cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Heisenberg, I yield. I'm sure that the moment you tell me, I'll slap my forehead. cn
Name that logical fallacy
- Thread starter Heisenberg
- Start date
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Reductio ad absurdum takes a premise to an absurd conclusion, and then assumes a falsehood. It may be presented as a false dichotomy, a syllogistic argument, or just a proposition but the apparent truth is derived from reductio ad absurdum logic. It can be a useful tool for judging truth value, but is often misused in combination with a strawman.
It can be confused with argument from adverse consequences when presented as "Anyone who supports the NRA must be okay with hundreds of innocent children being shot each year." But the conclusion is not that support of the NRA will lead to child deaths, that is the implied (or suppressed) premise, the conclusion is that someone who supports gun ownership also supports children dying.
It can be confused with argument from adverse consequences when presented as "Anyone who supports the NRA must be okay with hundreds of innocent children being shot each year." But the conclusion is not that support of the NRA will lead to child deaths, that is the implied (or suppressed) premise, the conclusion is that someone who supports gun ownership also supports children dying.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
1) It is unfair to judge ESP on scientific testing because ESP does not work in the presents of skeptics.
2) Police officers should never get traffic tickets because they have had extra training in safety.
3) The actions of god can make no sense to you, because you are only human.
2) Police officers should never get traffic tickets because they have had extra training in safety.
3) The actions of god can make no sense to you, because you are only human.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
GREAT idea for a thread dude! I hope to see some of the regulars on the other side of the aisle pop in and do some reading.
grizlbr
Active Member
Mitsubishi what you expect for $300?
grizlbr
Active Member
1 up for the fries! now I'm hungry!
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Special pleading is correct, which puts you in second place.
Special pleading is is used when a subject is suggested to be exempt from normal standards of evaluation for a certain reason, and often that reason is invalid and hasn't been given proper criticism. If the special reason is valid, which sometimes happens, then the special pleading is also valid. Watch for special pleading anytime a pseudoscience fails a test, it's sure to be there.
This vid Pad posted is a great example. When these psychics are called out on their bullshit, they immediately engage in special pleading, although the woman seems to think better of it and go with the truth instead. (she admits she cheated)
[video=youtube;u4qGfNViVN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8[/video]
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
1) The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, therefore, the links in the chain of your history predict your future.
2) Skeptics continue to holdout against alternative medicine, I wonder why they fear complementary treatments.
3) I know ghosts exists because I have seen thing's that can only be described as spirits.
2) Skeptics continue to holdout against alternative medicine, I wonder why they fear complementary treatments.
3) I know ghosts exists because I have seen thing's that can only be described as spirits.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
begging the question.
"The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God."
"We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.'
These are my examples. The first one begs the questions that the universe has a beginning and that everything has a cause.
The second one has the conclusion, that god exists, based on the premise of intelligent design. The existence of intelligent design assumes a designer so the conclusion is assumed in the premise.
"The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God."
"We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.'
These are my examples. The first one begs the questions that the universe has a beginning and that everything has a cause.
The second one has the conclusion, that god exists, based on the premise of intelligent design. The existence of intelligent design assumes a designer so the conclusion is assumed in the premise.
tinyTURTLE
Well-Known Member
also recent studies prove that we use far, far more of our brains than the fabled 10%. you can eat your demerrit with hot sauce.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Yes, that would be the factual error I refereed to in the very next line, but lets clear up the myth since you singled it out.
The myth implies that 90% of the human brain is dormant and may harbor vast untapped potential. If the 10% we do use governs all our internal functions, subconscious processes, and conscious thought then the inactive 90% must be capable of wondrous accomplishments. Perhaps this is where the potential for extra sensory perception and telekinetic energy is held. Maybe this is the part of the brain being used when mediums enter a trance and talk to the dead, or when dowsers locate water with a pair of sticks.
The problem is that neuroscience has never held the idea that we only use 10% of our brain capacity. It is so unsupported that no one can even explain how this misconception arose. It has been shown that no part of the brain can be damaged through trauma or disease without having some consequences, often rather severe. Through low tech research such as autopsy to detailed imaging scans like MRI, it has been observed that no part of the brain is without function, although there are redundancies. If this myth were true, a person could lose 90% of their brain and still function normally. Alzheimer’s patients lose significant brain function with just a 20% loss of brain cells, and rarely live to see 50%.
It also doesn't make sense that a species would evolve such a resource intensive organ without specific need. The brain demands constant oxygen and energy. It seems odd that evolution would select to preserve something with 10% efficiency.
Now there is the question, how much of our brain do we use at any one time? This is a question the mythbusters answered. They found that during complicated tasks we can use as much as 40% of our brain at once. Their methods were a bit too sloppy to assign precision, but they clearly demonstrated we use more than 10%.
There is no theoretical or evidential reason to think any part of our brain is dormant.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10
tinyTURTLE
Well-Known Member
blah blah blah. whatever the case, i have friggin ESP. put that on your toast.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Correct! That answer with examples puts you in the lead.
Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning. Basically, the premise is simply restated in the conclusion. Saying "I know ghosts exists because I have seen thing's that can only be described as spirits." is the same as saying "I know ghosts exist because I know ghosts exist." This begs, or raises, the question, how do you know ghosts exist? Sometimes this fallacy is not circular reasoning, but simply a premise and an unrelated conclusion, which while they may not be related logically, beg the same question.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
1) America is for free speech, but free speech is sometimes offensive. Silence is equally undesirable, therefore we should have limited censorship.
2) Jack wants an open marriage. Jill wants a monogamous relationship. Jack solves the problem by saying he will be monogamous with Jill during the week and take other lovers only on weekends.
3) Whether or not you think god designed the universe, we can at least agree the universe is inexplicably complicated, so you see, we really do agree.
2) Jack wants an open marriage. Jill wants a monogamous relationship. Jack solves the problem by saying he will be monogamous with Jill during the week and take other lovers only on weekends.
3) Whether or not you think god designed the universe, we can at least agree the universe is inexplicably complicated, so you see, we really do agree.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Argument to moderation.
This is a reflexive avoidance of the extremes of a continuum, even if one of those extremes is right.
An amusing example of this is Urinal Theory, wherein very few men, when faced with a row of unoccupied urinals, will select one at the end.
cn
This is a reflexive avoidance of the extremes of a continuum, even if one of those extremes is right.
An amusing example of this is Urinal Theory, wherein very few men, when faced with a row of unoccupied urinals, will select one at the end.
cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
The judges say you are very close, however this is a specific form of argument to moderation which qualifies it as a fallacy. Argument to moderation is not always invalid. I must give your opponents a chance to answer, even though I am impressed with your example.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that given two positions there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Looks right to me as well.
Looks right to me as well.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
False compromise is what I was going for. Argument to moderation can sometimes reach a legitimate compromise. If jack's position is that he wants to use the family computer 100% of the time because he paid for it, and Jill's position is that she wants to use the computer 100% of the time because she pays the rent and electric to facilitate it, an argument to moderation suggests that 50/50 is fair.
The false compromise, or splitting the difference, occurs when the compromise fails to satisfy one or both positions. If Jack wants to go north, and Jill wants to south, going west is a compromise that benefits neither side. If Jack wants to buy a car, and Jill does not, buying half a car satisfies no one. Argument to moderation is invalid if it assumes both positions must be unacceptable, and equal compromise is the only solution. When brought up in the context of fallacy, we assume the mistake has already been made, which is why argument to moderation has become synonymous with false compromise.
I award the point to cannabineer since he was first and the most specific. This means we have a tie!
The false compromise, or splitting the difference, occurs when the compromise fails to satisfy one or both positions. If Jack wants to go north, and Jill wants to south, going west is a compromise that benefits neither side. If Jack wants to buy a car, and Jill does not, buying half a car satisfies no one. Argument to moderation is invalid if it assumes both positions must be unacceptable, and equal compromise is the only solution. When brought up in the context of fallacy, we assume the mistake has already been made, which is why argument to moderation has become synonymous with false compromise.
I award the point to cannabineer since he was first and the most specific. This means we have a tie!
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
1) We should not allow schools to adopt official uniforms because that is what the Nazi's did.
2) Anyone who worries too much about what I wear is a fashion Nazi!
3) The moderator deleted my post, he might as well be Hitler.
Easy one for a tie breaker.
2) Anyone who worries too much about what I wear is a fashion Nazi!
3) The moderator deleted my post, he might as well be Hitler.
Easy one for a tie breaker.