Logical fallacies

[Mem]

Yep, like as the straw man closely resembles an actual man, but no substantial solidity, the straw man tactic in argument dresses up what the speaker said and stuffs it with hay, then he knocks it around and acts like he won the argument. For example:

Pro-lifers are against women's rights.

This statement is using logic that looks like this;
If you are pro-life (actual man), then you are against women's rights (straw man).

making it easier to show the straw man standing against women's rights is wrong, since "you should be pro-life because it hinders women's rights' is a weak argument for pro-life (this 'fake' man is made up to look like the actual man), seeing it would be much harder to show that standing for fetal life is wrong (its a strong argument against abortion).

With that said, saying that pro-abortionist are for killing babies is also using a straw man fallacy, unless that statement is somehow qualified to be valid with something like, 'most pro-abortionists do not regard a fetal heartbeat as an indication of life,' and even there, adding "all" to that statement might make it invalid (not necessarily true) and so then, fallacious.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Holy moly 146 types of fallacies listed. It would be useful to be given random examples and then try and figure out which fallacy is being used. Dino, soooo much info. I would like then to be given concise information as to how the properly deduced fallacy was achieved. Thanks for the resources.

Haha from my experience there is no expert in this art. We all commit these errors but it does help to learn the most common ones and be able to redirect the conversation back on track.

 

[posthuman]

nope

one is easier to set on fire than the other

one makes much more toxic smoke, too.

the Michelin man is more like the stay-puff marshmallow man, but if you burn them you may still be able to salvage the center of the marshmallow

 

[Absolutely]

Lanolin said:

Is the strawman kinda the same as the michelin man...?

nope

one is easier to set on fire than the other

The michelin man makes 4 trips to the buffet bar.
The straw man is who the m man imagines he needs to look like

 

[Absolutely]

The straw man fallacy is when you create an imaginary scenario (a straw man) and then knock it down.

...or,your opponent knocks it down LOL

 

[Absolutely]

Did anyone notice this was a spoof on a cc debate?
Imagine it is two people on cc getting intense.

That last line "do you think its gonna end here?"
"mmmm,yeah,I think so"
Man is that ever funny

 

[tourist]

I appreciate the link added. I am enjoying learning this stuff. However, I struggle understanding the straw man fallacy. I read ppl here often calling arguements out for this, but fail to comprehend exactly what it is or how they identify it.

The Ad hominem fallacy is something I also see all the time. I do understand that one all too well...

I have no idea either what a straw man fallacy is.

 

[CharliRenee]

I have no idea either what a straw man fallacy is.

oh good, lol, I wasn't the only one. After all these responses, I have a clearer idea. Now I need to practice spotting them or when I see someone say that another used it, I can then go look and see and maybe better understand now.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

The michelin man makes 4 trips to the buffet bar.
The straw man is who the m man imagines he needs to look like

and he isn't eating the salad either

but the strawman can create word salad

so confusing

 

[Absolutely]

I have no idea either what a straw man fallacy is.

Antifa calling the other side fascists

 

[tourist]

Antifa calling the other side fascists

I just did a google search on strawman fallacy. Apparently, it is an attempt to refute an opposing position by debating a position that was not held by the one with the supposed original position. Yeah, clear as mud. Did a google on Antifa and that appears to be some sort of group opposed to fascism and extreme right wing ideology. Sounds like basically a white supremist group.

 

[Dino246]

I just did a google search on strawman fallacy. Apparently, it is an attempt to refute an opposing position by debating a position that was not held by the one with the supposed original position. Yeah, clear as mud. Did a google on Antifa and that appears to be some sort of group opposed to fascism and extreme right wing ideology. Sounds like basically a white supremist group.

The strawman fallacy is fairly simple: your opponent fabricates a simplistic and false version of your position.

Typically, the opponent goes on to refute the false position, and then considers your true position refuted. Often they will not hear anything after that, because they have dismissed your position, and consider irrelevant any further argument in favour of it.

 

[UnderGrace]

A logical fallacy is “a mistake in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, unsound, weak, or ineffective.”

By memorizing these mistakes we can be better equipped with addressing any response, media reports, social media memes and really any conversation.

The resource below is really a good simple explanation of the typical logical fallacies.

I would also like to add one called the fallacy of presumption which also fails to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of the individuals conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible.

There are any number of different types of arguments that fall into the category of fallacy of presumption, but some of the more common ones include false dilemma, complex questions, arguments from ignorance, and circular reasoning.


https://www.summit.org/resources/reflect/logical-fallacies/

A good practice when first learning to spot these fallacies is with any online response, read the response then have you a simple guide like the one above. Go through the response and check to see if their logic is reasonable. If not then politely respond by asking a question that shows the faulty logic. The question reveals the error.

This practice will eventually have you seeing the fallacies in any conversation online or in life.

Learning to lead a conversation by using the others statements is a powerful tool. Just as Jesus answered most questions with a question that usually showed the flaws, ignorance or malice behind the questions of the opposition.

Never drawing assumptions, try to understand their point of view to fully see the logic behind their beliefs. Try to listen and by asking questions you direct the conversation. The burden of proof is on them to explain due to they was the one who said your belief was wrong. Now they must explain why yours is wrong and what belief better explains the concept.

Usually most people have not thought deeply enough or researched the beliefs they hold. And someone studied in seeing logical fallacies can easily shake the individual's foundation that possibly could lead them to abandon the weak belief and adopt yours ( they probably wont admit it to you ) or atleast start down the right road towards truth.

The difficulty is that truth is based on propositions and propositions are either true or false.

Logical reasoning can be completely valid and still not be truth.

 

[posthuman]

the Michelin man is more like the stay-puff marshmallow man, but if you burn them you may still be able to salvage the center of the marshmallow

what is the 'the marshmallow fallacy' ?


___________________________________________

 

[posthuman]

I just did a google search on strawman fallacy. Apparently, it is an attempt to refute an opposing position by debating a position that was not held by the one with the supposed original position. Yeah, clear as mud. Did a google on Antifa and that appears to be some sort of group opposed to fascism and extreme right wing ideology. Sounds like basically a white supremist group.

Antifa is strictly anti-white-supremacist. they're the people protesting at neo-nazi parades.
they are a far-left, radically liberal group; white supremacy is far-right, radically conservative.

 

[UnderGrace]

Antifa is strictly anti-white-supremacist. they're the people protesting at neo-nazi parades.
they are a far-left, radically liberal group; white supremacy is far-right, radically conservative.

The radical far right and far left become the same.... tyrants

 

[Dino246]

what is the 'the marshmallow fallacy' ?

Is that an argument that's full of air and has no meat to it?

 

[Dino246]

The difficulty is that truth is based on propositions and propositions are either true or false.

Logical reasoning can be completely valid and still not be truth.

Yes, but truth cannot be invalid, unsound, or illogical.

 

[posthuman]

oh good, lol, I wasn't the only one. After all these responses, I have a clearer idea. Now I need to practice spotting them or when I see someone say that another used it, I can then go look and see and maybe better understand now.

OK! POP QUIZ!!



here's an example from just two days ago:

in another thread, i put this:

day 8

what do you do after you have found rest?

what does God do on the 8th day?

another member responded by copy-pasting this a half dozen times:

No 8th day.
It is not an additional day that affects the Seven day cycle. Nor does it nullify the Sabbath.

can you identify the strawman?




















i didn't say anything about 'nullifying sabbath' and i didn't say anything about 'affecting a seven day cycle' -- LB has created a strawman, so that instead of talking about 'the eighth day' he can attack an imaginary argument about rejecting sabbath or about 'changing times' -- but my original question has nothing to do with any of those topics. i asked about the significance of the day after rest.

in the same conversation, i proceeded to quote a number of early church fathers in order to establish that from the 1st century and onward the church has called 'the Lord's day' i.e. Sunday the eighth day, and along with that quoted 20 or more instances where scripture talks about the eighth day, and about what God did after the 7th day of creation.
LB, instead of commenting on any of the substance of the following posts i made, commits at least two more logical fallacies here:

Not Scripture. Did not know you were Catholic. I see Eusebius did not understand Colossians either.

can you spot them? answers below




















this is ad-hominem; he's attacking both my character and Eusebius' -- tho the point i was making by providing historical evidence that early Christianity spoke alot about 'the eighth day' ((that was the topic of a quote from Eusebius i put)) has been completely ignored.
this is also a 'red herring' fallacy; Eusebius wasn't Catholic and neither am i, and nothing that's been said in the entire thread has anything to do with Catholicism -- which btw celebrates mass on Saturdays, smh..

so you can see that by all three fallacies, red-herring, ad-hominem personal attacks, and strawman, LB tries to divert attention away from the topic of my original question and dismiss it without ever addressing it.
you can see what a terrible & unproductive way this is to have a conversation! but i'm glad, for your sake, this happened, so that by the example you can be edified, and hopefully everyone reading this can be more aware and not fall into verbal 'traps' like this - stay on topic and forgive slights - and not to commit them ourselves

& yeah, i know, LB is tagged here because i quoted him, and he's probably going to be upset at being called out as an example. but what i've put here is true, and he ought to be edified, as well.

 

[posthuman]

Is that an argument that's full of air and has no meat to it?