You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?
'rush to disqualify'
Yes indeed. Comes usually from a tactic of using the strawman and ad hominem, but a more clever fallacious one will combine them all into a nice Fallacy Fallacy.
Also, in the example provided, "Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." - falls prey to the "black and white" fallacy also known as the "false dichotomy" or "false choice" fallacy, which is another common and perverse tactic that presumes that "if one side of the argument has a flaw of any kind, that instantly and automatically "proves" the "opposite" side of the argument is "true".
For example, "Since you can't prove my personally preferred god DOESN'T exist, therefore my personally preferred god DOES exist!!!"
And of course, "Since you can't prove your personally preferred god DOES exist, therefore your personally preferred god DOESN'T exist!!!"
Both of these claims are logically incoherent (burden-of-proof fallacy and false-dichotomy and the ever-present appeal-to-ignorance by not rigorously defining key terms such as "god" and "exist").
A better claim would be a conditional statement, such as,
(IFF) an omnipotent, omniscient, creator of all things = exist (THEN) exist = all things (AND) god = all things (AND) all things = god (credit to Baruch Spinoza).
Correct. The 'false dichotomy' is used purposefully by the "media" to get folks to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", by strategically inserting an obvious lie, to obfuscate the truth that is also in plain site. "if one side of the argument has a 'lie' of any kind, all of the information is invalid".
Shock jocks like Alex Jones and such have perfected hiding the truth from the public, by telling them the truth with some obvious lies.....
Logical Fallacies are Sorcery. They might even have more force than the mighty metaphor.
Mixing truth with lies is a great way to brainwash people.
It's a classic con-artist technique, let the mark win (tell the truth) while they're cautious on the first three (small) "bets" and then SOAK THEM FOR ALL THEY'RE WORTH ON THE FOURTH,
...then tell them "that was a fluke, I'm 100% sure about the next one!!" (or, better yet, "let me make it up to you with this next premium super-exclusive stock-tip") and they'll borrow money from all their friends and then THEY GET SOAKED AGAIN ON THE FIFTH GAME.
Any idiots that stick around after that are perfect flunkies. Put them to work, you've got your own personal zealot.
I agree. They're a cheap trick that (inexplicably) keeps the sheeple from breaking out of their rather flimsy pen.
And now they're whipping the entire planet into a flipping frenzy over THE COMMON COLD.
When is their credibility going to drop below zero?
Here's an idea, JUST WAIT 20 YEARS AND THEN TELL THE EXACT SAME LIES ALL OVER AGAIN.
Here's a good one,
The formal fallacy of the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that occurs in modal logic. It is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,[1] most commonly confusing the scope of what is necessarily true. A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true statement must be true in all possible worlds. WIKI
I'm always impressed when someone mentions the fallacyfallacy.
The important thing to remember about the fallacyfallacy is that, YES, although it is "possible" to produce a cogent, logically-coherent appeal to LOGOS, that tacks on a few fallacious statements (therefore "proving" that the fallacies themselves do not "disqualify" any SOUND LOGIC that may have been presented) it is important to remember that the fallacies THEMSELVES do-not and can-not validate any claim ON THEIR OWN.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy.
Indeed!
The FallacyFallacy is the one that I find myself most likely to commit, and have to check myself quite often to not disqualify the argument (nor the arguer) completely, simply because a fallacy was used.
I agree, (it's important not to rush-to-disqualify) however, in the absence of explicit logic, no claim can be considered sound (without explicit logic, the claim is a naked appeal-to-ignorance).
That's why I always try to STEELMAN my opponent's claims.
Yes I noticed that you do that. Very nice.