Logical Fallacies And You!

I would appreciate it if before being condescending towards myself or any other poster on here, that you learn what imply means. Yes, you state you "have a hard time seeing" and then corroborate this with "unless I suppose one is a druggie Welfare recipient now". Let's ask the audience what they think is implied by this.


Please also learn what dribble means. You dribble a basketball. You dribble out the side of your mouth. If you are being condescending, please use correct diction and don't spout pathetic drivel.

dribble(informal) and drivel(formal) are interchangeable and this isn't a formal debate.
I like nit-picking just as well as anyone else, but that's the lowest form of argument and isn't really productive past ego stroking.

It goes from nitpicking syntax, to nitpicking grammatical formatting(though this can sometimes be necessary for those who appear to be allergic to the "enter key"), past that you can get into actually discussion/argument/debate territory, rather than a simple pissing contest.

Past that, I am not posting anymore fallacy entries until tomorrow, but but sure, past that please carry on as long as it isn't too-too heated. lol.
So yeah.
Don't get too vicious guys, I want to keep posting this through the whole thing if I can, as long as people are interested of course.
edit:
also,no need to imply that I think either of you are actually getting upset in the matter---in regards to previous statement about "getting heated"
not saying that either party would specifically, just covering the FFXIAH bases after making a gllorified "calm down guys" statement.

Dribble

Sorry, but I don't see an informal definition of dribble to support it being an adjective to describe speech.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drivel

That is referring to the definition of drivel meaning to salivate.

The words are synonyms. Whether Elana was refering solely to words one cannot tell. He could of literally meant that it was more like drool oozing out of his intended recipient's mouth.

This is true, although the context strongly indicates that he was referring to the words.

Also, not sure why a link was posted to support my definition of drivel, a link which included both definitions 1) to salivate 2) to speak childishly.

I linked to show dribble is not and should not be used in a context to mean that what someone is saying is childish/stupid.

Drivel and dribble are only synonyms insofar as referring to drool coming from someone's mouth. They are not synonyms when you are describing someone's speech/writing as childish/stupid.

The words are synonyms when used in context of drool coming out of someone's oral cavity, not when describing useless speech.

Funny you should mention the word drool, as it also refers to talking foolishly. The argument against a Elana's word choice is a silly one, for he was understood. Had Elana used a word that had nothing in common with the word you believe he intended to use, then it would have a better foundation. As it stands, both words can be used interchangeably.

Again you are completely missing the point by ranting on about a single grammar faux pas. I.E. Pissing contest.
Both drivel and dribble have the same root word.
Drivel in the sense of useless talk...hmm wonder why a root word such as drivel would be correlated with dribble?

I just really can't understand why you feel the need to pursue it past something as obvious as that.
Sure it doesn't fit your prescribed notation of grammatical efficacy, but it's no less correct than the term drivel, if it wasn't you wouldn't have understood why he even used the word.
This is not college writing class, man.
Use your critique like a sword, but let the sword fit the setting bro.
I cna tawk lak diz if yew wunt. Ale eve an youse thee wrawng werds awn parpus tew furthar interstate. you see I used the word interstate there, but I am pretty sure you can assume what word should be there.

Apologize for the rant.
I get tunnel vision so to speak when I'm baked.

So at the moment, it's like 2 illogical fallacies, and like however much is left past that, I don't have the number in my head and I shan't check tonight.

Funny you should mention synonym by association.

Hear : to attend or participate in (to hear Mass)

Attend : to take charge of (They attended our affairs during our absence)

Therefore, "hear" means the same as "to take charge of".

My point was not whether Elana was understood or not, my point was that he was attempting to demonstrate his intelligence while simultaneously failing to even have a full grasp of the English language. If Elana cannot understand what a simple word like dribble means, how can we expect him to know or comprehend a logical fallacy? (Yes, I am well aware this argument is itself a logical fallacy).

So this setting is completely acceptable to be condescending in, but not to make points based upon someone's knowledge?

Just seems odd you'd let Elana's condescension slide by without a comment, but decide to pick me up on correcting his diction.

Yes, I was being petty by nit-picking the point, however, in my opinion, his attitude and they way he allows emotions to rule his posts when he supposedly adopts this "I'm smarter than you" stance, is far less acceptable in a debate setting.

At least a point could be made from my nit-picking, albeit a logical fallacy. What point or purpose does a condescending attitude serve?

Clearly Elana does understand the meaning of a simple word like dribble, otherwise he would of used it in a completely unknowable context.

So it's ok for me to say "I like playing basketball" when what I really mean is "I like playing table tennis"? I clearly understand the meaning of the word basketball, otherwise I would have used it in a completely unknowable context.

Exactly.
I expect such from him as we have been at odds a few times in the past.
I'd rather take me getting on to Jimie rather than elanabella is due to the fact that I've went down that road already, my purpose in pointing that out was to quash back and forth of that finite nature.

Clearly you don't, if what you meant was table tennis, but since those aren't synonyms I don't see much relevance. As far as I would know, you like playing Basketball, but then if I got you to come play it, you would wonder why we weren't playing Table Tennis. I would not understand you until you showed me that you meant Table Tennis.

It's not like when you read Elana's post you were confused. You knew he was insulting/condescending to you. You knew exactly what he was saying. If you did not, you would be oblivious to the meaning of his words used within the context.

What is your opinion on metaphors, similes, hyperbole, and other such comparisons? If everything must be written verbatim to a dictionary definition, wherein synonyms cannot interchange, then why are things such as poetry understood? Why do novelists and other writers not use precise words?

You people should really stop defending Elanabelle.

He doesn't deserve, or need it.

But the debating is good here Q,Q! You know that I don't condone Elana. :( I just don't see how condescending to someone will stop them from condescending to others. :o Plus bored! Maybe I should help Vinvv get this back on topic by reading more in depth about the fallacies that I am almost assuredly producing.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but since the topic has been brought up, I will toss out my opinion based on the responses I have read.

Differences in opinion or issues of semantics should never have any real affect on logic. A truly logical argument (at least a valid, deductive argument) is always necessarily true given that the premises are true. Any argument is composed of premises and at least one conclusion (though some are more complex). A valid argument is only one that has perfect reasoning in one sense: that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. For example, this argument is actually logically valid:

If whales have tails, then they are humans.
Whales have tails.
Therefore, whales are humans.

This reasoning is flawless.

The problem, however, is in the premises. Anyone who knows the terminology of logic will know that this argument is not sound (but it is not by any means a logical fallacy). However, without digressing anymore, I will toss out my opinion of logical fallacies (for those who even care).

A logic fallacy is simply something that shows a flaw in the logic of an argument... the truth values of the premises or statements are irrelevant. For example, the following argument is invalid even though all the premises and the conclusion is true:

All men are humans
There is a man named Tom
Therefore, men exist

this is a clear-cut example of a conclusion being true, but not following from the conclusion. Even though this is obvious, some arguments are not so obvious. Formal logical fallacies help us catch the flaws in such cases.

As I originally stated, semantics and opinions should not be a factor when analyzing the validity of arguments. reasoning for the truth value of premises is important, and I understand that... and the weight of evidence for inductive arguments is very important when looking at arguments. But, pretty often I witness people claiming things to be logical fallacies that just are not. Just because you disagree with the truth value of a premise doesn't imply that someone has committed a logical fallacy.

Clearly some people in this thread understand and probably are bored already with my post, but I can tell that some people just do not understand what a fallacy really is. Here is one example of a logical fallacy (it is called denying the antecedent):

If A, then B
not A
Therefore, not B.

This does not logically follow. However, I have witnessed plenty of people accept this yet call the following a logical fallacy just because they disagree with A or B:

If A, then B
A
Therefore, B.

Maybe I have overdone it with examples, but the point is that many people look too much into the content of an argument instead of the logical structure when tossing out the fact that it is fallacious.

You shouldn't assume that we are defending him.

Continuation of Informal Logical Fallacies:
Since there are only two left for informal fallacies I will cover both here in this post.

Vagueness

Moreover, the fallacy of Vagueness occurs only when the appearance of soundness in an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms. The mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy, but it is sometimes a boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person(you) to fall into fallacious reasoning. For this reason, it is useful to be aware of and on our guard against vague terms, so that we can continue to use our vague language without being ensnared by it.
Example:
Weak Analogy
Alias:
Form:
Example:Exposition:
This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy:

1.
No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy.
2.
There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle:

How is a raven like a writing desk?

The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance:

Because Poe wrote on both.

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength.
--------------------------------
I've made a bit of a mistake in reasoning in regards to the amount of fallacies.
So far I have covered the core aspects of informal fallacies, but not the subfallacies.
So past this I shall cover the subfallacies.
I am working on fashioning a list so that I can have a better method of which to cover the items.
List of informal sub-fallacies(I know it may cover some redundant information, but I feel it shall be okay since it will be in a more specific manner.I think I will just format the list, and provide a brief statement about each item with a hypertext link)
Then further past that I am going to try to illustrate formal fallacies different as to where I will cover each fallacy and subfallacy in accordance to where they are located here.

Exactly, Vinvv!
Flionheart has provided us with another fine example of a logical fallacy. It's known as a "Psychologist's fallacy".

Well done, Flionheart, well done indeed.

And, yes, while I do not need anyone to "defend" me, it's good to know that you're grateful for how I defended you when those numskulls from Ragnarok were roasting you like a pig on a spit here last weekend.

So much for gratitude, eh?
Ya know, for someone who loves to go on-and-on about how I should be more "humble", and much of a "hypocrite" I am, you sure are hypocritical. A finer aspect of humility is the ability to forgive and move on. If you can't find it within yourself to forgive me, then you would be best served to ignore me completely.

does anyone else remember how ellanabelle claimed to be conducting some form of social experiment for some non existent thesis for a non existent university? because i do. i still think elennabelle is a pretty cool guy, he doesnt afraid of not understanding control group.

ftfy
;)

You crazy if you think I claimed to be writing a thesis.
You crazy if you think I claimed to be funded by a university.

When I first joined up with these forums, I was indeed baiting certain identified subjects in order to investigate the phenomenon known as "trolling". I'm a bit older and a bit less-experienced on "teh internets" compared to most users here. So, the trolling behavior was somewhat novel to me then and it seemed (at the time) to be quite rampant in this particular forum.
So, yeah, I was conducting a (very) informal experiment. Although I guess it would be more accurately classified as a multiple-case study. True story.

Anyways, (News flash!) that ended (as announced at the time) several months ago.

I think it's hysterical how often people (like yourself) indulge themselves by mocking me, claiming that I fabricated the "social experiment" ex post facto as a ruse to "save face".
The irony there is that it's you (not me) making stuff up ... to suit your preconceived "imaginary arch-villain" notion of who I am.

For someone who doesn't understand what trolling is, you are pretty good at it. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

Correction.
I didn't (past tense) understand the concept of trolling.

It's absolutely true that (during that little experiment) I had to employ some trolling tactics to encourage the behaviors I hoped to study.
For better or worse, that was successful.

But I haven't trolled here in months now, at least not intentionally or knowingly.

That's why I believe the concept of "trolling" is just the internet rehash of already established behavior.
It's existed for centuries, just not with that specific internet-related jargon in this context.
I find it all going back to the heart of it all, the con man.
But that's more with the version of trolling that I prefer.
Not the open mouth duhrrrrr and the "derpaderherpaderp" blather.
The concept of giving false impressions, double-meanings, and the like of such have and still do intrigue me.
But there is the verifiable difference between what people call "trolling" and what I call "trolling", we all have different reasons for our methodology, some have given it more thought than others of course.
When I think of trolling culturally a few film and television personalities come to mind, Sasha Baron Cohen aka the Borat. Stephen Colbert, Zach Galafianakis, and many others come to mind for me.