Logical Fallacies And You!

I truely adore things that you post Vinvv.

This was actually a worthy read compared to most things posted on these forums.
I tip my hat to you Vinvv for this golden nugget of information and discussion.

Thanks guys, I've been trying to post in a more educational manner recently...I need to do a continuation of my thread on the IQ test as well.
Since my last post was page'd I finished off my last one for the last post and I shall continue here.(been a bit back and forth due to work.)
_______

Continuing on Informal Fallacies:

Composition-
Form:All of the parts of the object O have the property P.
Therefore, O has the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.)
Example:
Should we not assume that just as the eye, hand, the foot, and in general each part of the body clearly has its own proper function, so man too has some function over and above the function of his parts?
Counter-Example:
The human body is made up of cells, which are invisible.
Therefore, the body is invisible.

Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will too—for example, visibility. However, not all properties are like this—for instance, invisibility. All visible objects are made up of atoms, which are too small to see. Let's call a property which distributes from all of the parts to the whole an "expansive" property, using Nelson Goodman's term. If P is an expansive property, then the argument form above is validating, by definition of what such a property is. However, if P is not expansive, then the argument form is non-validating, and any argument of that form commits the fallacy of Composition.
Analysis of the Example:

Listen, one has to take the entire context of a post into consideration. Isolating a single phrase from the last sentence of my post doesn't do it justice.

I opened that post by stating that it's obvious (to anyone who frequents this forum) that I'm fairly liberal with regard to social policy.
Although I believe the Florida Welfare drug-screen legislation has bipartisan support in the State legislature, limiting access (or cutting back on) Welfare is a conservative methodology, being signed into law by a Republican governor.
So, I'm saying that even as a liberal-ish individual, I fully support the Florida Welfare reform, even though it's being embraced and/or championed by conservative politicians, who I would normally disagree with.
So, if an outspoken liberal-ish person is not against the drug screening for Welfare applicants, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not think it's a sound idea ... unless I suppose one is a druggie Welfare recipient now.

Spare me your "this won't decrease drug use" gibberish. What the hell else could it do? What the hell else would it's purpose be?

So, no, it's not a "straw man". It's logical, through and through.
Can't believe I've had to spell this all out.
But how can I resist Vinvv's charm?

Perhaps. However, it also seems to be "called out" incorrectly. Crying "straw man, straw man!" is used ad libitum by internet master(de)baters, but it's rarely actually a straw man fallacy.

Devil's advocate yeaboiii!
I just find making "the strawman" the crux of ones argument to be a bit short-sighted.
it should be a sub-point at best IMO.
On the note of welfare, I think a more transparent paper trail would fix a lot of problems, but that's a simple answer to a complicated problem, and that won't necessarily suffice. Welp, I'll continue on my informal logical fallacies-------

Division:
This is a sibling fallacy to the one I had previously posted.
Form:
The object O has the property P.
Therefore, all of the parts of O have the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from a whole to its parts.)
Example:
The universe has existed for fifteen billion years.
The universe is made out of molecules.
Therefore, each of the molecules in the universe has existed for fifteen billion years.
Counter-Example:
People are made out of atoms.
People are visible.
Therefore, atoms are visible.
Exposition:Six left on Informal fallacies, then on to formal fallacies!
Gambler's Fallacy
Non Causa Pro Causa
One-Sidedness
Red Herring Fallacy
Special Pleading
Vagueness
Weak Analogy

Informal fallacy : Begging the question
By adding this statement you undermine everything before it and guide the reader towards ignoring the fact this conservative policy has liberal support.


Informal fallacy : Begging the question
Making full use of this fallacy to support your argument aren't you... This point assumes that if one person supports this proposition from the liberal camp, it must be good and that their support is enough to validate it without any other arguments.


Loaded Question
Emotional language in the first question emphasises a question-begging presuppostion that there is nothing else the policy could do. Same format repeated in second question.


Loaded question
False/questionable presupposition that Vinvv has charm.

Can we sticky this epic slaughtering on the home page for a few days?

10/10 would rate up again.

There is a distinctive lack of the "social experiment" or "puppet master" fallacy. When I went searching for it, I couldn't find. Anyone have a good link for it.

It's the one where someone tries to negate being proven wrong by saying they stepped into the argument with the intentions of someone calling them out/stupid/etc all along, and ergo, they have succeeded.

I'm not sure what that one is called(in long form), I'll have to do some digging on it.
At face value what I can say is that you can't find it because it's not technically a fallacy.
It's more "covering your ***" so to speak.
I bet everyone will do it at one point and time in their life, but that's just an assumption.

No, we can not, Daemun.
Epic slaughtering my ***.
More like pathetic dribble.

Jimie assumes that I "undermine everything before it" by "guiding" the reader. False.
That statement was a point of emphasis, NOT a point of subtle self-contradiction.

Jimie also assumes that I'm attempting to stretch my argument beyond its boundaries, suggesting that I implied that all liberals must support this legislation because one liberal supports it. False.
I already mentioned that the legislation has (nearly unanimous) bipartisan support in the Florida legislature. Furthermore, I stated I "have a hard time seeing how anyone could not think it's a sound idea". Notice I did NOT state that it's impossible (not possible) for anyone to not support the legislation. THAT would have been a logical fallacy.

Those questions are not "loaded questions", either. Comical, really.
"Emotional language" by itself does not define or create a loaded question. Those questions were biased, yes. However, they were not "loaded". The question challenges the reader to tell us what else would the legislation's purpose be besides curtailing drug abuse and preventing drug abusers from receiving tax monies. THAT IS the purpose of the legislation, and thus since the bias in the questions is based on FACT, they are inherently not fallacious.

Thanks for playing and all. But try picking on someone your own size next time.
Oh no, a fallacy. I've presumed that you are smallish and/or I am large.

Thanks for playing and all, but try picking on someone your own size next time. FTFY.

Also,


Shouldn't think that little of yourself. You will eventually lose that weight, doll!

Lowercase and use a comma to make the appropriate sentence, rather then two sentences. :o

Edit: I can't help it if I don't like big buts.

I do, Elana will get it. <3

...

...

I like big butts and I cannot lie!

I like big but(t)s D:

I like it when ladies have big Buts.

WELL thank you! Neggie Nance.
Continuation of informal logical fallacies:

Gambler's Fallacy:
Form:
A fair gambling device has produced a "run".
Therefore, on the next trial of the device, it is less likely than chance to continue the run.
Example:
On August 18, 1913, at the casino in Monte Carlo, black came up a record twenty-six times in succession [in roulette]. … [There] was a near-panicky rush to bet on red, beginning about the time black had come up a phenomenal fifteen times. In application of the maturity [of the chances] doctrine, players doubled and tripled their stakes, this doctrine leading them to believe after black came up the twentieth time that there was not a chance in a million of another repeat. In the end the unusual run enriched the Casino by some millions of francs.
__________
I find another good example would be lottery numbers.
Some go for numbers that haven't came up in a long time, or ones that are "due", others go for ones that come up frequently or ones that are "hot", statistically neither have more of a chance.


-------------------
Non Causa Pro Causa
One-Sidedness
Red Herring Fallacy
Special Pleading
Vagueness
Weak Analogy

It's cool.
:D
I've actually enjoyed this thread quite a bit, learned a few new terms and solidified my interpretations of previous ones. happy happy.
Another inspiration for making threads like this:

What I think is great about this thread so far Vinvv, is that you've opened up a lot of readers' eyes to what exactly logical fallacies are.

By doing so, in just a couple of pages, you've helped to illustrate what a "straw man" fallacy is ... or more importantly, what it is NOT.

My biggest beef about wanna-be intellectuals on the internet: they spend far too much effort trying to paint arguments that are NOT logical fallacies AS logical fallacies. See "Jimie" and "Ceolwulf" above for examples.


THIS is a loaded question:
"So, are you still cheating on your girlfriend?"
If one answers "yes" or "no", one is admitting that s/he did cheat on his/her girlfriend.

This is NOT a loaded question:
"Have you ever cheated on your girlfriend?"
While the question certainly could be perceived as personal, unfair, or provocative, it is NOT loaded.




THIS is "begging the question":
"You shouldn't take Zocor. It's made by Merck & Co. Pharmaceuticals, the company infamous for the Vioxx scandal!"
It's illogical to presume that a drug is harmful simply because its manufacturer made a different harmful drug in the past. However, this argument "begs the question", implying that the person taking Zocor is irresponsible or stupid even though there is no logical reason in the argument to assume Zocor is harmful.

This is NOT "begging the question":
"I'm skeptical of drugs made by Merck & Co. following the Vioxx scandal."
The speaker implies his distrust of drugs made by Merck & Co., but does not make the leap to assuming all Merck & Co. drugs must be harmful since one of their drugs was found to be harmful.





THIS is a "straw man" fallacy:
"The President is lying when he says he doesn't support tax increases! Don't you remember when he lied about cheating on his wife?"
The speaker presents no proof that the President is lying about his stance on tax increases. However, he pushes doubt onto the listener by citing the President's history of lying about his infidelity. The President's personal life and his stance on tax increases have absolutely nothing to do with one another. However, the President has admitted to lying about his personal life, everyone knows about it, and it's regarded as shameful and embarrassing. Therefore, the speaker has "swung his sword" at the President's history of lying about his personal life (an indefensible but unrelated "straw man") and asked the listener to (illogically) assume the President must be lying about his stance on taxes, too.

This is NOT a "straw man" fallacy:
"I suggest you investigate the President's claim that he doesn't support tax increases. He has admitted to telling lies publicly in the past, so it's judicious to be skeptical of his claims."
This argument is logical. It does NOT presume that the President MUST be lying about his stance on taxes. It merely indicates that the President has lied in the past, and thus it's reasonable (and logical) for one to view his statements with skepticism.


So, you see, the "line" between a logical fallacy and NOT a logical fallacy is often a "fine line".
Many wanna-be intellectuals in internet forums LOVE to chime into threads claiming they've discovered logical fallacies in someone's argument ... when a fallacy isn't actually present.

When crossing a busy street on foot, one should carefully look both ways for oncoming automobiles. Along the same lines, when crying "fallacy! straw man! loaded question!!" on internet forums (or any debate), one should make sure it's actually a fallacy.
Oh wait ... that was a logical fallacy ... or was it?

:)

Still reading, but I wanted to ask this now


Isn't that assuming the person being asked has a girlfriend?

I saw it on a car audio forum I'm on. It was linked on one of the 'multiple fallacy' websites, but I can't seem to find that thread at the moment; and as I am on 5 car audio forums, I really don't feel like doing that much digging.

1) I was just joking
2) It was because 99% of your posts are either to a) attempt to make you sound more intelligent than the rest of the community or b) pick apart someone's post to: (refer to a)

Are you intelligent? Yes
Must you word your posts in the manner you do, considering this is a gaming forum and not an analytical science or theoretical language forum? No

If your fallacy was related to myself, you would be incorrect. I'm 6'4" 235, athletic build. I hardly come across as small. Of course we all know what happens when one assumes.

When you assume, it makes an *** out of u and me!

In this case I just think it's out of elanabelle.

Speaking of logical fallacies, there's a fine example of a faulty generalization.


I bring my opinions from an analytical perspective. I can not change who I inherently am. This forum, as I've pointed out several times in the past, had become so laden with hyperbole and mockery, that it was becoming difficult to find any REAL information here.
You can dislike me or my style if you wish. I do not care.
That's your choice, and I respect it.
However, in retort to your argument about your disdain for decent language/spelling/punctuation/paragraphs because it's "in a gaming forum" ... I could equally make the argument that there's no need for internet memes, LOLpics, and mom jokes "in a gaming forum" since there are dozens (hundreds?) of internet forums specifically for those types of "communication" (I use the term loosely).

So, by your own reasoning, my "style" of communication has just as much of a place here in this forum as the memers and LOLpics posters.

I think Hohenheim is hitting on you, Daemun.