
An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments (2013) - rbanffy
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
======
woodruffw
I've seen lists like these floating around the Internet.

While it's important to be able to recognize a fallacious proposition, it's
equally important to realize that the presence of an _informal_ fallacy in an
argument does _not_ imply that the argument is either invalid or that the
conclusion is false. To give two examples: ad hominems are frequently used in
moral characterizations, and most moral analogies are functional strawmen by
virtue of exposing the circumstances under which a particular claim is
weakest.

At best, the presence of _informal_ fallacies indicates that an argument needs
more attention from its audience.

~~~
zeteo
I've never found these lists particularly constructive. If someone makes an
error in logic you should be able to take it apart from first principles.
Memorizing dozens of vague "fallacies" seems more like a cheap way to try to
"win" debates. It will not lead to better engagement with an opposing
argument. Existential Comics had a pretty funny take on it:
[http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9](http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9)

~~~
denzil_correa
> I've never found these lists particularly constructive. If someone makes an
> error in logic you should be able to take it apart from first principles.

That's fine but it also leads to a shift of burden of proof on the counter
argument rather than the initial claim. In turn, this leads to "proving a
negative" and it is generally quite impossible to do so. Therefore, one needs
to be careful with the line of arguments.

Personally, I have also found that the best way to counter a fallacy is to ask
the claimant to substantiate his/her stance.

~~~
tyingq
Using the term literally is usually the irritating bit. Like responding with
"appeal to authority" versus "Einstein wasn't an expert on xyz, though".

------
SCHiM
I've found the No True Scotsman a hard one to judge. There's a grey area where
both parties could argue that something is/isn't a logical fallacy.

Popular/controversial/recognizable example:

Terrorists are no true believers of <faith>.

Those in the 'you are committing a fallacy camp': The terrorists profess to
follow the core tenets(perform the rituals, say the prayers, etc...) of
<faith> and adhere to <faith>, therefore they are true believers of <faith>,
therefore saying that they are not true believers of faith because of their
terrorist actions is a fallacy.

Those of the 'not a fallacy camp': The in/out borders of religious groups are
defined by consensus, it's normative. A large group of people may feel that
<trait> is actually part of true belief in <faith>, then this is a truth for
them. If a <trait> were to be abstinence from violence, then obviously
terrorist are not true believers of <faith>.

Truly, language is too unspecific to properly pin down the meanings of
normative/subjective facts. This fallacy can probably only truly be committed
when one has codified a closed loop of rules, and then breaks those rules. But
religion is too nebulous a subject to be clear about such things.

~~~
dvorak365
NTS is a form of moving the goalposts.

If you say "No X would do Y", and then after an X does Y move the goalposts to
say "No true X would do Y", that's the fallacy.

If you simply stated in the first place that "No true X would do Y", then
you're off the hook as long as your definition of "true X" doesn't apply to
the particular X that did Y.

~~~
aptwebapps
To me, moving the goalposts and equivocation are the most pernicious fallacies
in online discussions. They happen all the time, and often take more than
minimal effort to dispute. It's also really easy to take them as made in bad
faith.

~~~
ewjordan
> and often take more than minimal effort to dispute

This is where _all_ ability to have a rational discussion breaks down in many
cases, especially when people care a lot about their initial opinions.

Take an issue like evolution. You start with a source like
[https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-
an...](https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-
selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution), which outlines a pretty good
case for how evolution is supported by today's evidence. It gives plenty of
lines to follow if you're curious to dig deeper, and absent other factors most
people would just see it as a boring science thing that's probably true and
they don't care much about.

But because some people are bothered by the idea, they've spent a lot of time
thinking up objections. A _whole_ lot of time. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution)
for summaries of just some of the complaints that people have come up with.
These have all been thoroughly demolished, of course, but to do so often
involves a lot of really labor-intensive science.

As far as science goes, that's all good - it's great to be detailed and
thoroughly justify every piece of a theory, chasing any loose ends down at any
cost. It's part of the job description.

But casual debate about the issue is devastatingly difficult, even if everyone
is acting in good faith. All someone that has a problem with evolution has to
do is throw out three or four big complaints (the eye! carbon dating!
transitional fossils! micro vs macro-evolution!) and all of a sudden a proper
response to their 3 minute "gotcha" attempt means a good half hour sourcing
high quality rebuttals and summarizing them in the thread. Which will likely
_each_ bring up three or four points which the anti-evolution person can
quibble with (and they'll be able to do so quickly). Assuming you make it
through that gauntlet and the person accepts that you've shot down those
points, a list of ten more fresh "problems", each of which requires detailed
research and attention to shoot down, is a low-effort Google search away (say
[https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/](https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/)),
so you can get "yeah, but!"-ted into oblivion until you're just not up to the
task of responding anymore, even though you absolutely could address every
complaint without difficulty, if you had the time.

Like you said, moving the goalposts. When you have an almost limitless sea of
low-effort objections to draw from via Google (which you do, about almost
anything, as long as a lot of people have spent time coming up with them),
it's easy to put up a shitscreen so thick that nobody can ever break through,
and not even realize that you're acting badly.

I know that rationalists very strongly believe that with enough good-faith
discussion everyone's beliefs should ultimately align, and there should never
be such a thing as agreeing to disagree, but I fear that in many cases the
relaxation time to that state is prohibitively long.

------
nabla9
The problem with list of logical fallacies is that people quote them in
discussion without understanding what they exactly mean.

For example, slippery slope is only argumentative failure if the slope is
implied without justification. If you can provide good argument that slippery
slope exists, it's not a bad argument.

Good idea to name appeal to authority as appeal to irrelevant authority.

Appeal to relevant authority is often important shorthand. Some issues are too
complex to or require too much domain knowledge to go trough. For example, I
consider IPCC reports authoritative on the subject of climate change.

~~~
denzil_correa
> The problem with list of logical fallacies is that people quote them in
> discussion without understanding what they exactly mean.

Agreed. This is very very common unfortunately.

Generally, I classify any argument in a discussion to consist of two parts -
about the central topic and off topic (much like ratio decidendi and ober
dictum in case judgments). It is important to ignore "ober dictum" and
concentrate on "ratio decidendi" much like in law. Fallacies should be pointed
out in on-topic part of the discussion while the fallacies in the off-topic
part may be used to point out a general pattern or behavior of the person at
the other end of the table. It should be made explicitly clear that off-topic
sentence fallacies have no bearing on the content of the on-topic sentences.
The best strategy however, is to quote the on-topic part and ignore the off-
topic parts.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I've always wondered about the usefulness of books that point out argument
fallacies. The reality is that most people don't follow any rules when it
comes to arguments. They just follow what feels good, ie what they(we) have
learned via social immersion. They are as useful as using a tea cup to rescue
a sinking ship. Recognizing an argument fallacy may make us feel good but it
does little towards persuading someone towards your side of the argument. I
can tell you that most people don't care about their argument fallacies they
just know that they have chosen a side in an argument and they are right.

I'd like to see more books about how people actually argue in life and how to
change their view.

~~~
bsdpython
Being able to correctly identify logical fallacies is an important skill in
and of itself. Persuading someone that they are wrong is a totally separate
exercise.

~~~
justin66
> Being able to correctly identify logical fallacies is an important skill in
> and of itself.

It's not, really. A person who understands the notions of necessity and
sufficiency, knows what a counterexample is, and knows their truth tables
(with or without really knowing the textbook definitions of these things)
should be able to function just fine without knowing the names of all the
various fallacies.

(consider how many people who are inclined to complain about logical fallacies
do not understand these things, and therefore misapply the labels)

~~~
srtjstjsj
You are confusing physics with biology, if you will. You could say the entire
field if biology is redundant -- it's all consequences of basic physics -- and
yet biology is a very useful science.

Arguments aren't presented mechanically step-by-step with a citation of rule
at each step; they elide and summarize information, and skip logical steps.
The fallacies show you where to look for insufficencies, to avoid being misled
by invalid shorthand arguments.

~~~
justin66
Well, no. We can trivially identify the presence of a fallacy by knowing a few
things about logic and so on. The same is not true of biology: an experienced
physicist won't necessarily have much ability solving biology problems, as you
know.

(I don't remember thinking about the individual fallacies by name very much at
all except when I was learning logic, where they were used as examples. Once
you're a little more experienced, it would be akin to saying to oneself "okay,
now I am using the present tense" while writing.)

------
okket
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8061469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8061469)
(3 years ago, 75 comments)

------
jampa
Reminds me of the "thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" poster:

[http://i1.kym-
cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/531/718/f03...](http://i1.kym-
cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/531/718/f03.jpg)

~~~
louprado
Are there well-defined categories to epistemology (if that is even the right
word) ? Are _logical fallacies_ and _bad arguments_ distinct formal
categories. It's doubtful since the poster and book have overlap.

Strange to see no mention of _confirmation bias_ on the logical fallacies
poster. That would have been the first on my list.

~~~
tyre
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, which is (strange as it may sound)
distinct from the study of logic. The best known example of epistemology is
Descartes's "cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am".

This is both logical (because it follows that in order to "think", one must
"exist") and known.

There are things that are logical but not known, and others that are known but
not logical. Gravity, for example, is pretty well known. Does it follow as a
matter of logic? Not that I'm aware of. We believe it to be true because it
works.

The basis for knowledge is a complicated subject. One framework is that to
truly know something, you must have justified true belief. i.e. You must
believe the statement, you must be justified in believing it (so a fortune
that turns out to be right doesn't count as knowledge), and it must be true.
Naturally, thousands of years of debate continue as to what the definition of
"true" is.

------
mikeash
I really love these collections of logical fallacies. Knowing what to look for
can really help in spotting bad arguments.

Has anyone built a similar collection for "bad arguments" that are logically
correct but completely unpersuasive? I'm often frustrated with these coming
from people I agree with, because a bad argument for something is often worse
than no argument at all.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Why are you unpersuaded by a correct argument? Are you saying that you know
you have irrational beliefs and are frustrated that people try to reason with
you instead of manipulate you?

~~~
watwut
"Logically correct" and correct argument are oftentimes not the same thing.
"Logically correct" but unpersuasive arguments oftentimes starts with wrong
model of the world to which they then apply logical rules - e.g. ignores
reality, rephrases 60% as "majority" and then proceeds to talk about them as
"almost everyone", simplifies long complex theory into something misleadingly
simple etc.

Kind of like when they logically explain you that x should be better then y,
but you tried both and still remember x being a hell. May sound logical, but
you know something is wrong.

------
renegadesensei
I don't know if it's accurate to call these "bad" arguments. If we judge
arguments by their ability to convince people, then many logical fallacies are
actually quite good arguments. One need only watch a cable news debate or have
a five minute conversation with a typical voter for evidence. Most people
vastly overestimate their own rationality. Fallacies endure because they work.

Perhaps the idea is that they are morally bad arguments. Still I would rather
call it a collection of illogical arguments.

------
fauria
PDF version: [https://bookofbadarguments.com/AIBOBA-
white.pdf](https://bookofbadarguments.com/AIBOBA-white.pdf)

------
hzhou321
The real usefulness of such lists, of course, is not to use it to win debates
or to recogonize them among your opponents' arguments. The real usefulness is
to recognize them in our own reasoning.

------
draw_down
Just please be aware that knowing the latin name for a logical fallacy is not
the same thing as an actual argument for or against something. Thanks

~~~
mikeash
There's a fallacy for that!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)

------
Steeeve
Those that rely on logic as a weapon in a debate limit their arsenal
significantly. Logic and critical thinking are fantastic problem solving
tools. Their utility in an argument are minimal.

~~~
woodruffw
If we're being strict, an argument can only be "won" if it's both sound and
valid in the logical sense. Being able to intimidate or otherwise coerce your
enemy into agreeing is otherwise a false conclusion.

On the other hand, the _practical_ value of logic in debates is subject to
serious inquiry. If we readily accept that logic is the _correct_ way to "win"
an argument, then why are we so categorically bad at applying it?

~~~
Qcombinator
Various reasons, of course, but a key one is that we're lazy: formal logic
needs to be applied to something, but apparently accusing the other guy of
fallacies is more fun than the boring old job of taking time to define one's
terms. How many arguments have you seen that keep going back and forth because
each side is using slightly different meanings or understandings of some
concept. Yet almost never does anyone stop to say, "Hey, what exactly do you
mean by X? I'm using it in this sense…"

------
spenrose
Ali's followup is just published:
[https://bookofbadchoices.com](https://bookofbadchoices.com)

------
zw123456
Excellent work and very entertaining. However... over the years I have read
many similar books although not as fun as this one, and what I have found is
that the people who most need to read and understand it won't and wouldn't. A
man who I greatly admire once said "never argue with a stupid persons and
never try to reason with an irrational one, both are a waste of time"
(probably an adaptation of previous similar quotes admitted).

~~~
Gustomaximus
The Mark Twain version is great;

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and
then beat you with experience.”

~~~
stephengillie
Learn from stupid people - bring people up to your level, and beat them with
experience.

Otherwise - if they're stupid and they're right, they're not stupid.

------
myst
How comes there is no mention of "The Art of Being Right" [1,2]?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right)

[2] [http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/](http://coolhaus.de/art-of-
controversy/)

------
egwynn
I love how on the "This tiny print serves no purpose” page it has:

    
    
        For more information, please contact JasperCollins Publishers, 99 St Marks Pl New York, NY 94105.
    

I used to live on this exact block in nyc, and that is _not_ the correct zip
;)

------
jernfrost
My main problem when debating an issue with people, I believe are horribly
wrong, is that people I generally feel that way about, simply aren't very
intellectually curious. They are set in their ways and not willing to actually
spend any brainpower understanding your argument or the depth of the problem.

Another common problem is that we use different associations or
interpretations of a word.

E.g. I find discussing politics with Americans quite difficult because
Americans have redefined the meaning of conservative, liberal, socialism and
capitalism to a large degree.

Socialism e.g. seems to imply command economy and dictatorship, while
capitalism seems to automatically imply freedom and democracy rather than
merely describing an economic system.

This applies to many things e.g. when discussing programming languages,
advocates of OOP programming tend to assume that encapsulation and
polymorphism is uniquely OO concepts.

------
Asooka
My main problem with this book is that it looks like it's aimed at younger
people, but the language employed could stump even some college graduates. I
wish the author would have significantly simplified it.

------
partycoder
You can see more here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

------
dredmorbius
Understanding logical fallacies is useful, but an incomplete strategy.

As I've been exploring various topics of logic, argument, epistemology,
propaganda, "fake news", and more, over the past several years, I've turned up
a few concepts I'm finding particularly useful.

 _Dialectics vs. rhetoric._ There are numerous modes of communication. In
exploring areas of disagreement or uncertainty, two principle modes are
_dialectic_ discussion, in which _all_ parties are engaged in identifying the
_truth_ of a matter, _regardless_ of their initial position, and _rhetorical_
discussion, in which _at least one_ party is engaged in promoting their
_initial position_ , regardless of the _truth_.

There's a heated debate on the merits of both methods, going back to Plato (he
had some very unfriendly things to say of the Sophists, who practiced
rhetoric).

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)

The useful takeaway for me is to recognise _when I 'm in a dialectic or
rhetorical discussion._ My own default is to engage dialetically (more chances
to learn), though, as noted above, if any _one_ participant isn't playing the
same game, they tend to spoil things for the rest. I'm _not_ aware of any way
of ensuring that all are engaged in didactic discussion, though again,
recognising the game you're in is quite useful.

There are a number of diversionary tactics which are surprisingly effetive at
derailing discussion. Being aware of these, calling them out, and if at all
possible, eliminating those who are engaged in such practices from discussions
you're hoping to maintain as productive, is particularly effective. Several
sets of common tactics (one attributed, though not confirmed, to Karl Rove)
are listed here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/)

There's another long line of tactics adopted by bullshitters here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nons...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nonsense_forms_thereof_falsifiability/)

For those interested in epistemology and criteria of truth, I recommend
Wikipedia's "Criteria of Truth" or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's
"Truth" pages:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth)

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/)

This isn't a greenfield. There are authorities to consult.

~~~
srtjstjsj
How well does "create your own subreddit" perform as a blog platform?

~~~
dredmorbius
Reasonably well. I'd really like to have embedded image support.

Otherwise, this old summary stands:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/faq#wiki_so.2C_red...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/faq#wiki_so.2C_reddit.27s_got_everything_you_couldn.27t_find_at_the_other_place.3F)

------
drewjaja
Can anyone recommend any books/podcasts/blogs on improving in arguments?

------
muninn_
Does this include "Love it or leave it" ?

~~~
dredmorbius
False dichotomy / excluded middle.

------
gabrielgoh
these fallacies are vague enough that most arguments can be twisted to be in
violation of one or more of these and dismissed

------
JCzynski
I have this book. It's cute.

------
esaym
This crap is confusing!

~~~
jameskilton
Violations of this "crap" are one of the reasons we're in such a divided time
politically. Outlets like Fox News make heavy use of many of these fallacies
every day. Only when we understand these fallacies and how to stay away from
them will we actually get back to reasonable discourse.

~~~
vowelless
Notice how you off handedly scapegoated Fox News (not that they deserve
acquittal) but no "leftist" media outlets in the context of political divides.
I think that would be a sort of fallacy.

~~~
tomrod
When the media gets called out, it issues a retraction.

When infotainment gets called out, it spins up a distracting, angering crisis
and ignores the problem.

~~~
alphapapa
> When the media gets called out, it issues a retraction.

And by then it's too late: the headlines have been seen by the masses, and
they're asking their friends, "Hey did you hear about...?", and they're adding
it to their mental models of the world. The media source doesn't suffer; in
fact they have already profited from the clickbait, so there's virtually no
incentive to _not_ publish false or barely researched stories, even if they
later put two sentences of "Note:" at the bottom, which they actively
discourage people from reading to anyway.

