

List of fallacies - JoelMcCracken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

======
ryanelkins
This reminds me of my "Critical Thinking" class in college. The teacher split
us into groups and had us prepare for debates. We were allowed to choose our
own topic.

People in my group wanted to debate topics such as "Adam Sandler is funny". I
was hoping for something with a little more... meat. Having done debate in
high school and being able to tell that most people in class didn't really
know what a debate looked like, I emailed the teacher and volunteered to do a
short debate (with another student who was willing) that would allow the class
to see a structured debate and allow me to debate something not stupid.

Somehow my teacher took it to mean I didn't like my group or the class - I
tried apologizing but it just spiraled bizarrely out of control. In one of the
last emails he let me know that 1) He had been teaching for a long time and
knew what he was doing 2) the leaders of the school trusted him to teach this
class so he must be doing something right and 3) no one else was "complaining"
and were giving him high marks on instructor reviews.

I think I responded with something along the lines of 1)Appeal to Experience
2)Appeal to Authority 3)Appeal to Popularity.

Keep in mind this is the class that actually TEACHES logical fallacies.

------
acg
I found pages on Bias more useful. They are in the See Also section.
Particularly Cognitive Biases:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases>

For me they are easier to use in everyday conversation.

------
msluyter
As a sort of mental housekeeping, it's nice to review pages such as this or
the list of cognitive biases (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases>)
on occasion.

~~~
JoelMcCracken
Also awesome.

------
jackfoxy
Thanks for posting this! This is one of my favorite articles on the web. (Doh!
why didn't I think of posting it.) If only the advocates on different sides of
important issues could learn to adhere to these principles.

I blame the low and ever-dropping level of journalism for the low level of
political discourse today. Reporters, commentators, and moderators encourage
using logical fallacies instead of calling out their use.

Here's an article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky> on someone who
brought the ad hominem attack to the level of genius. And of course he is
widely celebrated today.

~~~
lbrandy
> If only the advocates on different sides of important issues could learn to
> adhere to these principles.

This is an idea better in theory, than in practice. You don't know frustration
until you meet someone with poor logic skills, who drops fallacies like crazy,
and then responds to your (sound) counter-arguments with 'strawman!' or 'ad-
hominem!' or 'red herring!'.

~~~
qjz
I agree with your base assertion fallacy.

------
rauljara
I looked for, but couldn't find a fallacy that seems like it would fit this -
Fallacy of fallacy: Because someone is making a fallacious argument their
conclusion is automatically incorrect. E.g.,

Arguer 1: "My opponent is a rapist, therefore his assertion that 2 + 2 = 5 is
wrong."

Arguer 2: "You're argument is fallacious (ad hominem), therefore 2 + 2 really
does equal 5."

Did anyone see this sort of fallacy in the list. Or should I add it to the
wiki page?

~~~
jedi_stannis
It is here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy>

~~~
rauljara
Thanks. Not sure how I missed it.

------
radu_floricica
If there are more people interested in reading about this kind of stuff in a
more organized way, I can wholeheartedly recommend Keith Stanovich's Robot
Rebellion (
[http://books.google.com/books?id=VRsgtSBMh0YC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=VRsgtSBMh0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
)

There is a fair amount of literature on the topic, varying from science
popularization to "too hard". Right now I'm plowing through Thinking and
Deciding, by Johnathan Baron. It's pure gold, but it's also the driest read in
a long time.

------
klenwell
My girlfriend is studying for the LSAT and I've been helping her a bit. It's
been a great lesson in logical reasoning. (I'm definitely sending her this
page. She'll love it.)

She's not a native English speaker and she excels at logical reasoning (aced a
couple classes at university.) Meanwhile, I (an English major in school) excel
at parsing (English) language, but my logical skills, while proficient, are
nevertheless lax.

What I find illuminating in helping her is how much language works to obscure
logic in argumentation. At the same time, I have discovered I have a tendency
to often ignore key logical signals and just jump to whatever method suits me.
As an English major, I have a particular weakness for analogies.

For the record, I vote for the Fundamental Attribution Error (a bias rather
than a fallacy) as the most interesting obstacle to consensus.

~~~
JoelMcCracken
[http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/05/38_ways_to_win_an_argumen...](http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/05/38_ways_to_win_an_argument/)

This may be interesting as well.

------
jf
These are incredibly useful in discussions. Especially so in formal debates.

Logical fallacies allow one to quickly categorize and counter flawed
arguments.

~~~
anigbrowl
True, but this is only as useful as the ability of the audience to follow
one's argument. As we can see from politics, emotion frequently trumps reason.
Logic aspires to arrive at the truth; rhetoric aims to win the argument, with
or without the facts on its side.

------
billybob
If-by-whisky is the most entertaining fallacy. Amazing speech. :)

------
scorciapino
So what? It's easier to lie saying only the truth and omitting some part of
it, or not even omitting anything, but not saying it frequently enough.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence>

