posted December 23, 2003 04:00 AM            

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

• Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

• Argument from "authority".
  
  
• Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
  
  
• Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
  
  
• Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
  
  
• Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
  
  
• Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
  
  
• Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
  
  
• Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
  
  
• Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). *This is my favorite example*
  
  
• Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
  
  
• Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
  
  
• Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
  
  
• Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
  
  
• Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
  
  
• Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
  
  
• Confusion of correlation and causation.
  
  
• Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..

• Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
  
  
• Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
  

posted December 23, 2003 10:24 AM              

And God Bless Carl Sagan, too! I fell in love with him years ago when I was just a little girl and Mom would let me stay up late to watch "Cosmos".

posted April 26, 2004 06:11 PM            

i find regular review of these is helpful. very often it seems that what is passed off as debate around here is often fallacy number one- ad hominem.

posted April 26, 2004 07:38 PM            

Global Unity - How To Achieve It Through Debate

I hope more people visit this thread on their own because I think it might be misconstrued to recommend it to someone, even if you think it would help him/her/them.

posted April 26, 2004 08:15 PM              

but maybe its inappropriate. i can see a list for respecting others working very well.

dos and donts.

for example, objectivity to keep it impersonal if there is a topic that might arouse you. a Do

profanity, insults, and simple put downs. Donts.

im not the one to create this list of dos and donts, but i think that the list above is more appropriate for a school of debate. it seems strict to me. like im supposed to be disciplined now in everything i write. i can feel the headache growing in my brain.

also, there are really good writers around this forum. two of which include you harpyr and eleanor.
i have to rack my brain and grind my teeth just to be able to respond to that kind of word craft. especially eleanor. ive just started posting and responding with eleanor and she writes conplete essays when she posts. its awesome of course and
the challenge is very arousing, but i think i will explode if there is a guideline structure as demanding as the one above.