Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

This entry is part 8 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

funny-pictures-cat-activates-secret-doorToday (November 15) is our final look at Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula: Read the rest of this entry »

October 21, 2009 | Neece | Categories: Article Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club Logic & Critical Thinking | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Logical Fallacies

egg hatHere at Morgantown Atheists, we want to help you to think more critically. One way to do that is to learn to notice logical fallacies in communication.

We are slowly going through the main logical fallacies, with examples and also with how to refute them. You can use this in all aspects of your life, whether it be science vs. pseudo-science, religion vs. atheism or agnosticism, the daily assault of advertising and consumerism, or simply to put your own belief systems to the test.

This page will have an introduction to each one. Click the title of the fallacy to read the full article.

First, some definitions:

  • Logical: Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. Reasonable.
  • Fallacy: A deceptive, misleading or false notion or belief. A misleading or unsound argument.

Another thing that is really important as we get started is to keep in mind the difference between Fact versus Opinion, and the difference between Objective versus Subjective.

  • Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth. Something known to exist or to have happened. Something known to be true.
  • Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Pointing out that an issue is actually not based on fact, but rather an opinion, can end an argument that can never be solved. If I say that I make the best cookies in the world, that isn’t based on fact, simply my own opinion.

  • Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
  • Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to Objective)

Our Resources:

~

Carl SaganThe Fine Art of Baloney Detection

Information from Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer (video) about how to detect baloney with skeptical thinking.

~

~~

~

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

This is from Fallacy Files. You can see a chart showing the relationships of all of the fallacies. This can be helpful in getting to know the categories and how fallacies are similar.

~

funny-pictures-cat-has-had-many-victimsHow To Argue

There is actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to have a discussion or argument. The Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 did an episode on how to argue. This is a fairly close transcript of the podcast.
~
~
~
~

silly_animalz_may_058

Correlation and Causation

Just because two events occur together does not mean that one caused the other. Or just because two variables have a connection does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

~

~

too true

Appeal to Emotion

This logical fallacy uses emotion to prove a point without resorting to actual facts.

~

~

~

funny-pictures-cat-has-glassesCherry-Picking

This logical fallacy occurs when you count the hits and ignore the misses. It is used when only certain quotes, data, studies or research are used to support an argument while ignoring other valid and credible quotes, data, studies and research. In my personal experience, cherry-picking is rampant in the religious population.

~

~

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats with links to articles on Morgantown Atheists.

October 18, 2009 | Neece | Categories: | Tags: , , , | No Comments »

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

Since we’re talking so much about logical fallacies, Brent found a site called Fallacy Files that handles things in an interesting way. They have something called a Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies which shows how they are all related to each other. Here is a small version. Click on it to go to the site’s full size image.

TaxonomyC

After seeing how they are related, you can go to their How To Use page to read a bit more into it. For instance, you can see the logical relationships between them. Also as you get further to the right, you’ll see the colors fade from strong (more general) to faded (more specific).

The color and scheme is arbitrary, by the way, except how they blend. Red are formal fallacies. Blue are informal. Green is Loaded Question, which is not in either category.

Here is some of the reasoning behind this method:

The Taxonomy is more useful than the alphabetical index for studying the logical relationships between fallacies. To understand an individual fallacy, it may be helpful to move upward in the Taxonomy―that is, to the left―in order to understand the more general fallacy of which it is a subfallacy. Also, moving downward―that is, to the right―can help in understanding a general fallacy through seeing more specific versions of it. Some individual fallacies―such as Wishful Thinking―are leaves on more than one branch of the Taxonomy, because they are subfallacies of more than one type of fallacy.

In addition, fallacies that are subfallacies of the same general fallacy are like siblings, since they share the same parent. So, it may help to compare and contrast a fallacy with its siblings. As with human siblings, the likeness between sibling fallacies is stronger in some cases than in others. For instance, the causal fallacies Post Hoc and Cum Hoc are more similar to each other than they are to their other siblings, the Regression and Texas Sharpshooter fallacies. In the Taxonomy, this strong sibling relationship is indicated by a thicker, similarly-colored line connecting the two fallacies.

Another use for the Taxonomy is in finding a fallacy whose name you do not know, but you do know what general type of mistake you are looking for. Start with a general fallacy, and “drill down” into the Taxonomy―that is, moving to the right―until you find what you’re looking for.

You can also go to their main page to look up fallacies by their alphabetical listing.

I hope you find this useful! :)

September 19, 2009 | Neece | Categories: Logic & Critical Thinking | Tags: , , , , | No Comments »

How To Argue

This entry is part 4 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

funny-pictures-cat-has-had-many-victims

We’ve begun talking about logical fallacies and different arguments here and at the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club. So hopefully this will be interesting and helpful to you.

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there’s actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don’t really want to do it wrong because that’s being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don’t really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It’s about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I’ve done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Here is a pretty close transcript of a Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 podcast episode. It’s not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn’t finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it’s a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics’ Guide 5×5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009 Read the rest of this entry »

September 12, 2009 | Neece | Categories: Logic & Critical Thinking | Tags: , , , , | No Comments »
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline