|Old Notes |
- These old notes were crowding the Science page so I moved them here|
Don't You Believe It, A. J. Hoover summarizes 30 in an early book
common logical fallacies.
Gravely flawed .. Instead of being a straight book about logic it's a book written by a Christian Logician so you notices how he continually twists logic to defend christianity
- breaks own rules saying clearly man is special in evolution he calls not appreciating this - "genetic fallacy"
Still won't throw it away, but instead look at the rational rules.
- Galileo + Shakespeare both say - God gave us the ability to reason so we aren't expect to switch it off.
- Checklist - many of his list seem to be minor so I split them out
- - 7 Begging the Question
-your argument relies on a circular argument on itself. Blair must be honest, cos he tells everyone to be honest so he must be honest.
- 9 Misuse of Analogy - False Anology
- 11. Ad hominem (he acknowledges your family are apes anti-Darwin argument) -important common fallacy and he puts it at 11 !
- 12 Poisoning the Wells -almost the same as Ad hominem cos like saying can't believe him he's a communist. - a form of false dichotomy surely?
- - 18 Strawman - the most important fallacy and he puts it at 18 ! the dickhead
- - 19 Fallacies of Causation assuming false cause & effect - again important
- - 23 The Slippery Slope Fallacy
idea that if X happens then Y will also
- but many things are not strongly connected, I think it's a sign of not seeing the big picture "if we increase wages then unemployment will rise", but actually that's not what happens.
- gave a bad example .. "yes Poland might well leave communism, but that doesn't mean East Germany will."
so not always a fallacy ..depends on the weight of logic. - this is an example of assumption without evidence or "of course"
a Stew Green Opinion
- MINOR or his flawed
- - minor 13 Appeal to Pity -
- - minor 14 Appeal to Force - threats etc is that relevant ?
- - 15 Appeal to the People or "Misuse of Democracy." or true cos more newsworthy
- just cos something is popular does that make it true - yep got that
- - attacking the arguer - but surely OK to attack hypocrisy -
what about contradictions ? what is not OK is Ad Hominem denoting a whole argument is not valid.
- - understanding someones motives doesn't make their argument wrong - see attacking the arguer
- - hasty generalization - like false dichotomye.g. racism cos it narrows the world into 2 groups, can't actually do this. The same "with us or against us" - 2 options
- - beard fallacy failing to draw the line nudity and porn, saying Bush is as bad as Hitler , isn't this same as black and white false dichotomy ? -yep got this
- - does the "do as done by" rule apply
- - over-reducing words - "just," "only," "merely, CONTEXT - meaning of words
- hmm maybe sometimes can do this
- 16 Appeal to Ignorance
we don't know, so assume the worst ?
we can't prove it's not true so it must be true ?
he uses example of denying God exists
- again he's talking crap as he fails assumes a false dichotomy of there being a world of proven True or Proven false, missing out "Possible". The fact there is no proof of God, doesn't 100% rule out the possibility of there being a God.
It just shows a low possibility.
- Misuse of Authority
like relying on Historian Flannery as an expert on Climate
yes but if you say 99% of scientists believe X that's not a proof, but it certainly adds a lot of weight.
- surely a lot of arguments are like this, where a 100% proof is not possible so weight counts ?
- - Chronological Snobbery
is this relevent ? he likes it cos he's rightwing and gets attacked for being medieval
- - 17 Special Pleading
surely just means using bad evidence e.g. thermometer on the radiator
- - 20 Hypothesis after the Fact
but if we had not gone to war etc fallacious cos we did
- - 21 Cliche' Thinking
don't rely on a false cliche
- - 22 Fallacies of Composition and Division
mainly about judging wrongly by constituates
- the top team doesn't necessarily have the best individuals neither do the best inviduals make the best team
- - 24 Language Tricks
- - 25 The Ultimate Fallacy denial - refusing to believe evidence - what's he talking about ?
he takes a side swipe at evolutionists who date rocks by the simplicity of the organism in them and then use this age to prove evolution exists, I'm pretty sure they date rocks by geological physics methods not biological (C14 dating is 100% reliable for lifeforms has a limit 40K years)