I know it's true, it's just something that seems hard to wrap my head around. How is this not a logical paradox?
I imagine this might be a subcategory of the strawman; the idea that being for, say, women having jobs must mean you're opposed to the supposed antonym, namely women being stay-at-home mothers, or that the inclusion of "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas" isn't permitted.
among the blood-curdling phrases of the last year and a half, "just following the science" is one of the most cited. Unfortunately, it's a logical fallacy.
In instances where science can impact public policy, it's the scientist's job to lay out facts to inform policy, not make policy. A climate scientist might lay out the possible drawbacks of driving gas-powered cars as much as we do, but at the end of the day they don't make any policy. Improvements in public transit, personal and corporate tax incentives to buy/produce electric cars all take place in the realm of public policy. It feels during the pandemic decisions have flown straight from the mouths of "experts" straight into law, which isn't the case for any other science-informed policy decisions.
Argument: "Pasta as a dish sucks", claims this is a "well-sourced opinion".
- E: "Every noodle is the same: swirls, knots, bows... it all tastes the same, I don't care how you cut it.'
- Red herring fallacy (a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic): The fact that pasta comes in different shapes has nothing to do with pasta being a good or poor quality dish. A similar example would be "I hate m&m's. They come in so many colours: blue, green, red, brown... but all taste the same." Has nothing to do with m&ms being a good or bad candy overall.
- E: "Second of all you wanna talk about calories? Pasta is one of the most unhealthy things you can eat. It's not worth the calories, I'd rather eat something else... I'm just saying, you eat a whole bowl of pasta, you're clocking a lot of calories. I'd rather have a hamburger, a burrito."This argument is better but still flawed.
- The fact that pasta is unhealthy would be a good argument as to why pasta sucks if we value a healthy/low-calorie diet. However, he goes on to say he would rather have a hamburger or a burrito (implying these foods don't suck), despite being high-calorie foods as well. This is a contradiction. Not only is the argument lost (why Ethan prefers hamburgers/burritos to pasta is unclear) but to insinuate pasta sucks because he likes other foods better is a poor argument (this might be one of the false equivalence fallacies).
- E: "You know how everyone says 'You gotta try homemade pasta. You gotta go to a nice Italian restaurant...[incoherent]' it's bullshit! I've tried the homemade pasta, I've tried all the fancy shit, I've tried it all. It's still the same shit. It's literally fucking flour, water and sometimes eggs... boiled! I get it."
- I think there is an argument around use of appeal to false authority in insinuating "I tried pasta made by a fancy/reputable Italian chef so I know what I'm talking about" but again there point being made is unclear. The main ingredients for pasta being consistent in this fancy restaurant context vs other non-fancy contexts is to be expected. Listing the ingredients is another red herring and doesn't explain why Ethan thinks pasta sucks.
From: Dream, Keemstar, All Gas No Breaks Interview with Andrew Callaghan - Off The Rails # 2 (56:35)
In summary, Pasta >>>. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Whenever a debater speaks a fallacy, an expert pushes an interrupt button that mutes both debaters, explains the fallacy, mutes the offender and turns their opponent’s microphone back on.
To get you started:
Logical Fallacies in Argumentative Writing
20 Diversion Tactics of the Highly Manipulative
3 Manipulation Tactics You Should Know About
How to Debate Like a Manipulative Bully — It is worth pointing out that once you understand these tactics those who use them start to sound like whiny, illogical, and unjustifiably confident asshats.
10 Popular Manipulative Techniques & How to Fight Them
EthicalRealism’s Take on Manipulative Tactics
Any time you feel yourself start to get regularly dumbstruck during any and every argument with a particular person, remind yourself of these unethical and pathetically desperate tactics to avoid manipulation via asshat.
Also, as someone commented, a related concept you should know about to have the above knowledge be even more effective is Cognitive Bias and the associated concept of Cognitive Dissonance:
Cognitive Dissonance in Marketing
Cognitive Dissonance in Real Life
EDIT: Forgot a link.
EDIT: Added Cognitive Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Cognitive Distortion.
EDIT: Due to the nu
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hi guys! I’m really interested in the phenomenon but more so how people react to it. This is just a few of my observations on why UFO conversations on reddit are always cut short and full of holes.
Obligatory the U in Ufo stands for unidentified. Any conversation about the origins of UFOs is just that a conversation about what we don’t know.
I’m so tired of those conversations starting and ending with comments like
>“UFO != aliens, just because we don’t know what it is doesn’t mean it’s not aliens.”
Usually it’s not in response to anyone specifically and it’s just a strawman that doesn’t show why people might think it’s aliens besides ”I don’t know therefore aliens”.
>“Occam’s razor means it’s probably human”
Occam’s razor isn’t a scientific or logical principle. Using it to reach a conclusion is literally just an assumption based on what you think.
>“Statistically/ it’s probably human”
We don’t know what it is. We don’t know the probability of unknowns. This is literally appeal to probability logical fallacy.
>“There’s no evidence it’s from aliens”
When people say this they mean there’s no proof it’s from aliens. Again, because we don’t know what it is, we can’t say what it’s evidence for.
What do y’all think? Have y’all incountered this on reddit or elsewhere?
"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead of being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms."
Sound familiar?
I am in the early stages to write about cognitive biases ver logical fallacies. I am considering two routes:
a) Explaining cog biases and logical fallacy as two separate posts, or
b) Doing a comparison
Since some people confuse cognitive biases with logical fallacies. A logical fallacy stems from an error in a logical argument, while a cognitive bias is rooted in thought processing errors often arising from problems with memory, attention, attribution, and other mental mistakes.
Curious to see if you would have a preference between the two or any other thoughts.
Thank you in advance
Every month I budget £61 for my monthly bus pass. When it runs out I buy a new one. Over several months, the date of purchase for my new pass has slowly crept back, due to it running out on Friday and buying a new on the Monday, annual leave, working from home some days etc etc.
I'm in a position now where my old pass runs out only a week before I am due to be paid again. I have £61 set aside from April's pay ready for the purchase, however if I purchase a weekly pass for £17, it would leave £44 of my bills budget left over, and I would buy a monthly pass the week after with money from my May pay.
I can't wrap my head around the logic here. I am buying an item that is worse value for money, but this leaves me with £44 of money I can now use for something else I will enjoy, a meal out, some new clothes etc.
Is there a logical fallacy here or does this make sense? Obviously the amounts are small but I am interested in this as a thought experiment.
It's the logic of if something is bad, why would you be concerned over other bad?
A couple more examples of the same logic:
-
"Google already knows what's in your phone, why not give them everything else?"
-
"Dogs already drink dirty water, why be concerned over having rat poison in the house?"
Unless someone can come up with something better, it appears to be appeal to futility
I feel that this can also apply to positive things as well
Hi there fellow friends of wisdom,
First off, english is not my native tongue, so please excuse any semantic blurr that may occur in my texts.
I'm looking for the proper term for an, in my opinion, logical flaw/fallacy.
Person A: "Humans have two legs"
Person B: "But there are people born without two legs, therefore your premise is wrong"
Whilst person B is not inherently wrong, we can see that their argumentation is wrong, or at least flawed. Is there a proper term for this kind of conclusion, that dismisses a (mostly) true statement, with an exaggeration?
If: He calls us delusional, idiots, etc.
Then: He is committing an ad hominem. (John, this is what an ad hominem actually is. Take notes.)
If: He quotes Feynman or another distinguished figure.
Then: He is committing ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).
If: An explanation is given why losses have to be included in the equation for it to reflect experimentation, and he claims that theoretical papers don't need friction.
Then: He is committing an ignoratio elenchi (missing the point).
If: He points to the idealized ball on string as obviously unable to reach ferrari-like speeds and therefore the equations are wrong.
Then: He is committing an ad ridiculum (appeal to ridicule).
If: He points out that the equation doesn't predict the real experimental behavior. Therefore the equation is flat-out wrong.
Then: He is committing a non sequitur (denying the antecedent).
If: He notes that friction isn't in Equation 19 or in the original question. Therefore those equations must be wrong if they don't reflect experimentation.
Then: He is committing a petitio principii (begging the question, by nesting the lack of necessity for friction within the equation's original form).
If: He mentions that he tried the ball-on-string experiment and showed that the velocity actually does not increase per the law.
Then: He is committing a non causa pro causa (a false effect, in that since his experiment failed then the equation is to blame and not his setup).
If: He continuously claims that theoretical papers don't require a discussion on losses, due to friction or otherwise.
Then: He is committing an ad nauseum (by continuously making a claim that he hasn't supported with any evidence to the contrary).
If: A good point is raised about his flawed logic, but he responds by asking a barrage of questions unrelated to the point being made.
Then: He is committing a red herring, and possibly a plurium interrogationum if he goes long with his non-response questions.
If: He starts a new thread, and the title includes that anyone who disagrees is delusional.
Then: He is poisoning the well.
If: He presents two choices. Either the equation is right and a ball should "accelerate like a ferrari engine" or the equation is wrong and the ball behaves imperfectly.
Then: He is presenting a false dichotomy.
---
Feel free to add more. Since he doesn't respond to what we actually say, might as well just start calling hi
... keep reading on reddit ➡So many people, including the pioneers, must have known it were true or they wouldn't have crossed the planes.
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.
People leave the church over inconsistencies or little faults of people in its history
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
Why would Joseph Smith die for the Church if he didn't know it were true?
Idk about this one. It's like 17 kinds of wrong. Joseph Smith died because of a number of factors, including but not excluded to child rape, polygamy, polyandry, secret societies, sewing discord, brandishing a militia, and the Nauvoo Charter that made him exempt from warrants for his aforementioned crimes. When faced with the inability to deal with JS legally because of loopholes he put in place, the state resorted to mob rule
Please, add corrections and ones I missed.
Russell Nelson was severely overstepping when he called us Lazy Learners who chose not to believe, but when you zoom out a bit and see it all in context, this is a cult-speech.
Welcome, Apes. I want to start by saying this is my first serious post for this community. After watching from the sidelines for months now, I've been wanting to contribute what little information I can.
I don't have any hard facts or theories regarding the stock. Rather, I have methods for poking holes in arguments seen by both sides of the GME thesis. Now, before you cry FUD, please, read until the end. This is intended to add some wrinkles to your brain and help you sort through the sheer volume of information we come across daily.
Logical fallacies are seen in pretty much all political debates today. For the smooth-brains, a logical fallacy is a misconception or a flaw in reasoning that can invalidate an argument. As you can probably guess, there are a variety of fallacies that exist. Below, I am going to briefly dive into the types I have commonly seen in our community and outside it.
Argumentum ad Populum
>Presuming that a proposition must be true because many people believe it to be true.
Okay, I have to admit, I was guilty of this one when I first joined the Ape community. You see hundreds of thousands of people who like the stock and believe it has the potential to squeeze. And you know what? I don't think any community understands the stock like we do. However, this is an easy trap to fall into. Ask yourself, do you actually know why so many people continue to believe in GME? I have no doubt all of us have been gaining wrinkles on our brains, but just keep that question in mind when you invest in GME, okay? Okay.
The other side of the GME coin is extremely guilty of this fallacy. "How can GME be such a big deal if the media is against it? Why don't we see any big investors jump in on this?" - my friend who made me the big sad. I don't think I need to get into it, but soooo many people hate on GME just because the people they know refer to it as a meme or a thing of the past.
Anyways, the lesson here is, do not base your belief on GME because every other Ape does. This also can be interpreted as do not believe a DD just because it has tens of thousands of upvotes. So many Apes just mindlessly upvote what seems to be good DD. Stop that. Read through it, try to comprehend what the fuck the author is really trying to say. Does it make sense? Does it tie in with the facts you know? Don't always rely on other Apes to tell you those answers, and if you're feeling ambitious, do some of your own research about the topic at hand.
T
... keep reading on reddit ➡This is from Evidence 2 of Muhammad Hijab’s ‘Evidences for the Truth of Islam’ found here:
https://www.kbyh.co.uk/2021/04/27/evidences-for-the-truth-of-islam/
Muhammad Hijab Accidentally exposes a logical fallacy in the Quran
This section is kind of funny. Mojob was so desperate to attack the bible (I thought this ‘evidences for the truth of Islam’ not ‘evidences against the bible’) that he didn’t even bother to explain how this is evidence for Islam. He says:
>The Quran says: “If this book was from other than God, they would have been able to find many contradictions in it” (Quran 4:92). The Quran is the only religious book that directly challenges people to find contradictions within it.
And then he spends the rest of the section talking about Origen’s non-literal interpretation of the bible and how it is apparently not befitting for an Islamic text.
The Quran’s statement “If this book was from other than God, they would have been able to find many contradictions in it” contains a false dichotomy. Dr. Bo Bennett explains:
>The claim is presenting a binary choice... it can only be one or the other. We can move into informal fallacies (and reason) and suggest that this (the Allah example) is a false dichotomy , because there are other options to explain a book free from contradictions (assuming it is) besides "God did it."
>
>If we plug our coin example in the following possibilities, we see that all of the following also work:
>
>If not Y, then X. If the coin does not land on tails, then it landed on heads.
>
>If Y, then not X. If the coin does land on tails, then it did not land on heads.
>
>If X, then not Y. If the coin does land on heads, then it did not land on tails.
>
>Again, the initial claim sets up the dichotomy: "If it's not from Allah, then there would be contradictions." This means if anyone except for Allah wrote/dictated the book, contradictions would necessarily have to be in the book.
Source: ([https://logicallyfallacious.com/questions/ykj5Fc59/surah_482_of_the_quran_appears_to_contain_at_least_one_logical_fallacy_this_is_the_relevant_verse_do_they_not_then_meditate_on_the_quran_and_if_it_were_from_any_other_than_allah_they_would_have_found_in_it_many_a_discrepancy_surah_482_.html](https://logicallyfallacious.com/questions/ykj5Fc59/surah_482_of_the_quran
... keep reading on reddit ➡This deck is based on https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ and has notes based on each of the 24 fallacies. Let me know if you have any ideas on how to improve it!
Not sure if that makes sense.
Let's say Jim is talking with Steve. This isn't their first conversation. In a past conversation, Jim and Steve were engaged in a discussion on bottled water. Steve said X, Jim disagreed.
Jump forward to the present conversation, Jim and Steve are discussing a different topic....say... the state of the economy. Remembering their previous discussion on bottled water, Jim already treats Steve's insights on the economy with contempt because of Jim's disagreement with Steve's opinions on bottled water (an unrelated topic to the present discussion).
