convinced. They've never really analyzed any of the details in enough depth (and ignore any attempts to force them). They believe that the more details they have, the better their case. So as soon as they find one, they "freeze" it in their mind, so in the future they can rattle them off as fast as possible.

They believe that the more inconsitencies they can show, in the shortest period of time, gives the highest chance of successfully proving their point. They aren't interested in debunking those details, because they _know_ the truth, and the details themselves aren't really that important. The mindset, always, is they _know_ the truth, and so if you want to quibble about this particular detail, they will just give you 100 more. They never realize that all 100 of their details, if we quibble enough, are wrong.

I scan through a lot of this stuff until I find something succinct like this.

Great post. Well articulated. Thanks.

[Bell]

Careful. That's how I started posting about CT. :D

The similarities really are amazing, aren't they?

Bolding mine.

I believe you still have a bill to settle with Gravy :D

[Calcas]

Almost all conspiracy theorists suffer from a pathological case of circular reasoning gone very wrong. Virtually all of them presuppose a conspiracy, and then go through all sorts of lengths, under that assumption, to prove a conspiracy. It sounds ridiculous, but it's often there in subtle forms. It usually comes up towards the end when they say "Well, the basic difference is you trust the government, and I don't".

Fundamentally, it's equal to an aethist and a religous person debating about God. He doesn't have proof of God (without presupposing Him), so the religious person just believes. They don't have proof of a conspiracy (without presupposing it), so they just believe. It's very religious, in that sense, in nature (But don't tell them they sound religious, unless you really want to anger them.. that's the ultimate insult, to most of them.)

The mindset, in most of their minds, is not "What does the evidence tell me is true", it is "I know what is true, what evidence supports it?". There is pretty much no way to combat someone who believes that, short of forcing them to admit it, and then agreeing to disagree.

Fighting sophistry is almost entirely about a point-for-point debate. It must be structured such that you force them to stick to a single issue until they admit it's wrong (they won't). In a formal debate, it has to be enforced as "point-for-point". And you should be extremely diligent in slicing through rhetoric. Point out the fallacies as they happen, force the conversatio back to the facts, ask questions like "Why do you feel the need to substitute audience support for actual evidence?"

Another excellent post.

To take some liberty with Butch and Sundance, "Who IS this guy?":)

[Cuddles]

Or we can go with the classic Chinese puzzle. Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes, a white animal with black stripes. Or an invisible animal with black and white stripes

Well if the cartoon Einsteen posted is to be believed, they are either penguins or old TV shows. Possibly both.

Edit : A nice discussion of logical fallacies from UK Skeptics - here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php) .

[jujigatami]

My favorite fallacy is the "Numerators without Denominators" fallacy.

Its more of a math fallacy than debate fallacy, but it applies just as well.

The fallacy happens when someone asserts tha odds of one thing happenning while disregarding all of the other things that MAY also happen.

Look at it like this, if you shuffle a deck of playing cards, the odds of them coming out in the order that just happened is 1 in 8^67. Therefore it impossible for you to have shuffled those cards that way.

But that is the fallacy, looking at only the numerator (8^67) of the fraction and assuming or outright stating the denominator is one. The denominator is what COULD have happened, or 8^67-1. So the real fraction is 8^67/(8^67-1) or basically 100%.

Its also like the lottery. The odds of any particular set of numbers coming out is 70,000,000 to one, but the odds of ANY set of numbers coming out is 1 to 1.

[Josh Redstone]

What about the a priori assumptions that some CTists can make; the government/NWO/Illuminati are already there, out to get us......now lets match up what evidence we can find to support a conclusion that we've already reached before seeing all the evidence....

:boggled: