logical fallacy » Morgantown Atheists

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

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

Today (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 »

Logical Fallacies

Here 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:

The 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.

How 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.
~
~
~
~

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.

Appeal to Emotion

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

Cherry-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.

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.

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!

Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

This entry is part 7 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Here are several examples of people trying to use the logical fallacy of Correlation and Causation which is loosely defined as follows: 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.

1. From a creationist website:

1. “All crime is a result of sin, and of course there was crime before Charles Darwin promoted evolution, but as the theory increased so did the crime rate. Today Creation is not taught, even as a theory, in our schools, therefore children have nothing to base their morality upon. As God has been removed from the classroom, so all kinds of evil has multiplied on our streets. Remove the Bible and you take away the conscience of the nation. Evolution has absolutely nothing to offer with regards to morality, no wonder then that our leaders have no answer to societies problems.”

In fact crime rates have been going down in recent years. Other western nations teach evolution, and they have lower crime rates than the US. Historically the south is the most anti-evolution of geographic regions. The south also has the highest crime rate of any region in the US.

Crime statistics by country
Crime reporting in the US (pdf: see pages 9 and 10, especially) Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

This entry is part 6 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

OK, we’ve all seen the ads on TV for some alarm company where some creep is watching an innocent woman or child or both and kicks open their front door in broad daylight. All of a sudden, an alarm shrieks to life, the criminal makes eye contact with his intended victim and runs off.

I can’t tell you how much these ads offend me. First of all, anyone psychotic enough to kick in the door of someone’s home in broad daylight is not going to turn tail and run off just because some alarm goes off. The first thing they are going to do is get hold of their victim to control their movements, that way they can keep them away from any exit or phone.

The next thing they’ll do is bind the victim with something so they can be controlled with minimal effort. So by the time the company monitoring the alarm system lets the phone ring the required number of times, they then have to determine whether it’s a genuine emergency or someone’s talking on their phone & just doesn’t want to answer the call-waiting signal (I do that all the time), they then call 911 to alert the authorities. You think the cops are going to show up in time to save you? Ask Nathan Lee how that worked out: 5 Calls To 911 Does Nothing To Help Except To Convict The Killer Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

This entry is part 5 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Cherry-Picking is 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.

Examples:

When christians speak of the bible, they invariably cherry-pick the parts that support whatever they are trying to get across. Homosexuality is a prime example (leviticus mentions it twice). Of course they don’t mind eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt, which is expressly forbidden in subsequent chapters. We’ve all dealt with the hypocrisy of the old testament, especially the homosexuality issue. Instead I’m going to share a bit of the new testament, which most people use to show how kind and loving jesus was. I’ll stick to the gospels for this exercise, to make my point:

Here are a few examples of nice things that are in the bible.

Matthew 7:3-5: jesus says to avoid hypocrisy. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others. Don’t tell your brother he’s got a mote in his eye when you have a beam in your own eye. (not an original idea, really, but it’s a good lesson)
Matthew 19:18-19: jesus talks about the commandments (notice he mentions 6 instead of 10, and the last one is not in the old testament. Also these are all secular commandments, not religious) Don’t murder, don’t cheat on your spouse, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your parents, love your neighbor as yourself. (these are basically good rules, also not original)
Luke 6:31: The Golden Rule. As you would have others treat you, treat them likewise. (not an original idea, either, but a good way to live)

Of course, most christians ignore the more hateful things and skip over them, or apologetically dismiss them using other logical fallacies. Here are just a few: Read the rest of this entry »

How To Argue

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

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 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy

This entry is part 5 of 16 in the series Monthly Meetings

We had a good meeting at the Blue Moose! Thanks for attending, everyone. We had about 10 people.

We talked about logical fallacies and socialized a bit. Please email the information that you shared to Neece so that I can post it to share with everyone. I’ll be posting the different fallacies as I get them.

September Topic of the Evening: Your Favorite Logical Fallacy

We all chose a logical fallacy and talked a bit about it.

So, for this meeting:

bring your logical fallacy
an explanation of what it is
several examples to share with us
If someone uses that fallacy on you, how would you refute it?
Bring a legible copy of your notes for us to post on this site after the meeting, to share with everyone. Even better, send a companion email to Neece before the meeting so we can share it with everyone in a big post the next day.

Choose from either list, they are a bit different:

If you couldn’t make the meeting, you can still participate! You can comment below with your fallacy and the above information to share with us, or you can email us and we’ll share it with everyone.

NOTE: we are looking for a permanent meeting place where we can relax, talk comfortably and have different numbers of people show up. If you have ideas or suggestions, let us know!

Logical Fallacy Land 2: A Treat For You

This entry is part 2 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

I have a treat for you. The other day I posted a horrid creationism video by John Morris Pendleton and suggested that we practice pointing out logical fallacies by refuting the lies and nonsense he was spewing forth. But I could barely handle watching the video myself, never mind muddle through it point by point, so I’m sure it’s similar for you.

Still, I think there’s validity to refuting such arguments as practice. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 39% of Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution, while 1/4 say they do not believe in the theory.

Lucky for us, Brent told me about a set of videos that go through Pendleton’s step by step and refute them. How awesome!

Here is the first one of 4. (about 10 minutes long):

For the rest of the videos, click here. Or you can probably get them through the web page of this video.

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats

Logical Fallacy Land

This entry is part 1 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Here is a video sent to me by an atheist who asked for help in refuting it. It was sent to him by an “arrogant christian”. I’ll warn you, it’s almost 27 minutes long and incredibly irritating to watch. But I’m sharing it with you because we are working on logical fallacies for our next meeting, as well as reading Nonsense by Robert Gula for the Book Club.

It would be awesome if we all could comment or email Neece with refutations against all the lies and logical fallacies used. If you send in an email, I’ll post it to share with everyone. Or comment below and we can all add to it little by little.

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Logical Fallacies

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

~

~

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

How To Argue

Correlation and Causation

Appeal to Emotion

Cherry-Picking

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

How To Argue

September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy Land 2: A Treat For You

Logical Fallacy Land

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Pages

Meta

Categories

Series

Subscribe to and Contact Us

Get Email Updates

Tag Happy

Links

Where To Find Us

Atheist Associations