Morgantown Atheists » logical fallacy

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Neece — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:19:58 +0000

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:

Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
The world does not need another smart aleck.

Logical Fallacies

Neece — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:49:37 +0000

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

Neece — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:53:47 +0000

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

Neece — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:43:14 +0000

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)

2. This example comes from a “paper” that supposedly showed that global warming wasn’t occurring.

“What better measures of human health and welfare are there? In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Just because there were more greenhouse gases in the 20th century than during past centuries, and human welfare increased during the 20th century, it doesn’t mean the two are somehow connected.

3. This final example comes from a conversation with someone on the Internet. (csiop.org)

“More precisely, causation causes correlation. The “vaccine” as a cause of autism and other sicknesses is not in serious dispute, outside the Big Government agencies whose mission is to force folks to cooperate and the “medical” industry whose sole concern is the enormous profits they make by ensuring and prolonging sickness.”

Even if autism rates have risen since vaccinations were first issued, it doesn’t mean that the two are connected. Remember, correlation doesn’t imply causation. There are many reasons as to why the reported cases of autism are increasing. First of all, it is being recognized as a real condition. In earlier times people who would now be considered autistic were diagnosed with something else or not diagnosed at all. Secondly, the criteria for autism has expanded to included those mildly autistic to those who are severely retarded. That would be like lowering the criteria for tall from 6′ to 5′ 9″ and suddenly worrying about where all the tall people suddenly came from. Thirdly, vaccinations are usually given at around the age that autism is normally diagnosed. All these must be taken into consideration.

If autism and vaccines are connected then a connection should be found. In 1992 Denmark and Sweden removed thimerosal from vaccines. If they were causing autism, then the rates of cases should drop. Instead they continued to rise. In 2002 the US removed thimerosal, and autism rates have continued to climb. Japan even stopped giving out the MMR vaccine, which contains thimerosal, at about the same time and their autism rates continued to rise. A Japanese study also found that there are no significant rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Presented by Gerald: This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument based on the theme of our Sept. 13 meeting.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

Neece — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:41:40 +0000

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

His wife was kidnapped, raped and then murdered while she was talking to 911! Ok, they may not have heard the gunshot that killed her but damn! Five calls to 911 did nothing to help this poor woman. It broke my heart to listen to her calls & it made me angry at the impotence of the “system” that so many people count on for their safety.

If you worry about safety for yourself & your family, learn how to avoid or take care of trouble. I have dogs & guns, but let’s be honest, that’s not a universal solution & won’t work for everyone. Same for Martial Arts. But you can do something, just find out what that something is and do it.

That’s a classic example of Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy used to prove a point without resorting to actual facts. Any time you see an ad that implies “what you have is not good enough” whether it’s your SUV, sunblock or alarm system, they are appealing to your emotions rather than your rationale. They count on your ego, lust, ignorance and fear to motivate you to buy the latest & greatest products, namely theirs. Why else would someone buy a Cadillac Escalade? It’s the exact same vehicle as a GMC Yukon, just dolled up so they can charge a lot more money for it, because isn’t a Cadillac better than a plain-old GMC?

The whole SUV craze was based on an appeal to emotion: “Don’t you want your family to be safe?” – an appeal to fear, because it’s been proven time and again that SUVs are less safe in accidents; “How impressed would your neighbors be if you brought home a Lincoln Navigator instead of a boring old Ford Explorer like they have?”- an appeal to vanity or pride, because they never explain why the Navigator is a better vehicle, just that it’s an impressive display of wealth & it will make your neighbors jealous of you; “You can do anything or go anywhere! It’s sporty and useful!”- an appeal to vanity again, because the only time 99.9% of SUVs go off-road is when their drivers are drunk, and minivans are way more utilitarian. But don’t minivans have their own logical fallacies attached to them? “It’s not Manly,” “It’s a ‘MommyMobile,’” are classic appeals to vanity. You don’t need a 6000 pound all-wheel-drive vehicle to negotiate the strip malls of Suburbia.

Presented by Butch. This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument based on the theme of our Sept. 13 meeting.

Cross-posted from Uncle Butchy’s Angry Rants (sans naughty words)

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

Neece — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:00:12 +0000

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:

Matthew 10:34-36: jesus came to set family against each other, for daughters to hate mothers, etc. If you love your family more than jesus, you’re not worthy of him. (that’s rather hateful, especially since we’ve never even met the guy. Why would the loving son of god need us to hate our families so much?)
Matthew 18:8-9: Mutilate yourself to try to avoid everlasting hellfire. Cut off your hand or foot if it offends you. Same with your eye. (why would a loving god’s son talk this way? This is horrible)
Matthew 25:41: If jesus doesn’t like you, you’ll burn in everlasting fire. (why would a loving god punish someone for eternity? How can a person do something so horrible that they need to burn in fire forever and ever? That’s not justice. That’s evil)
Mark 4:11-12: jesus explains that he talks in parables to confuse people so that they will not be converted and not have their sins forgiven, so they’ll burn in hell. (nice guy, jesus! NOT!)
Luke 12:5: jesus warns us to fear god because he can roast us in hell for eternity. (not really the loving god a lot of christians want us to believe in)
Luke 14:26: jesus says you can’t follow him unless you hate your whole family and yourself. (how loving, how godly! NOT)
John 5:14: jesus tells a man he has healed to sin no more, or a worse thing will happen to him. (jesus believed that sin caused disease and illness. Wouldn’t the son of god know that disease was caused by parasites, viruses and bacteria? If he did, then he lied to the man he healed. If he didn’t was he really the son of god?)

How To Refute Cherry-Picking:

I have yet to come across anyone skilled in verbal logic who teaches how to refute fallacies, which I find completely frustrating. My tactic is to first bring attention to the fallacy that has been used. In this case, I tell the person they are cherry-picking. Then I usually explain the term to them. Of course, in my experience, they don’t care and vehemently deny that they would ever do such a thing.

My next step is to simply counter each of their cherry-picked statements with one that they have overlooked, either intentionally or in ignorance. It really helps to be as well informed as possible. Know who you’re dealing with, what they might be cherry-picking, and know what they are skipping over so that you can easily find or quote the information they are avoiding.

I am always looking for new ways to refute fallacies. If you have any suggestions or resources, please share with everyone!

For this lesson I’m using these sources:

Presented by Neece. This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument based on the theme of our Sept. 13 meeting.

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats

How To Argue

Neece — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:28:17 +0000

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

There are two components to any argument:

Premises – the facts you base your argument on

Logic – connects your premises to the conclusion that you’re trying to draw

Some important properties of logical systems should include:

Consistency: nothing in your argument should contradict one another.

Soundness: the system rules for proof will never allow false interference from a true premise

Completeness: there are no true sentences in the system that cannot be proved in the system

It’s very important that logical arguments are only about factual claims and not value judgments. Value judgments are by definition subjective and are not amenable to logical arguments.
Another important thing to keep in mind is what logical fallacies are and to look for them not just in your opponent’s argument in order to deconstruct that, but also to get them out of your own argument. It’s very easy to fall into certain traps without realizing it. Studying common logical fallacies can really help you tone up your own logical argument.
One key is that the purpose of an argument shouldn’t be to win. It should be to figure out what is valid, what is true. If two people disagree, then one or both people is making an unsound argument. So something would be wrong with one or both arguments.

Unsound argument: not based both on true premises and valid logic.

First Goal: Decide what the common ground is. What are the points you can both agree upon? What are the premises that are rock solid? Then proceed very carefully from there, examining each premise and all of the logic every step of the way to find out who is wrong here, who is making the incorrect assumption, who is making a hidden premise, who is committing a logical fallacy or are both of you?

Don’t neglect your own arguments. Don’t assume you’re right and the other person is wrong. Proceed in a careful manner.

If two people examining the same math problem came to a different answer they wouldn’t just start yelling at each other. They’d say OK, let’s go through it step by step and see who made a mistake, or maybe both of us made a mistake and we’ll figure out what the right answer is.

An argument is the same thing. It has a structure.

One important thing to note: if you start with premises that are true, and you make a valid logic, that is what is called a Sound Argument. The conclusion of a sound argument must be true, by definition. Therefore if two people disagree they can’t both be making sound arguments. And that includes yourself.

Also, you really do need to listen to the person you’re arguing with. A large portion of the discussion is going to be reacting to the other person. You’re going to be formulating your thoughts, ideas and responses as that person is telling you what they believe. You’re preparing your next statement as you go. You really do need to take into account what they’re saying, or else you’re having a one sided discussion.

A good component of a constructive argument: It’s very helpful to try to explain your position to someone else. When you are forced to make someone else understand your position, then it really exposes some of the holes and gaps in your logic and your thinking. You’re trying to make your position unambiguously understood. You’re exposing all of your premises, you’re not hiding them. You’re exposing all of your logic, you’re explaining it to yourself and the other person at the same time, and then you’re giving them the opportunity to do the same thing.

Again, a good place to start is, what is the common ground. What are the things we can agree upon?

Some discussions are about value judgments, and if you expose that, OK we’re talking about something that is a subjective opinion here, then you can at least agree to disagree and then you’re not wasting your time that can’t be resolved with facts and logic.

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats

September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy

Neece — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:50:08 +0000

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

Neece — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:44:17 +0000

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

Neece — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:58:49 +0000

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

Morgantown Atheists » logical fallacy

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Related posts

Logical Fallacies

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

~

~

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

How To Argue

Correlation and Causation

Appeal to Emotion

Cherry-Picking

Related posts

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

Related posts

Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

Related posts

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

Related posts

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

Related posts

How To Argue

Related posts

September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy

Related posts

Logical Fallacy Land 2: A Treat For You

Related posts

Logical Fallacy Land

Related posts