
Logical fallacies - uladzislau
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home
======
zeteo
As long as you're not doing pure mathematics, you can't always speak on purely
logical ground. Aristotle himself, who invented logic and whose picture is on
this poster, wrote a different book called The Art of Rhetoric in which he
fully approves of deploying e.g. appeals to emotion or authority. Most of
these "fallacies" are actually good heuristics within normal discourse: even
if they don't produce full logical confidence, they are still very useful in
ambiguous or time-sensitive contexts (a.k.a. everyday life).

~~~
jiggy2011
Yes, this is very true. It is pretty close to impossible to have an argument
at bar or internet forum level without committing something that resembles a
logical fallacy.

Refer to something written by an expert rather than demonstrating it directly
yourself? Appeal to authority.

Suggest that a particular source of information may be unreliaible? Ad hominem

Voice a concern over the direction some policy appears to be taking? Slippery
Slope.

Many arguments are also based on statistics rather than directly on logic.

Logical fallacies can be used to expose highly axiomatic thinking though.

~~~
lowboy
Your examples are too broad and/or poorly defined.

An appeal to authority fallacy has to be without reason backing up the appeal
other than the fact that they are an authority.

You can suggest that a source of information might be unreliable because of a
poor track record in the the domain, or a conflict of interest - that's not ad
hominem.

One can speak against the direction of a policy without committing a slippery
slope fallacy by not making unsubstantiated claims about what will happen. If
you can cite examples of similar policies that have led to effect Y happening
with rational explanations for the causes along the way, then that would avoid
the fallacy.

~~~
jiggy2011
Well, for example if somebody asked me the circumference of the earth and I
replied with "40,075 km" how do I actually know that?

I certainly have never measured it, so all I can do is cite sources of
information which are assumed to be authorities. I can be relatively confident
in my reply by citing multiple sources of information but I'm still ultimately
relying on something I can't realistically provide other evidence for.

According to wikipedia the second could possibly fall under "Circumstantial Ad
hominem" in that suggesting a source has bias does not necessarily make them
incorrect. Though this depends on the nature of the argument.

I think the third is more tricky to pin down because it is going to depend
again on the nature of the argument. You may suggest concern about some policy
without a concrete example of X leading to Y because it may not have happened
before. But again this depends on the nature of the argument.

I think my problem is more with the way in which logical fallacies are abused
in internet arguments rather than the fallacies themselves. For example
somebody saying "You are wrong to be concerned about policy X because slippery
slope fallacy".

~~~
lowboy
1\. Yeah, this will probably be an accepted fallacy for day to day usage. You
could quote leading geologists/physicists and the implication is that they
have a vested interest in being correct. But the reasoning there isn't just
"Because they're experts, so trust them!", it's "They purport to have measured
it and I trust that they did so accurately because of their position as
leaders of their field and their desire to remain as such.". Still technically
might be a fallacy, but I would accept it in the case of a casual conversation
about the Earth's circumference.

2\. Agreed that it's contextual. I merely wanted to point out that not all
discrediting is ad hominem as you seemed to imply.

3\. Also agreed that it's highly dependent on context. Again, just pointing
out that one can speak out about policy direction without committing a
fallacy.

And yes, I dislike that as well! The fallacy fallacy:
<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>

------
JacobAldridge
I studied formal Logic in high school (sadly, we were the second last cohort
before it was discontinued due to lack of interest). Undoubtedly one of the
best decisions I ever made, for examining my own thinking and arguments as
much as those around me.

Logical Fallacies was one of my favourite elements. (Deductive logic is
fabulous as well, but of limited application in a real world of
probabilities.) If I could wave my magic wand and change education, logic
would be right up there with entrepreneurial economics as a mandatory class to
support kids understanding how the world works (and how it can work in their
favour).

------
tsm
I've found Wikipedia's list[0] to be both more complete and more Ctrl-F -able,
but this is certainly attractively laid out and has good descriptions.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies>

~~~
jrichardson
hey, site owner here. the idea for the site was to show the most common
fallacies in clear language and pretty visuals. For a comprehensive list i
highly recommend the fallacy files' taxonomy:
www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

------
andrewflnr
The first one it showed me was "slippery slope", and I don't think that's a
fallacy. It may be an invalid argument or prediction depending on the
evidence, but it's not structurally invalid the way ad hominem and tu quoque
are. Why is it there?

~~~
jarrett
I'm assuming it's there because it's a popular bad argument.

Well, it's an argument that's _often_ bad. Slippery slopes can actually happen
in the real world. But I suppose anyone making a slippery slope argument has
the burden of showing that the slipping is likely to occur.

~~~
andrewflnr
Yes, the burden of proof for a prediction (slippery slope is an instance of a
prediction) lies with the party making the prediction. The exact same goes for
any argument, and such a prediction should get the same respect as any other
potentially flawed argument.

If someone is saying "A will cause Z OMG!" without a strong causal chain, the
fallacy you want is probably "non sequitur", or you point out what other thing
is wrong with their reasoning. But you don't just assume the argument is
invalid, as you do with formal fallacies, because slippery slopes are indeed
real.

At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some
idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy, because they were all
lumped together like this? If the site gets enough traffic, it _will_ get some
people who can't tell the difference, who will come away with the wrong
impression. Not that many, but the possibility is, IMO, an indicator that
lumping them together like this is a bad idea.

~~~
nitrogen
_At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some
idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy..._

It already happens elsewhere. You can observe an ongoing trend and justify the
expectation that it will continue using the motivations and past behavior of
the actors involved, and someone will _still_ say, "Slippery slope, I win!"

------
d4n3
Have you considered the .is TLD?

yourlogicalfallacy.is/ad-hominem

------
tsm
As good as it is to identify these, it's worth pointing out that another
fallacy is the assumption that the point a fallacious argument is trying to
prove is wrong because it has a fallacy. It's possible to be right but still
commit a fallacy in your argument.

~~~
huckfinnaafb
This is a fallacy listed, "the fallacy fallacy", first column second row on
the left with the symbol of a fractal.

------
DanielRibeiro
Another great visualization of logical fallacies:
[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetolo...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-
fallacies/)

------
tedsanders
The biggest fallacy I'd add is Mood Affiliation:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/03/the...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/03/the-
fallacy-of-mood-affiliation.html)

------
ableal
Also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right> , _"The Art of
Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) [...] written by the German
philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sarcastic deadpan."_

Rhetorical training was a paying job back in the days when public speaking was
a major source of entertainment. It's a pity it is not more widely taught, for
self-defense purposes.

------
tsewlliw
Read this as a list of effective ways to communicate your point beyond mere
facts. If anyone has ever said your appeals are dry, sprinkle in these
lightly.

------
lowboy
I look forward to replying to misguided online arguments with a simple link.
If everyone started doing that, no one would be committing logical fallacies
anymore!

<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope>

~~~
malkia
I have a sense that what you've said (If everyone started doing that) is
another form of fallacy, but I myself might be putting some fallacy here... oh
well...

~~~
lowboy
Whoosh

~~~
Zuider
Was your first comment intended as irony?

When arguing with others it is best to employ the principle of charity, even
to the point of improving the other party's arguments to make them as strong
as possible, and then pointing out where you think they are wrong.

It is best to study fallacies in order to avoid making them, rather than
throwing them at others in the manner of the proverbial religious hypocrite
who 'read ye good booke in order to rake all the blessings unto himself, and
to shovel all the curses unto his neighbours'.

~~~
lowboy
I agree that the principle of charity should be employed. Sometimes though,
the conversation benefits from someone knowing why their arguments aren't
solid.

------
suyash
Reminds me of my logic class in college, very well laid out and it serves as a
reminder to watch our yourself and others while falling for one of these
fallacies.

------
notum
A blog (and a book) related to the subject: <http://youarenotsosmart.com/>

I really enjoyed the book, fun read.

------
hnriot
What a wonderfully worded website and poster. Wit and humor and intelligence
are a powerful combination.

------
lucb1e
I can't help but think of politicians while reading these.

------
evolve2k
5\. Potato

