An Introduction to the Nature of Fallacies

Well after posting a bit on the serious discussion board, I realized that it's been a while since I've had a course that even bothered to address rules of logic. So I was brushing up on things and decided I should post some highlights on the most common fallacies come across in every day forum discussion. I've basically condensed, edited, and tweaked the wiki version of this topic, however the wording of the raw definitions remain virtually untouched. The intro is taken straight from Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia, as wikipedia was a bit inconsistent in their diction and didn't offer any articles explaining the big picture (as far as I could find). So here they are. (These rules can apply very much to the theorizing board as well, by the way.)

Introduction

An argument may be fallacious in three ways: in its material content, through a misstatement of the facts; in its wording, through an incorrect use of terms; or in its structure (or form), through the use of an improper process of inference. As shown in the diagram:



Fallacies are correspondingly classified as (1) material, (2) verbal, and (3) formal. Groups 2 and 3 are called logical fallacies, or fallacies “in discourse,” in contrast to the substantive, or material, fallacies of group 1, called fallacies “in matter”; and groups 1 and 2, in contrast to group 3, are called informal fallacies.

Material Fallacies
The material fallacies are also known as fallacies of presumption, because the premises “presume” too much—they either covertly assume the conclusion or avoid the issue in view.

Begging the question (arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion. Example: “We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime.” This statement assumes the violent crime rate will fall when the death penalty is imposed.

Irrelevant Conclusion (a.k.a. red herring)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. Example: “Ganondorf's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying that Gerudo whore to keep quiet. The media should investigate that!”
A red herring (the unrelated alleged affair) attempts to change the subject away from the popular policies. However, if the original discussion were of Ganondorf's public integrity (encompassing both popularity and conduct), this argument could be perfectly valid.

Fallacy of Many Questions--groups more than one question in the form of a single question. Example: “Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?” A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wank-beating. *ehem, it's wife-beating* Oh yes, wife beating.

Fallacy of Accident (a.k.a. destroying the exception)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example: "Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals."
Example 2:“Emo people cut themselves. Susan housewife cut herself peeling onions. Therefore Susan housewife is emo.” The exception being that in the case of Susan housewife, the self cutting was unintentional.
Example 3: Only Kokiri children are blessed with a guardian fairy. Link is blessed with a guardian fairy. Therefore Link must be a Kokiri.

Converse Fallacy of Accident (a.k.a. reverse accident or destroying the exception)--argues from a special case to a general rule. Example: Every duck I have seen is the same density as wood, so it must be true that all ducks have the same weight density as wood.
Example 2: This witch weighs the same as this duck, so it must be true that all witches weigh the same as all ducks.
Example 3 (from Wikipedia) Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.


Verbal Fallacies
Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.
They are generally classified as follows:

Proof by verbosity—is a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

In short, this is probably the most obvious one to spot in forum discussions simply because the visual result is "a wall of text", yet it is still easy to get sucked into the wall's vortex of doom. Almost every S.D. board regular is probably guilty of this from time to time to a degree (myself included.) However, just to be clear, "wall of text" does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is untrue. Claiming Proof by Verbosity would most often apply in the event that verbosity seems to be one of the few things that the argument has going for it. Keep this fallacy in mind the next time a conspiracy thread pops up.

Equivocation-- this occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion. Example: The loss made Tingle mad [= angry]; mad [= insane] people should be institutionalized; so Tingle should be institutionalized.

Amphibology--is an ambiguous grammatical structure in a sentence. (This is one of my favorite ones )
example:Old farts shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's getting too dangerous on the streets.
This could be taken to mean the old farts will be in danger, or that they will cause the danger.

Amphiboly can also be used humorously.
I once dueled a Gerudo Thief in my pajamas. How she got into my pajamas I'll never know.

Fallacy of Composition--Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. For example: "all the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled". This can be acceptable with certain arguments such as spatial arguments. Example: "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage".

Fallacy of Division (reversal of the above fallacy)—is arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part. Example: "Hyrule Castle (the whole) is 1000 years old, therefore, all the people working in Hyrule Castle (each part) are 1000 years old".


Formal Fallacy
In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle. Instead of giving you verbal examples I'll just provide you with a diagram from wikipedia.



Ok, now that you've all been tortured with those silly rules, time for your special prize! Pick out the problem(s) in the logic of the below dialog excerpt from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (it's not hard) Cheers!


Belvedere: Why do you think that she is a witch?
Peasant 2: Well, she turned me into a newt.
[Belvedere gives him a disbelieving look]
Belvedere: A newt?
[Silence]
Peasant 2: Well I got better.
Peasant 3: Burn her anyway.
[Yells of "Burn her!"]
Belvedere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Peasants: Burn them!
Belvedere: Now, what do burn besides witches?
Peasant 3: More witches! [receives a punch from Peasant 1; silence]
Peasant 2: Wood?
Belvedere: So, why do witches burn? [more silence]
Peasant 2: Because there made of wood?
Belvedere: So, how do you tell if she is made of wood?
Peasant 3: Build a bridge out of her!
Belvedere: Ah, but cant you also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 3: Oh, right.
Belvedere: Tell me, does wood sink?
Peasant 1: No, it floats.
Belvedere: What also floats in water?
[lots of yelling and many wrong and random answers including very small rocks]
King Arthur: A duck!
Belvedere: Exactly!
Peasant 2: So if she weighs as much as a duck she is made of wood.
Belvedere: And therefore?
Peasants: A witch!
Belvedere: We shall use my largest scales.
[Having been revealed to weigh the same as a duck, therefore proving her a witch, the crowd goes insane]

I wont even bother pointing out the problems in logic from that exerp. The issues with logic is what makes the monty python movies so great.

I just wanted to applaud you for making this post. No idea if it will help those that use these types of logic, but it may at least get them to think about it.

You should post this in Zelda theorizing, too. It'll help a lot of them.

*applaudes*

I'd like to add one that occurs a lot in religious discussions: The Outgroup Homogeneity Bias. Essentially, it's a cognitive bias where people see an outside group (such a religious or ethnic group) as consisting of the exact same type of people. Essentially, it boils down to "You belong to group X, therefore you act like *this*."

There is also the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." It's original formulation went like this:

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing.""

This is a fallacy because what is a "true Scotsman" is vague and contested, so people can change its definition at will. I see this fallacy often in arguments regarding religious atrocities when people say "the people who did such things were not true Christians/Muslims/whatever."

Oh, and "have you stopped beating your wife?" is classic.

Hehe! I haven't seen Monty Python in a long time! They're so funny because they make no sense (Have no logic to them.)! Of course a person is not made of wood! Wood does not have systems in them. It has no conscious!

Thanks, morval, for putting this together for us. You rule

I certainly think that this comprehensive list will help the Serious Discussion section from imploding.

Indeed, this is an excellent idea, one I wish I'd thought of.

As such I think I shall sticky it.

One note, though, from now on let's try to limit posts in this thread to questions about fallacies, how they work, or new ones to be added, 'kay? If this is being stickied I don't want it being a casual discussion thread, makes it too hard to find the actual information.

Many thanks to everyone for the display of appreciation towards the post. It did take a little time and brainpower to come up with. Thanks to GDwarf for the sticky *tips hat* ok, to business...

I just edited the original post to make it a bit easier to read. Also, I added an introduction which helps to understand the broad-scope categorization of the different fallacies. Equivocation was added under the verbal fallacies, and proof-by-verbosity was lengthened (ironic). Contemplating a miscellaneous section.....

Originally Posted by Månegarm

I'd like to add one that occurs a lot in religious discussions: The Outgroup Homogeneity Bias. Essentially, it's a cognitive bias where people see an outside group (such a religious or ethnic group) as consisting of the exact same type of people. Essentially, it boils down to "You belong to group X, therefore you act like *this*."

There is also the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

The first one sounds like good ol' fashioned stereotyping. I think most people are aware of this one, but perhaps it should be edited into the original list. Do you think it would fit in the above categories? I might create a misc. section since the Scotsman fallacy is an interesting hybrid of two fallacies.

The scotsman fallacy is definitely one to be included. It is a hybrid of begging the question (via add hoc shift) and Equivocation. Thus, it is both a material and a verbal fallacy.

I just wanted to say that some things which are logical fallacies
are also true at the same time.

A logical fallacy might be saying that A is true because of B,
when B has nothing to do with A.

But A could still be true for a different reason. It's tricky.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

I just wanted to say that some things which are logical fallacies
are also true at the same time.

A logical fallacy might be saying that A is true because of B,
when B has nothing to do with A.

But A could still be true for a different reason. It's tricky.

actually, I believe he said that, in some way...

Originally Posted by morval

Irrelevant Conclusion (a.k.a. red herring)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. Example: “Ganondorf's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying that Gerudo whore to keep quiet. The media should investigate that!”
A red herring (the unrelated alleged affair) attempts to change the subject away from the popular policies. However, if the original discussion were of Ganondorf's public integrity (encompassing both popularity and conduct), this argument could be perfectly valid.
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]

yes?

also- how about this one:
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square!

can you explain why?

Originally Posted by Cukeman

I just wanted to say that some things which are logical fallacies
are also true at the same time.

A logical fallacy might be saying that A is true because of B,
when B has nothing to do with A.

But A could still be true for a different reason. It's tricky.

Like how global warming is caused by a decrease in pirates?

One notable fallacy, the Golden Mean fallacy, was made into a cultural pastime courtesy of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Stated simply, this fallacy assumes that when two extreme positions are present in a debate, the truth of the matter must necessarily be somewhere in the middle, when in fact it is entirely possible for one extreme to be correct and the other to be wrong.

@Sapphira: What you refer to is the fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation. For example, one could construct a chart showing that ice cream sales are positively correlated with drowning. However, in so doing one would fail to make the logical connection that people both swim and buy voluminous amounts of ice cream during the summer.

Originally Posted by Project 2501

One notable fallacy, the Golden Mean fallacy, was made into a cultural pastime courtesy of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Stated simply, this fallacy assumes that when two extreme positions are present in a debate, the truth of the matter must necessarily be somewhere in the middle, when in fact it is entirely possible for one extreme to be correct and the other to be wrong.

@Sapphira: What you refer to is the fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation. For example, one could construct a chart showing that ice cream sales are positively correlated with drowning. However, in so doing one would fail to make the logical connection that people both swim and buy voluminous amounts of ice cream during the summer.

Er, I was making a joke. Perhaps you haven't been touched by his noodly appendage?

Anyway, that's what the joke is: correlation does not necessarily mean causation. While there has been a decline in the number of pirates (traditional pirates, mind you), and there has been an increase in global warming, the two are clearly unrelated. Pastafarianism, folks.

Yeah, I knew that; I merely wished to identify the fallacy more formally instead of potentially allowing the readers to begin referring to it as the Spaghetti Monster Fallacy.

Actually come to think of it that name is way cooler and I support using it from now on.

Um.. You forgot the well known and well used Straw-man. It assumes that if you support/ like one thing, you must support/like all things closely related to it. Or at least that's my basic understanding of it. Feel free to correct me.

Example: If you support communism, then you must support Stalin and Mao's oppressive regimes.

Originally Posted by Gman

Um.. You forgot the well known and well used Straw-man.

Example: If you support communism, then you must support Stalin and Mao's opreesive regimes.

oh my. You are right. I will get on that. I believe that one is a material fallacy.

so the to do list will be to add straw-man, scottsman fallacy, The Outgroup Homogeneity Bias, and investigate/add the golden mean fallacy.

I have a suggestion for two fallacies:

1.) Appeal to Novelty: the fallacy of saying that a concept or thing is better because the idea is newer or contemporary (Ex: Evolution is the most contemporary idea regarding the formation of life on the planet, therefore it is true); and it's opposite, the Appeal to Tradition: the fallacy of saying that a concept is better because it is older, traditional, or has always been done in the past (Ex: Creationism has been espoused as the explanation for the formation of life for centuries, therefore it is true).

2.) Poisoning the Well: A form of ad hominem attack that occurs before the meat of an argument, biasing the audience against the opponent's side before he can present his case. (Ex: You could listen to his arguments for the existance of God, but he's a conservative, Bible-Belt dwelling, Iraq war supporting fundy!!!)

Originally Posted by Zauriel

I have a suggestion for two fallacies:

1.) Appeal to Novelty: the fallacy of saying that a concept or thing is better because the idea is newer or contemporary (Ex: Evolution is the most contemporary idea regarding the formation of life on the planet, therefore it is true); and it's opposite, the Appeal to Tradition: the fallacy of saying that a concept is better because it is older, traditional, or has always been done in the past (Ex: Creationism has been espoused as the explanation for the formation of life for centuries, therefore it is true).

2.) Poisoning the Well: A form of ad hominem attack that occurs before the meat of an argument, biasing the audience against the opponent's side before he can present his case. (Ex: You could listen to his arguments for the existance of God, but he's a conservative, Bible-Belt dwelling, Iraq war supporting fundy!!!)

I'm thinking the first one would be a material fallacy and the 2nd one would fall under verbal fallacy. Is that how those are traditionally categorized? Or should they go under miscellaneous with the no-true-Scotsman?

Originally Posted by morval

I'm thinking the first one would be a material fallacy and the 2nd one would fall under verbal fallacy. Is that how those are traditionally categorized? Or should they go under miscellaneous with the no-true-Scotsman?

I agree that the first is a material fallacy, but the second would probably go under miscellaneous.

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.