OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Fallacies used by Floyd to date
Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is also fallacious. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right. (Theistic fallacy?!?!?) Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect. Negative Proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false. Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way Red Herring: also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test." Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises Burden of proof: refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time) Fallacies of distribution Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past. Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed. Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium) Prosecutor's fallacy: a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found Psychologist's fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true Association fallacy (guilt by association) Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument that concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument Texas sharpshooter fallacy: information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out
There's 4 or 5 I didn't include because he'll use them when it comes to the ID is science part.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|