An Introduction to the Nature of Fallacies

Originally Posted by Gman

Just thought of one.

Weak Argument Fallacy: This is a very common fallacy found in many scientific and logical arguments. It states that because an argument is based largely on speculation or doesn't have many sources it is automatically untrue and should be disregarded.

Example: Ganon thinks that the Triforce is real. He has not given us any evidence or sources. Therefore he is wrong and should be ignored.

could you provide sources on that one? I've never heard of it. This might lay in a slighly different realm than fallacy, or at least is bridging a gap between fallacies and formal rules of debate. There are rules as to where burden of proof actually lies and when it applies, and these rules of burden of proof don't really fall in the same category as fallacies. I would need more elaboration and perhaps more examples on this rule as to when it does and does not apply before I could honestly post it. It does make sense. I just can't find any information on it really. Is there an alternate name?

Originally Posted by Gman

Example: Ganon thinks that the Triforce is real. He has not given us any evidence or sources. Therefore he is wrong and should be ignored.

I think a better example would be: George believes that there are WMDs in Iraq, but there is no evidence to support that so he should be ignored. amirite?

Originally Posted by morval

could you provide sources on that one? I've never heard of it. This might lay in a slighly different realm than fallacy, or at least is bridging a gap between fallacies and formal rules of debate. There are rules as to where burden of proof actually lies and when it applies, and these rules of burden of proof don't really fall in the same category as fallacies. I would need more elaboration and perhaps more examples on this rule as to when it does and does not apply before I could honestly post it. It does make sense. I just can't find any information on it really. Is there an alternate name?

No, I actually just made it up, although someone may have come up with it before me. I've seen way too many people use the phrase "source?" in the face of a weak argument. This really has nothing to due with where the burden of proof lies, rather it has to due with the logical fallacy in which an argument that doesn't have strong evidence must be wrong, false, or untrue. While it is practical to do this, I think it's illogical not to at least consider or think about said arguments.

Really I just pulled it out of my ass. You can choose to disregard my ramblings if you want.

Originally Posted by hypno_toad

I think a better example would be: George believes that there are WMDs in Iraq, but there is no evidence to support that so he should be ignored. amirite?

Dude stop your trolling.

Originally Posted by Gman

No, I actually just made it up, although someone may have come up with it before me. I've seen way too many people use the phrase "source?" in the face of a weak argument. This really has nothing to due with where the burden of proof lies, rather it has to due with the logical fallacy in which an argument that doesn't have strong evidence must be wrong, false, or untrue. While it is practical to do this, I think it's illogical not to at least consider or think about said arguments.

Really I just pulled it out of my ass. You can choose to disregard my ramblings if you want.

hmm...it does seem valid to me. I will have to word this one very carefully if I decide to post it, or else there'll be hell to pay with SoE....... I'll have to come back tomorrow when I have access to my "files" as I'm on a public computer right now.

Also, hypno toad you completely missworded/misconstrued Gmans fallacy, which is why I am nervous of posting it.....I can just see all the misconstruations of this fallacy in the Atheist vs Theism threads......

*edit*

If I were to post it I would most definitely need to eliminate the last four words of the fallacy as you originally posted it, or at least elaborate on those four words very very much. also perhaps a more descriptive yet concise name is in order. it's because of hypnotoads smart remark (silly froggy friend) that those last four words don't seem valid to me.

Originally Posted by morval

hmm...it does seem valid to me. I will have to word this one very carefully if I decide to post it, or else there'll be hell to pay with SoE....... I'll have to come back tomorrow when I have access to my "files" as I'm on a public computer right now.

Also, hypno toad you completely missworded/misconstrued Gmans fallacy, which is why I am nervous of posting it.....I can just see all the misconstruations of this fallacy in the Atheist vs Theism threads......

Yeah I can see how it can go south pretty fast. Well, when I talk about this fallacy I am talking about not considering a weak argument. This fallacy should not be used to try and give credibility to every crackpot theory out there.

Originally Posted by Gman

Yeah I can see how it can go south pretty fast. Well, when I talk about this fallacy I am talking about not considering a weak argument. This fallacy should not be used to try and give credibility to every crackpot theory out there.

the problem is specifying between belief and truth. For example, because I cannot provide you with enough convincing evidence of the existence of God, there is no practical reason for you to believe in it, since you are an agnostic. However, just because there is no practical reason provided, does not necessarily equate to a false premise/conclusion. For it to be proven factually false (as opposed to being not practical to believe in) a counter argument would have to be provided with supporting evidence/logic.

Make sense?

*Sage of Earth this is your que to step in....*

Originally Posted by morval

Also, hypno toad you completely missworded/misconstrued Gmans fallacy, which is why I am nervous of posting it.....I can just see all the misconstruations of this fallacy in the Atheist vs Theism threads......

No.... I was making a joke my good sir, my apologies.

Originally Posted by hypno_toad

No.... I was making a joke my good sir, my apologies.

sorry, I was later trying to compliment you in the last post....It came out very awkwardly.

If you hadn't have said that I wouldn't have realized the problems with the wording of the original statement. your statement points out important problems with this fallacy rule.

This is, to be sure a tricky subject we've hit. I think it's a valid point and an important distinction....how to word it just right. I will think more on this. Just where is Sage of Earth anyway.....

Originally Posted by morval

the problem is specifying between belief and truth. For example, because I cannot provide you with enough convincing evidence of the existence of God, there is no practical reason for you to believe in it, since you are an agnostic. However, just because there is no practical reason provided, does not necessarily equate to a false premise/conclusion. For it to be proven factually false (as opposed to being not practical to believe in) a counter argument would have to be provided with supporting evidence/logic.

Make sense?

*Sage of Earth this is your que to step in....*

Well yeah, but just because you can't give enough evidence doesn't mean I should automatically assume there is no god. I should at least accept the possibility of a god in any shape or form. I have seen many atheists use the fact that there is no definite evidence of god to support the theory that there is no god, when in actuality it's possible. That is the fallacy: assumption of one theory based on the lack of evidence on the other side.

I know it may seem like I'm repeating myself but I honestly don't know how to explain it any better.

Possible rewording: "Simply because there is not a vast multitude of wikipedia articles, does make an argument automatically irrelevant."

Originally Posted by Gman

Well yeah, but just because you can't give enough evidence doesn't mean I should automatically assume there is no god. I should at least accept the possibility of a god in any shape or form. I have seen many atheists use the fact that there is no definite evidence of god to support the theory that there is no god, when in actuality it's possible.

and I would agree with you. alas, I'm not atheist, I'm a theist of sorts. I definitely want a second opinion from at least an atheist on this topic. I venture to say that atheists believe there is no deity. However, no atheist I know would dare admit this, and besides who am I to repeatedly insist otherwise. Perhaps to say that atheists assume there is no God isn't any better....drat, diction can't fix this. allas this fallacy isn't about Theism vs Atheism it's about a logical fallacy. It heavily addresses burden of proof (although that's not the core issue either), which I am unfortunately a bit less opinionated/informed upon that I should be.

Originally Posted by morval

and I would agree with you. alas, I'm not atheist, I'm a theist of sorts. I definitely want a second opinion from at least an atheist on this topic. I venture to say that atheists believe there is no deity. However, no atheist I know would dare admit this, and besides who am I to repeatedly insist otherwise. Perhaps to say that atheists assume there is no God isn't any better....drat, diction can't fix this. allas this fallacy isn't about Theism vs Atheism it's about a logical fallacy. It heavily addresses burden of proof (although that's not the core issue either), which I am unfortunately a bit less opinionated/informed upon that I should be.

Yes until we get a second opinion, our discussion will probably just go around in circles. In any case I will agree with you that this is a very delicate area of discussion. It can be easily misconstrued or misinterpreted.

All my editing gone.....
Why didn't I save a copy?
Because I didn't expect hackers to screw things up.
Thus we have discovered why people pay outrageous rates for insurances of all varieties.
We recognize our fears a possible reality.

I wrote a rather large essay in response to the weak argument fallacy before the hack, which I'll sum up as concisely as possible.

"Innocent until proven guilty, false until proven true, nonexistent until proven existent". When there is a claim made, it is up to the claimant to prove it. If they can't, their claim can be disregarded purely on the basis that there is no reason to believe it in the face of another, stronger argument. Basically, if you are provided with two arguments, and one is weaker than the other, until it is strengthened there is no reason whatsoever to choose that over the stronger one, or even hold it as a possibility.

Ah, yes, I remember now.
And that is when the "fallacy fallacy" was introduced I believe.
I'll eventually get things re-edited, probably not until the weekend though.

There actualy is a fallacy similar to Gman's, although I can't remember it's name. It is basicaly disregarding logical proof or evidence. I think the example my philosophy text book used was something like disregarding a scientist's statment in a political debate because they are not from a federaly funded institution, or vice verca, things like that.

Also, you should look more into the fallacies of accident. They are also called sylogisms (son't know if it's spelt right) and they can be further broken down to be more specific. I'll try and see if I still have any of my notes from philo, if I do, I'll expand more on this.

Finaly, another type of fallacy is apeal to authority. It's most often used in ads, especialy for sports things. Basicaly it's "I'm/this person's great, listen to them". Every spokesperson you see is an ATA, and some are huge fallacies. What does Tiger Woods have to do with shaving? At least some of them makes some sense even if they are still fallacies (ie: Sidney Crosby advertising skates). Although there are other ways it can be used. Open ended threats are also ATAs (as well as a few others). Things like "don't piss me off..." especialy on a forum. And also "Listen to me, I'm your parent" is quite a common ATA

very good. I had the fallacies of accident posted right before the hack..I think...
Appeal to authority should probably go under the miscellaneous section.

Here's a list of what was lost.

Golden mean fallacy
Straw-man
No true scott's-man
appeal to novelty
appeal to tradition
poisoning the well

Originally Posted by morval

I definitely want a second opinion from at least an atheist on this topic.

I'm an atheist. I also firmly support the conclusion that absence of evidence does not equal evidence against. Satisfied?

I venture to say that atheists believe there is no deity. However, no atheist I know would dare admit this, and besides who am I to repeatedly insist otherwise.

Indeed there are some atheists who work themselves into a tantrum when someone points out that their lack of belief in a god is no different to believing gods don't exist. I'm not among them. I'm quite happy to admit that I believe there are no deities. Just as you believe there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy.


Well done on posting this list, I'm sure this will be of great assistance to those who bother to read it .

Originally Posted by infinity

I'm quite happy to admit that I believe there are no deities. Just as you believe there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy.

Well, someone has not been touched by his noodly apendage...