Logical Fallacies

[karpos]

This thread is for discussing logical fallacies.

The Ad Hominem
Appeals to authority
Straw man
Appeal to ignorance
False Delimnas
Slippery Slopes
Circular Arguments
Alphabet Soup
Bandwagon
Red Herrings
Political Correctness
Either/or fallacy

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logic ... know-spot/

[karpos]

You didn't answer the question. Is that a yes or a no? Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today?

Yes or no. 0 or 1. True or false. No gray area. Aka boolean logic. Rather primitive I think but useful for some types of computer programs that require check boxes or radio buttons but it's easy to see that this type of logic does not scale very well.

I think that many of these old testament vs new testament arguments that people have could fit under 'hasty generalization', either/or fallacy, false cause and effect and other types of illogical arguments.

Example argument

Do you believe that every command in Leviticus is still binding on Christians today?

Debater trys to get you to say yes no or no.
If you say yes, debater claims you believe in animal sacrifices
If you say no, you must have a problem with Jesus quoting Leviticus 19:18

Leviticus 19:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

A better way of understanding the bible is to examine scripture in context and in its entirety. Clearly animal sacrifices, sabbath commandments and ceremonial laws pertaining to the temple do not apply to us but things such as murder and adultery have been wrong since the garden of eden and that hasnt changed.

boolean logic doesnt work very well here.

[Bootstrap]

Ah, as I predicted.

Oooh, the ultimate red herring! I can point out what I think your logical fallacies are, you can point out what you think mine are, and we can each accuse each other of being illogical at the top of our voices without listening to each other at all, what fun!

I don't understand why you think that one verse from Leviticus settles the question, and I think you are taking it out of context. I don't think the discussion has really progressed since then, I was hoping you would explain why you think that verse does settle it. Or perhaps you don't believe that. I actually don't know, and won't unless you answer.

Sorry, I'm not playing in this thread. This quote explains why. I have never in my life seen this kind of exchange result in mutual understanding.

[Hats Off]

As one who works with Excel, I understand Circular Arguments. The rest of this - not so much so.

[karpos]

As one who works with Excel, I understand Circular Arguments. The rest of this - not so much so.

i think his argument about

Or do you actually believe that the entire Jewish law is binding on us today? Even with blankets on your furniture, you better make sure women don't sit on it at certain times of the month ...

would generate a core dump rather an excel error

[karpos]

Sorry, I'm not playing in this thread. This quote explains why. I have never in my life seen this kind of exchange result in mutual understanding.

I was hoping you could tie together tattoos and not letting women sit on the couch and present that as logical.

[Bootstrap]

As one who works with Excel, I understand Circular Arguments. The rest of this - not so much so.

Most of these aren't that hard, and they have one thing in common: they are ways to avoid simply discussing the subject in a straightforward way, often by injecting an emotional shiny object and insisting that everyone focus on that. Squirrel!

So when you look at this list, think about how each approach distracts from the subject.

The Ad Hominem - say something nasty about the other person, attack them personally, and make sure that attack goes on for post after post. Whenever they try to return to the subject, make them look bad in a way that puts them on the defensive.

Appeals to Authority - quote some authoritative figure. This is a logical fallacy because any authority can be wrong. On the other hand, real authorities are often worth listening to - an authoritative opinion doesn't settle the issue, but it is useful information, especially if it is directly relevant to the subject.

Straw Man - instead of discussing what someone else says, tell them what their opinion is and debate that. The other person doesn't get to speak for themselves, you keep telling them what people like them believe and insist that you know better than they do what they think, they are being deceptive if they don't agree with your strawman portrayal of them, etc.

Appeal to Ignorance - this is the absolute truth, I dare you to prove me wrong. In other words, unless you can conclusively prove that something is false, I insist that it is true. Worse, it's often combined with the claim that there's something immoral about any attempt to prove it wrong, combining an ad hominem attack with an appeal to ignorance.

And on it goes.

For the most part, if you simply try to let each person speak for themselves, give simple and direct answers, and let the facts lead to the conclusion instead of treating it as a debate that needs to be won, you don't have to focus too much on these things. For the most part, when some of these things crop up, someone is playing games with you and you can probably feel that anyway.

[karpos]

And on it goes.

dont forget Godwin's law...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

[Bootstrap]

In most online discussions, accusing someone of a logical fallacy combines an Appeal to Authority (a list of logical fallacies) with a Strawman (let me force your argument into something in this list), Ad Hominem attack (you are obviously either deceptive or stupid) and often a few Red Herrings. Which is wonderfully circular - accusing someone of logical fallacies in order to engage in them.

Debating this in any depth is the ultimate Red Herring, you completely lose track of the original subject within a few minutes.

On the other hand, sticking with the subject, responding directly and simply, speaking for yourself, etc. generally steers you clear of most logical fallacies. Not all of them - then again, is an appeal to authority wrong if you don't claim it's a logical proof?

[Bootstrap]

To be blunt, I don't think you understand logical fallacies very well.

when i started computer programming (a LONG time ago), i tried using boolean logic to do complicated things and it didnt work very well. I understand logical fallacies quite well.

You really don't seem to so far.

Sorry, I won't let this distract from the subject in the original thread. Proclaiming yourself to be expert on logical fallacies is amusing, but not relevant.