Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2009-06-21T23:21:58Z

TFWilliams: /* Societies become more conservative? */ new section

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.

:::I gave over 150 examples: see [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and the geometric pattern it displays.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston

:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.

:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston

:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston

::: You haven't clarified anything for me, and your talk-to-substance ratio is very high. See [[liberal style]].

::: Are you saying there are no legitimate new conservative words? If you concede there are some, then it's possible to estimate their rate of increase, which we've done. If you insist there are none, then you lack the open-mind you claim to have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston

:::::You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either. Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself. Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.

:::::You've posted ten times, all talk. That's in violation of our [[90/10 rule]]. I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner. Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

== Did I do something wrong? ==

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Societies become more conservative? ==

I question the assumption that societies become inevitably more conservative over time. Over the last 200 years we have seen a fundamental shift in society towards liberal values - promiscuity, for example, has been on the rise for over 50 years now. Attitudes surrounding things like homosexuality, sex before marriage, and race relations are becoming more liberal, not more conservative. As young generations seek solely their own gratification and try to find the easiest way to enjoy life, I fear this is a trend we will continue to see. Thoughts? [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 19:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T20:42:36Z

TFWilliams: /* Appeal to Consequences */

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T20:42:06Z

TFWilliams:

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Appeal to Consequences''===
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T20:29:48Z

TFWilliams: /* Ad hominem abusive */

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example:

* Hitler and his top aides argued that the theory of ballistics could be used to bomb London
* Hitler and his top aides committed war crimes
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T20:15:26Z

TFWilliams:

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example:

* Hitler and his top aides argued that the theory of ballistics could be used to bomb London
* Hitler and his top aides were evil
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Talk:Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T18:33:38Z

TFWilliams: /* Genetic Fallacy */

== Manufacturing facts from a theory ==

:"...is the source of many controversies in modern astronomy, some of them strikingly bitter"

Umm...really? Such as?

In any case, this is pretty weak. The entry's written broadly enough to cover basically all scientific inference. Strictly speaking invalid from a deductive point of view, but still. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:You asked, "Such as?" And I'll give you some examples. Start with the [[Oort cloud]], the so-called "cloud of comets" where comets reside until something knocks them into the near solar system. Why do we hear of the Oort cloud?

:#Comets lose their brilliance and become invisible to the naked eye after 100 near-sun passes.
:#A large number of comets are "short period" comets that are still brilliant. (Example: [[Comet Halley]], which makes a pass ever 76 years, and heralded the birth and death of [[Samuel L. Clemens]])
:#Therefore, the solar system can be no older than 7600 years.
:#But this is "impossible" since [[radiometric dating]] "says" that the earth itself is 4.6 billion years old.
:#Therefore, comets reside in a "cloud of comets" in the outer reaches of the solar system, and do not actually start making long, thin orbits of the sun until some passing asteroid perturbs their orbits and knocks them "down."

:The Oort cloud is, therefore, a fact manufactured to support the theory of an age for the solar system measurable in billions of years.

:Back to Sir [[Isaac Newton]]: He made a definite prediction about the strength of gravity and the orbits of the planets. But one planet did not cooperate: [[Mercury]]. When it reaches perihelion, it deviates significantly from a path that a strict Newtonian calculation would predict.

:#Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts that Mercury should pass in a certain way.
:#Mercury deviates from that path.
:#Therefore the solar system contains another planet (named "[[Vulcan]]") inside of Mercury.

:Centuries later, [[Albert Einstein]] issued a correction that explained Mercury's orbit without resort to any "new innermost planet."

:The inferred planet [[Vulcan]] was, therefore, a "fact" manufactured to support a theory that was clearly inadequate. Astronomers insisted that this planet must exist, ''even though no man had ever seen it'', until Einstein finally solved the riddle.

:That's not such a bitter example. The bitter examples today involve anomalies in all the planets--things that no theory of "spontaneous generation" of planets can possibly explain. So in each and every case, astronomers manufacture an historical "fact"--that a large asteroid--not in evidence today--collided with the planet and brought about the anomaly.

:This sort of thing stands in violation of [[Occam's razor]], which states that one must not ''multiply unsupported inferences'' without sufficient reason.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: No, you are confusing predicting things and manufacturing facts. Vulcan was a prediction of the prevailing theory at the time. That's distinct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Indeed; as I suspected, this really is broad enough to catch any scientific inference one doesn't like.

:::Incidentally, as far as Occam goes, Vulcan was a considerably better hypothesis than some mysterious modification to Newtonian gravity, at least when it was first proposed. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Twoproblems ==

Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I would like to do a rewrite of this article. Does anyone object to me recategorizing the fallacies? If they are in some order now I can't really tell what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:25, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:Seems nobody objects, so here goes nothing. On problem I see immediately is that editing is going to turn off soon. A longer-term problem is that there are many links to the sections, so if I change the sections I will have to change all the pages that link that way. We will see. I'll start with the introduction. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::Alright, all done. To see my individual edits, check out the history [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:HelpJazz/workspace&action=history here] (look between March 21st and March 27th).
::As I was going through my rewrite, I noticed that "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong" is only found on CreationWiki. It probably has a different name in other logical texts, but I don't know what it is.
::Additionally, I deleted the following section (which has been commented out to keep this page clean:

:::<Thar be text hidin' here>


::There were a lot of problems, starting with the first sentence "Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement." This is clearly not true at every college or for every major ([http://www.bucknell.edu/x1241.xml Philo majors?]). It is riddled with problems (''ad hominem'' is closely related to non ''sequiter''? Eeeeeeeeh sort of, kind of, in a general, round-about way) and the rest isn't really related to logic as much as it is to teaching in colleges. That being said, it can probably be put back in if someone wants to, but I would argue that it needs work. 00:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== Section Removed ==

I removed "Tautology" from the list, because it is not a type of fallacy. Tautologies are statements of things which are true by definition. While they do not amount to an argument in themselves, they are nevertheless quite useful in forming arguments. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:And I just put that right back. The problem is that people ''have'' used tautology ''as an argument'', and also have tried to prove their definitions by assertion. In writing the above you have just defended proof by assertion as a legitimate form of argument. That will not stand.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::My understanding of a tautology is that it states the obvious out of formal necessity, usually as a prelude to the real argument. Things like "all triangles have three sides". I must be missing something here: can you give an example of an argument which is really a statement of a tautology? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::What you seem to think a tautology is, is actually an ''axiom''. An axiom (from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' worthy, deserving) is something that all sides can agree upon. It is also something that ''deserves'' to have all sides agree upon it.
:::A fallacious tautology is either a ''redundancy'' (a statement of the obvious in a manner suggesting that another case could obtain that would violate the definition) or an attempt to assert a definition that ''not'' all sides can agree upon. The way one does this is usually to couch a definition in a manner that tries to make it more than it actually is. I've seen it used to mask proof by assertion, and also circular reasoning, another common fallacy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Genetic Fallacy ==

The page claims that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory", but this is entirely incorrect. Regardless of whether or not Hitler used the theory of ballistics to bomb London (the example given), the theory of ballistics could still be true or false. Regard the example given:

* Hitler and his top aides believed in the theory of ballistics
* Hitler and his top aides relied on the theory of ballistics to bomb London
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

This is a logical fallacy because it presents no evidence for its conclusion; it merely appeals to the consequences of belief in the theory of ballistics. The theory of ballistics might still be true, even if used to justify horrible atrocities. I think whomever said that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory" is confusing an ideology with a theory. Ideologies can be 'wrong' in that we find them objectionable, but they cannot be factually incorrect because they're opinions. Scientific theories like the theories of ballistics or gravity cannot be 'wrong' solely because we find them objectionable, but they can be factually wrong. So yes, the genetic fallacy does apply, even when used to justify horrible atrocities. Logical fallacies have no exceptions - every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I don't want to change it because the founder of Conservapedia is the one who made up this excuse.

EDIT: It's even in the wrong section; the argument should be under the "Ad hominem abusive" section as an example, since it bases its conclusion that the theory of ballistics is wrong on the fact that Hitler was a war criminal, even though the fact that Hitler was a war criminal has nothing to do with the theory of ballistics.

Replace "ballistics" with "evolution" as appropriate to answer previous edits of this page. [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 14:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T18:09:30Z

TFWilliams: /* Genetic Fallacy */

== Manufacturing facts from a theory ==

:"...is the source of many controversies in modern astronomy, some of them strikingly bitter"

Umm...really? Such as?

In any case, this is pretty weak. The entry's written broadly enough to cover basically all scientific inference. Strictly speaking invalid from a deductive point of view, but still. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:You asked, "Such as?" And I'll give you some examples. Start with the [[Oort cloud]], the so-called "cloud of comets" where comets reside until something knocks them into the near solar system. Why do we hear of the Oort cloud?

:#Comets lose their brilliance and become invisible to the naked eye after 100 near-sun passes.
:#A large number of comets are "short period" comets that are still brilliant. (Example: [[Comet Halley]], which makes a pass ever 76 years, and heralded the birth and death of [[Samuel L. Clemens]])
:#Therefore, the solar system can be no older than 7600 years.
:#But this is "impossible" since [[radiometric dating]] "says" that the earth itself is 4.6 billion years old.
:#Therefore, comets reside in a "cloud of comets" in the outer reaches of the solar system, and do not actually start making long, thin orbits of the sun until some passing asteroid perturbs their orbits and knocks them "down."

:The Oort cloud is, therefore, a fact manufactured to support the theory of an age for the solar system measurable in billions of years.

:Back to Sir [[Isaac Newton]]: He made a definite prediction about the strength of gravity and the orbits of the planets. But one planet did not cooperate: [[Mercury]]. When it reaches perihelion, it deviates significantly from a path that a strict Newtonian calculation would predict.

:#Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts that Mercury should pass in a certain way.
:#Mercury deviates from that path.
:#Therefore the solar system contains another planet (named "[[Vulcan]]") inside of Mercury.

:Centuries later, [[Albert Einstein]] issued a correction that explained Mercury's orbit without resort to any "new innermost planet."

:The inferred planet [[Vulcan]] was, therefore, a "fact" manufactured to support a theory that was clearly inadequate. Astronomers insisted that this planet must exist, ''even though no man had ever seen it'', until Einstein finally solved the riddle.

:That's not such a bitter example. The bitter examples today involve anomalies in all the planets--things that no theory of "spontaneous generation" of planets can possibly explain. So in each and every case, astronomers manufacture an historical "fact"--that a large asteroid--not in evidence today--collided with the planet and brought about the anomaly.

:This sort of thing stands in violation of [[Occam's razor]], which states that one must not ''multiply unsupported inferences'' without sufficient reason.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: No, you are confusing predicting things and manufacturing facts. Vulcan was a prediction of the prevailing theory at the time. That's distinct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Indeed; as I suspected, this really is broad enough to catch any scientific inference one doesn't like.

:::Incidentally, as far as Occam goes, Vulcan was a considerably better hypothesis than some mysterious modification to Newtonian gravity, at least when it was first proposed. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Twoproblems ==

Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I would like to do a rewrite of this article. Does anyone object to me recategorizing the fallacies? If they are in some order now I can't really tell what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:25, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:Seems nobody objects, so here goes nothing. On problem I see immediately is that editing is going to turn off soon. A longer-term problem is that there are many links to the sections, so if I change the sections I will have to change all the pages that link that way. We will see. I'll start with the introduction. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::Alright, all done. To see my individual edits, check out the history [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:HelpJazz/workspace&action=history here] (look between March 21st and March 27th).
::As I was going through my rewrite, I noticed that "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong" is only found on CreationWiki. It probably has a different name in other logical texts, but I don't know what it is.
::Additionally, I deleted the following section (which has been commented out to keep this page clean:

:::<Thar be text hidin' here>


::There were a lot of problems, starting with the first sentence "Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement." This is clearly not true at every college or for every major ([http://www.bucknell.edu/x1241.xml Philo majors?]). It is riddled with problems (''ad hominem'' is closely related to non ''sequiter''? Eeeeeeeeh sort of, kind of, in a general, round-about way) and the rest isn't really related to logic as much as it is to teaching in colleges. That being said, it can probably be put back in if someone wants to, but I would argue that it needs work. 00:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== Section Removed ==

I removed "Tautology" from the list, because it is not a type of fallacy. Tautologies are statements of things which are true by definition. While they do not amount to an argument in themselves, they are nevertheless quite useful in forming arguments. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:And I just put that right back. The problem is that people ''have'' used tautology ''as an argument'', and also have tried to prove their definitions by assertion. In writing the above you have just defended proof by assertion as a legitimate form of argument. That will not stand.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::My understanding of a tautology is that it states the obvious out of formal necessity, usually as a prelude to the real argument. Things like "all triangles have three sides". I must be missing something here: can you give an example of an argument which is really a statement of a tautology? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::What you seem to think a tautology is, is actually an ''axiom''. An axiom (from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' worthy, deserving) is something that all sides can agree upon. It is also something that ''deserves'' to have all sides agree upon it.
:::A fallacious tautology is either a ''redundancy'' (a statement of the obvious in a manner suggesting that another case could obtain that would violate the definition) or an attempt to assert a definition that ''not'' all sides can agree upon. The way one does this is usually to couch a definition in a manner that tries to make it more than it actually is. I've seen it used to mask proof by assertion, and also circular reasoning, another common fallacy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Genetic Fallacy ==

The page claims that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory", but this is entirely incorrect. Regardless of whether or not Hitler used the theory of ballistics to bomb London (the example given), the theory of ballistics could still be true or false. Regard the example given:

* Hitler and his top aides believed in the theory of ballistics
* Hitler and his top aides relied on the theory of ballistics to bomb London
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

This is a logical fallacy because it presents no evidence for its conclusion; it merely appeals to the consequences of belief in the theory of ballistics. The theory of ballistics might still be true, even if used to justify horrible atrocities. I think whomever said that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory" is confusing an ideology with a theory. Ideologies can be 'wrong' in that we find them objectionable, but they cannot be factually incorrect because they're opinions. Scientific theories like the theories of ballistics or gravity cannot be 'wrong' solely because we find them objectionable, but they can be factually wrong. So yes, the genetic fallacy does apply, even when used to justify horrible atrocities. Logical fallacies have no exceptions - every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I don't want to change it because the founder of Conservapedia is the one who made up this excuse and I don't want to be banned. [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 14:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Logical fallacy

2009-06-21T18:08:27Z

TFWilliams: /* Genetic Fallacy */ new section

== Manufacturing facts from a theory ==

:"...is the source of many controversies in modern astronomy, some of them strikingly bitter"

Umm...really? Such as?

In any case, this is pretty weak. The entry's written broadly enough to cover basically all scientific inference. Strictly speaking invalid from a deductive point of view, but still. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:You asked, "Such as?" And I'll give you some examples. Start with the [[Oort cloud]], the so-called "cloud of comets" where comets reside until something knocks them into the near solar system. Why do we hear of the Oort cloud?

:#Comets lose their brilliance and become invisible to the naked eye after 100 near-sun passes.
:#A large number of comets are "short period" comets that are still brilliant. (Example: [[Comet Halley]], which makes a pass ever 76 years, and heralded the birth and death of [[Samuel L. Clemens]])
:#Therefore, the solar system can be no older than 7600 years.
:#But this is "impossible" since [[radiometric dating]] "says" that the earth itself is 4.6 billion years old.
:#Therefore, comets reside in a "cloud of comets" in the outer reaches of the solar system, and do not actually start making long, thin orbits of the sun until some passing asteroid perturbs their orbits and knocks them "down."

:The Oort cloud is, therefore, a fact manufactured to support the theory of an age for the solar system measurable in billions of years.

:Back to Sir [[Isaac Newton]]: He made a definite prediction about the strength of gravity and the orbits of the planets. But one planet did not cooperate: [[Mercury]]. When it reaches perihelion, it deviates significantly from a path that a strict Newtonian calculation would predict.

:#Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts that Mercury should pass in a certain way.
:#Mercury deviates from that path.
:#Therefore the solar system contains another planet (named "[[Vulcan]]") inside of Mercury.

:Centuries later, [[Albert Einstein]] issued a correction that explained Mercury's orbit without resort to any "new innermost planet."

:The inferred planet [[Vulcan]] was, therefore, a "fact" manufactured to support a theory that was clearly inadequate. Astronomers insisted that this planet must exist, ''even though no man had ever seen it'', until Einstein finally solved the riddle.

:That's not such a bitter example. The bitter examples today involve anomalies in all the planets--things that no theory of "spontaneous generation" of planets can possibly explain. So in each and every case, astronomers manufacture an historical "fact"--that a large asteroid--not in evidence today--collided with the planet and brought about the anomaly.

:This sort of thing stands in violation of [[Occam's razor]], which states that one must not ''multiply unsupported inferences'' without sufficient reason.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: No, you are confusing predicting things and manufacturing facts. Vulcan was a prediction of the prevailing theory at the time. That's distinct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Indeed; as I suspected, this really is broad enough to catch any scientific inference one doesn't like.

:::Incidentally, as far as Occam goes, Vulcan was a considerably better hypothesis than some mysterious modification to Newtonian gravity, at least when it was first proposed. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Twoproblems ==

Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I would like to do a rewrite of this article. Does anyone object to me recategorizing the fallacies? If they are in some order now I can't really tell what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:25, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:Seems nobody objects, so here goes nothing. On problem I see immediately is that editing is going to turn off soon. A longer-term problem is that there are many links to the sections, so if I change the sections I will have to change all the pages that link that way. We will see. I'll start with the introduction. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::Alright, all done. To see my individual edits, check out the history [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:HelpJazz/workspace&action=history here] (look between March 21st and March 27th).
::As I was going through my rewrite, I noticed that "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong" is only found on CreationWiki. It probably has a different name in other logical texts, but I don't know what it is.
::Additionally, I deleted the following section (which has been commented out to keep this page clean:

:::<Thar be text hidin' here>


::There were a lot of problems, starting with the first sentence "Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement." This is clearly not true at every college or for every major ([http://www.bucknell.edu/x1241.xml Philo majors?]). It is riddled with problems (''ad hominem'' is closely related to non ''sequiter''? Eeeeeeeeh sort of, kind of, in a general, round-about way) and the rest isn't really related to logic as much as it is to teaching in colleges. That being said, it can probably be put back in if someone wants to, but I would argue that it needs work. 00:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== Section Removed ==

I removed "Tautology" from the list, because it is not a type of fallacy. Tautologies are statements of things which are true by definition. While they do not amount to an argument in themselves, they are nevertheless quite useful in forming arguments. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:And I just put that right back. The problem is that people ''have'' used tautology ''as an argument'', and also have tried to prove their definitions by assertion. In writing the above you have just defended proof by assertion as a legitimate form of argument. That will not stand.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::My understanding of a tautology is that it states the obvious out of formal necessity, usually as a prelude to the real argument. Things like "all triangles have three sides". I must be missing something here: can you give an example of an argument which is really a statement of a tautology? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::What you seem to think a tautology is, is actually an ''axiom''. An axiom (from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' worthy, deserving) is something that all sides can agree upon. It is also something that ''deserves'' to have all sides agree upon it.
:::A fallacious tautology is either a ''redundancy'' (a statement of the obvious in a manner suggesting that another case could obtain that would violate the definition) or an attempt to assert a definition that ''not'' all sides can agree upon. The way one does this is usually to couch a definition in a manner that tries to make it more than it actually is. I've seen it used to mask proof by assertion, and also circular reasoning, another common fallacy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Genetic Fallacy ==

The page claims that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory", but this is entirely incorrect. Regardless of whether or not Hitler used the theory of ballistics to bomb London (the example given), the theory of ballistics could still be true or false. Regard the example given:

* Hitler and his top aides believed in the theory of ballistics
* Hitler and his top aides relied on the theory of ballistics to bomb London
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

This is a logical fallacy because it presents no evidence for its conclusion; it merely appeals to the consequences of belief in the theory of ballistics. The theory of ballistics might still be true, even if used to justify horrible atrocities. I think whomever said that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory" is confusing an ideology with a theory. Ideologies can be 'wrong' in that we find them objectionable, but they cannot be factually incorrect because they're opinions. Scientific theories like the theories of ballistics or gravity cannot be 'wrong' solely because we find them objectionable, but they can be factually wrong. So yes, the genetic fallacy does apply, even when used to justify horrible atrocities. I don't want to change it because the founder of Conservapedia is the one who made up this excuse and I don't want to be banned. [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 14:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)