Logical Fallacies

Thanks to the blog of Strange Musings, I stumbled upon this entry: Logical Fallacies.

I’ve always wanted to type of a post about logic as I see flaws in logic all over the place on message boards, blogs (especially about POLITICS!), and of course in real life. Most people don’t know how to debate or just don’t care. I am no professional at logic, but tend to use more logic than others when debating an issue. This is not to say that my emotions don’t get involved, though. This is also not to say that if I’m personally attacked that I’m not going to retaliate either. Debating and fighting are two different things.

I’m going to post a similar entry to that of zandperl, but in my own words, of course.

There’s a list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia. I’m just going to list and discuss a few.

Ad hominem as logical fallacy

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used
more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.

You’ll find this more on Cyberspace than anywhere else. Most people have in their disclaimers, “Don’t attack ME, attack the subject”. People never learn to play nice, but I never bat an eyelash when I see this happening. Let me introduce S.P.Q.W as a repeat offender in this case. His best art work is exemplified in all of the comment sections in the Two Guys from Kabul Blog toward other Americans especially found in this post.

My favorite Logical Fallacy of all is

Appeal to authority

The Nizkor Project has an awesome definition:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
   
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
   
3. Therefore, C is true.
   

People repeat like parrots the words from the president and religious figures. But I’d have to say the most annoying one for me would be those parroting their parents. Sure it’s all good and “wholesome like” to respect your parents and your elders. But any good parent would only hope that when their child becomes an adult, that their children develop their own mind, their own values, their own religion, their own political beliefs, and most importantly they hope that their children become independent thinkers.

I strongly believe that most people are sheep. I also strongly feel that grown-ups are still trying to please mom and pop (even though they may have already passed away) or are too old to really care. As far as I’m concerned, these nipple-sucking goody-two-shoe types may have developed physically into adulthood, but intellectually and emotionally they are still attached to the umbilical cord. I’m guessing this is due to an irrational fear of possible rejection from their parents.

You know those people who try to do everything right and perfect? Children aren’t born this way, folks.

Here’s one interesting testimony from Mychal.

I came to Augsburg with no idea what I wanted to do with my life. I felt forced into a higher education because it felt like my family expected that of me. Both of my parents went to the U of M,so it felt like there was an expectation there. I lived most of my life trying to please my parents because I was scared to let them down or them being disappointed with me. I guess college made me grow up a lot!! I was more immature back then, then I knew. I came to Augsburg with the intention of just trying to get through with a degree. I am sure that is most freshmen’s idea of college. But, college really changes you. It shows you that getting better education is what you need to excel in this world.

I understand that some parents want the best for their children and need to guide them in such a way that so that their kids can achieve success. This is only natural. But kids shouldn’t be driven to do that out of fear. Kids need to want to become successful NOT for their parents, but for themselves.

Also I can understand a little girl or boy living growing up in a threatening environment placating the hell out of their parents to either shut them up or avoid a beating.

However, I would expect grown-ups to be able to split from their parents and have the ability to think independently from them. And if they are not able to – to at least admit that they cannot because they still fear their parents. I have nothing to back this up with, but I’m willing to bet that this is a very common fear.

Appeal to belief

Yet another sheep-minded Logical Fallacy. “Most people are for the Iraqi War, so it’s got to be right”.

“Most woman think Vin Diesel is handsome, so then he’s handsome.”

Next Fallacy: Some parents are very guilty of this one: APPEAL TO FEAR!

Next…

Argument from ignorance

Example: I can’t believe that such a young, handsome, innocent-looking, and rich guy such as Scott Peterson could kill another person, therefore he’s innocent.

Bah!

Next Fallacy: Did you all watch Larry King Live with Bill Maher on August 11th? Speaking of Logical Fallacies, I thought this excerpt was interesting:

KING: Anti-terrorism. It appears — you can say all you want about it,
we haven’t had an attack on this soil since 9/11.

MAHER: Yes. That doesn’t mean that’s because…

KING: We must have thwarted something.

MAHER: Why?

KING: That’s a pretty good guess, that we’ve thwarted something, isn’t it?

MAHER: Well, actually that’s a logical fallacy.

KING: A logical fallacy?

MAHER: Yes, just because A — B follows A, doesn’t mean that B was caused by A. You know that that’s a logical fallacy.

KING: I see. In other words, no speeding ticket was given on Wilshire Boulevard today doesn’t mean no one sped?

MAHER: Right. Exactly.

Now, look, I think on the local level, even on the federal level, lots of good people have been doing a lot of good work to thwart terrorism. So I don’t want to discount their efforts. But it also could be, for a number of other reasons, like they work — they, meaning the terrorists — work on a much different timetable than we do. They’re much more patient, much more patient. I always say if they had a sitcom on al Jazeera, they’d give it, like, 50 years to catch on.

I wonder which Logical Fallacy this one was?

The list goes on forever. And the more I read it, the more I find myself guilty of many of them.