I love this
I love this
Taken 5 first example:
"We can safely conclude that there is God, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not."
(some arguments I have heard)
Although we already know about dinosaurs, evolution and Big Bang...
The no existence is imposible to demonstrate. The same way nobody could disprove that unicorns don't exist.
I like this!!
Cool.wish there were some way to save tho
1. FAULTY CAUSE (causality for two adjacent things)
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION (over generalizing)
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION (too smal a sample)
4. FAULTY ANALOGY (alikeness in all parts)
5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (if you dn't know then I'm right)
6. BIFURCATION (one or the other)
7. FALSE DILEMMA (one of two outcomes is inevitable)
8. FAULTY SIGN (one event is an indicator of another event)
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE (refuting the surce)
10. TU QUOQUE twowrongs make a right)
11. EQUIVOCATION (term meaning shift)
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION (based on an unstated assumption)
13. TAUTOLOGY (make impossible to disprove)
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD
17. STRAW MAN weaker portion of an argument))
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE (assume a chan-reaction)
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES (same without causal conection)
20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT
21. NON SEQUITAR
22. RED HERRING
overall it's an ok list. i dont like some of the examples because they seem biased. but that may just be because i disagree with them--all the excuses for pot smokers and the pitbull example--by using these as examples of false argument, there's an inherent negative undertone. prejudice against pitbulls is a real and serious thing. weed should be legalized, no question.
The only thing I dislike was the example about Pit Bulls. I've actually heard of A LOT of Pit Bulls who have been sweet and gentle.
List of common fallacies in argument. I'm wanting this just for the little tidbits of latin.
From the page: "I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate. "
You know someone wasn't exactly sure what they were talking about when the 4th example is not only logical, but backed up by statistical evidence. In no way is that statement logically fallacious.
People need to realize that you still need logical backing to declare something a logical fallacy. One of the biggest logical fallacies people often make is the "oh thats the X fallacy" with no reason. For example, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) is a common fallacy. However, it is also commonly evidence FOR a correlation - press a doorbell button, and the doorbell goes off. It's not the whole story, but "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is in this case completely true.
bored with these same lists
I get too many of these lists.