Logic

*- ...the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.

*- A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

*- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.

*- A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true.   A sound argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion.

*- Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument.   Some statements look like arguments, but are not.

It is my opinion that the 21st century will bring propaganda wars that are currently unfathomable.   The U.S. military during the Vietnam era trained basic trainees in logic as a form of propaganda-proofing.   In my opinion, propaganda-proofing can only be accomplished by an education in the truth-seeking skills which includes logic, the philosophy and method of science, and also in rhetoric.   These should be taught in high school and emphasized in college.   The truth-seeking tools will pay dividends for a lifetime.

In the list of fallacies you may see something like this:

*-Argumentum ad nauseam             over and over
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
 Yep,  freehold@^snip!^visi.net (Watson Aname) wrote on Sat, 02 May 98
 about: Re: How RUSH gets away with it.  (Logic & Rhetoric)

>On Fri, 01 May 1998, (Crash) wrote:

>> Ken Kinser  wrote:
>>> Crash wrote:
>> 
>>>> Here is an typical (well known) logical fallacy structure
>>>> that Rush Limbaugh constantly uses:
>> 
>> Notice it is only the *structure* we are looking at.  While there are
>> many different combinations of arguments, I believe there are
>> only 7 or so true argument structures.  This makes learning rhetoric
>> (propaganda-proofing) fairly easy, a week-end proposition. 

>A valuable thread, Crash, however daunting the challenge of 
>introducing a guiding concern for logic into a Rush Limbaugh 
>inspired news group.

>I think you may find the following, which I located somewhere on the web
>when I first began reading Usenet, to be useful.  I apologize for being
>unable to adequately attribute the author who put it together.

Many thanks Watson!  I'll quote your entire letter to cover for
Usenet receive holes.

exposed to it in school.  I had learned fallacies like this:
   *Converting a conditional*
   This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, 
   therefore if B then A".

Perhaps there are only 7 or 9 logical (valid) argument structures? 

I had never considered such things as straw men to be actual logical
fallacies, but more like rhetorical tricks. Flat lies in this case.

       A wise man once said of rhetorical tricks:
   "Generally, one is either aware of them, or duped by them."

"Straw man" may be Limbaugh's most frequent fallacy, I see 
angry or frightened dittoheads join talk.environment all the
time, both guns ablazing, yet they have no idea what the real 
issues are, nor what real environmentalists' positions are.
    But my goodness!
They sure can nimbly slay those environmental straw men Rush has 
created for them!  Pow! Pow! Pow!  Then one of two things happens,
the honest critical thinkers slink off with their tails between
their legs, or the dogmatic dig in to make utter fools of
themselves.  As of reality were only a matter of opinion.

       Dogma: Twisting your reality until it fits your assumptions.
Brainwashing: Twisting other's reality until it fits your assumptions.

Science: Testing assumptions against the facts.
  Dogma: Testing facts against the assumptions. 

>>  This makes learning rhetoric
>> (propaganda-proofing) fairly easy, a week-end proposition.

If one were to attempt that with this document, I'd suggest
skipping the truth tables, (which I found confusing) and move
directly to the fallacies list.  
  And don't bother trying to learn all their names.  Most
of them are "I knew that"s anyway, but you do need to
**over-learn** them, ponder them,  before you can see fallacies
in someone you agree with. 

 

*-
*-                      Logical Argument. 
*-                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-     This based on Constructing a logical argument by mathew
*-                Used with his kind permission 

*-Introduction
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This document attempts to provide a gentle introduction to logic,
*-in the hope of enhancing the general levels of debate.

*-Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference
*-[Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and
*-determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms,
*-we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

*-One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly.
*-However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when
*-constructing or analyzing an argument.

*-Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable.
*-That issue is very much open to debate. This document only explains
*-how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool
*-for the job.

*-Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic.
*-Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey
*-different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though,
*-they generally mean the type being described here.

*-                       Basic concepts 


*-The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also
*-called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either
*-true or false; for example:

*-     "The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge." 
*-     "Dogs cannot see colour." 
*-     "Berlin is the capital of Germany." 

*-Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied
*-(said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of
*-"deny", not the everyday meaning.

*-The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
*-arrangement of words used. So "A Prime Minister exists" and "There
*-exists a Prime Minister" both express the same proposition.

*-                     What is an argument? 


*-An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected
*-series of statements to establish a definite proposition". There
*-are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and
*-conclusion.

*-Stage one: Premises

*-One or more propositions are necessary for the argument to
*-continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the
*-premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for
*-accepting the argument and its conclusions.

*-Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as
*-"because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

*-(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can
*-be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If
*-something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question
*-it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when
*-you've heard the explanation.)

*-Stage two: Inference

*-The premises of the argument are used to obtain further
*-propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we
*-start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We
*-then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid
*-inference.

*-The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in
*-further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as
*-"implies that" or "therefore".

*-Stage three: Conclusion

*-Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another
*-proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of
*-inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and
*-the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases
*-such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

*-                      Types of argument 


*-There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and
*-inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its
*-conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be
*-true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

*-A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true,
*-then the conclusion is true.
*-An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some
*-evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are
*-not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better
*-or worse than other arguments. We can also discuss how probable
*-their premises are.

*-There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither
*-deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on
*-deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous
*-and convincing.

*-Here is an example of a deductive argument:

*-     Every event has a cause (premise) 
*-     The universe has a beginning (premise) 
*-     All beginnings involve an event (premise) 
*-     This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an
*-event (inference) 
*-     Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion) 

*-Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in
*-another argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a
*-conclusion with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not
*-make sense in isolation.

*-                     Recognizing an argument 


*-Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above.
*-For instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the
*-premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is
*-perfectly valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

*-Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions.
*-Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
*-producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an
*-argument. Some statements look like arguments, but are not.

*-For example:

*-"If the X-Files are to be believed then the American Government is
*-hiding important information from the rest of the world"

*-The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It
*-does not assert the premises which are necessary to support what
*-appears to be its conclusion.

*-Another example:

*-"Your parents created you; therefore obey your parents"

*-The phrase "obey your parents" is neither true nor false. Therefore
*-it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.

*-Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there
*-is something wrong with the engine of a car. Consider two
*-statements of the form "A because B". The first statement:

*-"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the
*-engine."

*-The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong
*-with the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not
*-start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot
*-argue from A to B using a statement of the form "A because B".

*-However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:

*-"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because
*-it will not start."

*-Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A
*-because B" is then an argument.

*-To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent
*-to "B therefore A". The two statements then become:

*-"There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will
*-not start."

*-And:

*-"My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the
*-engine."

*-If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is
*-something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second
*-statement is a valid argument.

*-                      Implication in detail 


*-There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a
*-deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion
*-holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of
*-implication, which we must now consider more carefully.

*-Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.
*-However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only
*-false propositions.

*-For example:

*-     All insects have wings (premise) 
*-     Woodlice are insects (premise) 
*-     Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion) 

*-Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises
*-are false. If the argument's premises were true, however, the
*-conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.

*-More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false
*-premises, as in:

*-     All fish live in the sea (premise) 
*-     Dolphins are fish (premise) 
*-     Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion) 

*-However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion
*-through valid inference from true premises.

*-We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The
*-symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the
*-conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

*-Premise Conclusion Inference

*-A B A=>B

*-----------------------------

*-F F T

*-F T T

*--- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the
*-conclusion can be true or false.

*-T F F

*--- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference
*-must be invalid.

*-T T T

*--- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion
*-must be true.

*-A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A
*-sound argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful
*-not to confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

*-Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an
*-argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost always presented
*-with some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the
*-argument itself, one can criticize the apparent intent of the
*-argument. Such criticism is outside the scope of this document,
*-however!

*-                              Fallacies

*-To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would
*-require lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is
*-simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to
*-be avoided when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known
*-as fallacies.

*-In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken
*-beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those
*-beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally
*-used to refer to a form of technically incorrect argument,
*-especially if the argument appears valid or convincing.

*-So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a
*-logical argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen
*-to be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies
*-we aim to avoid being misled by them.

*-Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical
*-devices often used in debate. The list is not intended to be
*-exhaustive.

*-Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force
*-or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of
*-a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be
*-summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be
*-a direct threat from the arguer.

*-For example:

*-"Hitler's war is just and any who disagree will be tortured by the
*-Gestapo"


*-Argumentum ad hominem
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

*-The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead
*-of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks
*-the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because
*-the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of
*-those asserting it.

*-For example:

*-"The negative team's arguments are wrong because they are
*-patriarchal males"
*-Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a
*-witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This
*-is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given
*-by the witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not
*-demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude
*-otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

*-The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when
*-a person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an
*-assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For
*-example:

*-"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you
*-argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

*-This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for
*-dismissing the opponent's argument.

*-This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion.
*-For example:

*-"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad
*-thing. You're white."

*-This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges
*-that one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from
*-selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".


*-Argumentum ad ignorantiam     conclusion from a lack of proof
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This
*-fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true
*-simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when
*-it is argued that something must be false because it has not been
*-proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that
*-something is false until it has been proved true, a basic
*-scientific principle.)

*-Examples:

*-"Of course Elvis is alive. Nobody can prove otherwise."


*-Argumentum ad misericordiam  pity
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The
*-fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake
*-of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

*-"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't
*-find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."


*-Argumentum ad populum
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the
*-People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of
*-an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of
*-fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

*-"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."


*-Argumentum ad numerum
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
*-consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe
*-a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is
*-correct.


*-Argumentum ad verecundiam  Appeal to Authority
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try
*-and win support for an assertion. For example:

*-"Mal Meninga was a great footballer, he is saying that you should
*-buy this car therefore you should."

*-This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example,
*-reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be
*-relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can
*-distinguish quite clearly between:

*-"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

*-and

*-"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an
*-intelligent computer"

*-Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his
*-opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a
*-mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified
*-to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.


*-The fallacy of accident    general to the specific
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied
*-to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the
*-rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the
*-general to the specific. For example:

*-"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you
*-must dislike atheists."

*-This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try
*-to decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying
*-general rules.


*-Converse accident / Hasty generalization   specifics to rule
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs
*-when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific
*-cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For
*-example:

*-"Richard Nixon was a dishonest President therefore all presidents
*-are dishonest"


*-Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter   rule to specifics
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to
*-a particular situation in which the features of that particular
*-situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization
*-is the opposite of a hasty generalization.


*-Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-These are known as False Cause fallacies.
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies
*-something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been
*-shown to be the cause. For example:

*-"I took an aspirin and meditated, and my headache disappeared.
*-Therefore meditation cured my headache"

*-The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is
*-assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened
*-before the event. For example:

*-"The Great Depression occurred after the rise of Communism.
*-Therefore we must avoid Communism for the same reasons."


*-Cum hoc ergo propter hoc     two events occur together
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts
*-that because two events occur together, they must be causally
*-related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the
*-cause(s) of the events.


*-Petitio principii / Begging the question    bad premises 
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable
*-as the conclusion reached.


*-Circulus in demonstrando   cicular
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion
*-which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased
*-so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

*-"Communists must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence
*-any government official who is revealed to be a Communist will lose
*-his job. Therefore Communists will do anything to hide their
*-secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore Communists cannot
*-be allowed to hold government office."

*-Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the
*-same as the conclusion. 


*-Ignoratio elenchi   arg. nothing to do with conclusion.
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
*-argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually
*-logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

*-Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they
*-arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion
*-in a more favourable light.


*-Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more
*-different meanings in the same argument. For example:

*-"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure
*-that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we
*-must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
*-redistributable."


*-Amphiboly     ambiguous, careless
*-~~~~~~~~~
*-Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are
*-ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.


*-Accent           shifting meaning
*-~~~~~~
*-Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this
*-case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement
*-are emphasized. 


*-Fallacies of composition    parts applied to whole
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by
*-the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

*-"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is
*-therefore very lightweight."

*-The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of
*-a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those
*-items. For example:

*-"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus.
*-Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."


*-Fallacy of division   whole applied to parts
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of
*-Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The
*-first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its
*-parts. For
*-example:

*-"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

*-The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is
*-shared by each item. For example:

*-"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."


*-The slippery slope argument
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This argument states that should one event occur, so will other
*-harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are
*-caused by the first event.
*-For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to
*-legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of
*-drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."


*-"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies /

*-Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle    claim things are similar
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in
*-some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are
*-similar. Examples:

*-"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a
*-form of animal based on carbon
*-chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"


*-Affirmation of the consequent   A -> B   B so A
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true,
*-therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine
*-the truth table for implication given earlier.

*-Converting a conditional    A -> B   B so A  ??see above
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if
*-B then A".


*-Denial of the antecedent     A -> B   noA  so noB
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false,
*-therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it
*-clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different
*-from Non Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A
*-is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B
*-at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid;
*-rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
*-anything about B.


*-Argumentum ad antiquitatem   old is good
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
*-simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always
*-been."


*-Argumentum ad novitatem         new is good
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the
*-fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because
*-it is new or newer than something else.


*-Argumentum ad crumenam          money is good
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness;
*-that those with more money are more likely to be right.


*-Argumentum ad lazarum            poverty is good
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is
*-sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is
*-the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.


*-Argumentum ad nauseam             over and over
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be
*-true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one
*-that employs constant repetition in asserting something.


*-Bifurcation       "black and white"
*-~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation
*-occurs when one presents a situation as having only two
*-alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.


*-Plurium interrogationum / Many questions   demands simple answer
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a
*-complex question.


*-Non sequitur        unconnected premises
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from
*-premises which are not logically connected with it.


*-Red herring             divert attention
*-~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to
*-the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
*-away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.


*-Reification / Hypostatization     abstract is concrete
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a
*-concrete thing.


*-Shifting the burden of proof
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
*-proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of
*-Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of
*-proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being
*-made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
*-true unless proven otherwise.


*-Straw man
*-~~~~~~~~~
*-The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so
*-that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that
*-misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original
*-position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to
*-deal with the actual arguments that have been made.


*-The extended analogy
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some
*-suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to
*-assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument
*-about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are
*-analogous to each other.

*-This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate
*-about anti-cryptography legislation:

*-"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

*-"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
*-supported Martin Luther King."

*-"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as
*-the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"


*-Tu quoque       "you did it too"
*-~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is
*-argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it.
*-For instance:

*-"You're just being randomly abusive."

*-"So? You've been abusive too."

*-This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of
*-Argumentum ad Hominem.


*-Audiatur et altera pars      unarticulated assumptions
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother
*-to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of
*-the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not
*-strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions;
*-however, it is often viewed with suspicion.

*-Argumentum ad logicam      false argument = false
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*-This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is
*-false merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the
*-conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that
*-fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

 


Real world Quiz, Find the Fallacies:

--Rush Limbaugh said on August 15, 1995:
   "So what you have here, in this, uh, in this booklet, Ideas Plus -
A Collection of Practical Teaching Ideas, the National Council of
Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois are instructions on how to
prepare logic students  - in fact steer students to this radio show
and my TV program - so that it can be demonstrated that I am a liar. 
That I make things up. That I come up with false analogies."

   "The connection here is that there's nothing that goes on here but
a bunch a ranting. There's no evidence, uh, there is, uh, there's no
supporting, uh, documentation if you will, we have, uh, no, uh, data
to support that which, uh, we profess - and of course, anybody who
listens to this program knows that these accusations are mindless and
baseless and can only be made by people who don't listen to the
program but who nevertheless have a huge fear of it."
              --Rush Limbaugh, August 15, 1995   
    -----------------------------------------------------------
How many fallacies can you find in the above quote?
Cheat Clues below.
  clues:
   1) "so that it can be demonstrated that I am a liar."
   2) "There's no evidence"
   3) "and of course anybody"
   4) "only be made by people who don't listen"
   5) "huge fear"

Arguably, there are others, but more complex. 
(One may need to take a logic class (diagramming) to see
fallacy # 1. (One needs experience.) True statement would be:
      "so that it can be tested if I am a liar."
The others are self-evident to the logical critical thinker.
Fallacies #3 - #5 are sometimes called "Limbaugh Chant #1.")


This thrust/format has been adopted by many populist
right wing speakers.

In my opinion, the greatest sin here is their teaching
that truth is only a matter of opinion: derived here
from the implication that these logic students are being
brainwashed by an evil liberal plot (a Limbaugh assumption)
-- as if logic were only a matter of opinion.  This evil
conspiracy is their  catch-all denial of all contradictory
evidence, including science, logic, Media, and education.

Dogma: Twisting the facts until they match your world-view. 

If accepted, it effectively insulates them from ALL criticism!!
This very safe, very comfortable, easily understood place is
one of the right wing's greatest appeals.   If everything is
only a matter of (political) opinion, then why value/seek
the sometimes dirty, threatening, and complex Truth?
--Doug

• Back to the top.
• Bashford's home page

    Douglas Bashford -

http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/logic01.html, 4473 Sept 23 1999