Examples Of Fallacies In Articles
10 Comments:
At 3:50 PM, May 01, 2008, said...Hi Bee, Do you know this page?http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/Flavio
At 4:14 PM, May 01, 2008, Rae Ann said...I've seen plenty use the "Argument from authority" on various blogs and comments.
At 5:20 PM, May 01, 2008, philramble said...Logical fallacies are singularly one of the most important and one of the most confusing things I have attempted to apply to real life situations. Each time I think about things with these in mind, I generally make things clearer to myself.http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
At 9:29 AM, May 02, 2008, stefan said...Dear Bee,thanks for the pointer - the "straw man" and "weak man" are ideed used quite often. And I wasn't aware that any argumentation involving the person presenting a point counts as "ad hominem". But then, taking into account who is making a certain argument can be quite important for a critical evaluation - and I think the same holds for the "from authority" technique. I mean, that these rhetoric strategies are used does not necessarily imply that the arguments they try to push are flawed?Best, Stefan
At 2:56 PM, May 02, 2008, Bee said...Dear Stefan,It's not generally a 'problem' involving the person presenting it, just if you use it for the argument if it isn't of relevance. In some cases this might be relevant. E.g. many people like to argue with personal experience, which shouldn't be dismissed. Like, if you claim 'Nobody does X' and somebody says 'Well, I do!', that's certainly an argument ;-) An example for what I meant to say you have seen in the previous post, that is the argument the risk estimate for CERN is doubtful because of the people who did it. This argument doesn't actually address the point (namely whether the risk has been underestimated), but only the people who presented their conclusions. It is thus not an argument that is good for anything. It is true that for many purposes it is advantageous to assure people in some committee are as unbiased as possible because otherwise they might share misconceptions or be tempted to argue from a one-sided point of view. But this doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and is certainly not a reason to dismiss the conclusion. One also has to say that in very many instances the reliability of the person providing an information is an important factor to judge on it quickly. Like, you are probably more inclined to listen to the paramedic than to a random guy on the street. As Rae Ann also says, the 'argument from authority' is for this reason very wide spread, and it is the most frequent argumentation used in newspapers. Look at all the science articles, e.g. the recent one in the NYT about the black holes at LHC. They make their argument with quoting well known people in the field. I'm not saying this is an entirely bad thing, as it probably is very efficient in making a point, but it doesn't actually provide any insights and doesn't allow the reader to follow a conclusion. Best,B.
At 6:23 PM, May 02, 2008, Plato said...I thought of the movie, The Great Debators.This has given me some food for thought, as well contributing to some incubation in regards to "rhetoric of the ancient ones." This goes to the idea of what is self evident, and what induction/deduction plays in that exchange? Where one would like it to go? An "intuitive space" that leads to other ideas and exchanges that produce further possibilities to consider. Like, "ingenuity to perform" perhaps? This brings one back to the use of the Whiteboard and the group collaboration.Philramble's comment,"Logical fallacies are singularly one of the most important and one of the most confusing things I have attempted to apply to real life situations," would seem a difficult one as well just in terms of remembering all the facets of the execution and awareness of what one is doing.
At 6:41 PM, May 02, 2008, Plato said...I do not dare point fingers anywhere to show areas where I think aspects of this were to be considered.:)But some of you would know that by a certain ideals toward censorship, such opinions would not be highly regarded if I said them myself:) So what logic is being used to make my point?Here are some pointers that one might like to consider in the greater context of debates amongst the different blogs, and those who hold a "special view" too, one side or the other?Lee Smolin: -Stick to the issues raised. If someone raises a criticism, whether its done according to your standards of rhetoric or not, just answer the substantial science issue. Don’t waste our time with discussion about anything else. Don’t respond to a criticism on a specific point by changing the subject. -No personal attacks, absolutely none. If someone has a Ph.D., then they are credentialed. Discuss with them in good faith and with respect. -Let’s strive to agree on facts before discussing interpretation. Insist on precision and honesty, don’t allow exaggeration, and admit it gracefully when you are wrong or when the evidence does not support something you would like to be true. If someone questions the status of a claim, don’t say “everyone I respect believes X is true.” Say, X is in fact unproven, but there is evidence for it, which is exactly the following…. -Listen carefully to those professional colleagues who read the evidence differently from you, and try to understand sympathetically and in good faith, why they do so. -Restrain your own communities. Make it clear that it is not acceptable to you when those in your committee insult others or publish or post things that are exaggerated or false. If someone insists on behaving badly, it is up to their community to restrain them. Make it clear that repeatedly treating colleagues disrespectfully in a public forum amounts to professional misconduct. The same is true for repeated cases of knowingly exaggerated or misleading statements in a public forum. If we can all agree to some basic rules like this I am optimistic that we-and science- will come out better from the debates ahead.Progression is Made?The points about Mandelstam and genus figures in relation.We were all really quite enlightened when drawn to the limitations written in a book, have now be expanded.So who's perfect?
At 7:39 PM, May 02, 2008, Neil' said...This belongs here also:Always remember that a fallacious argument doesn't have to lead to false conclusions. (Thinking it does might be called "the fallacy in reverse.") It is just unreliable, such that if true, it is a lucky coincidence. For example, consider a dog thinking: "I have four legs, dogs have four legs, therefore I am a dog." Well, he got it right that time, but a cat using the same fallacy of converted conditional would end up wrong.
At 6:57 AM, May 04, 2008, lunogled said...Since "logic" underpins a much bigger ensemble of systems than its usage in common language usually assumes, so does Logical fallacy.Logical fallacy usually refers to a fallacy within propositional logic.Fair enough, but there is more to the world than propositional logic. If there wasn't, theoretical physicists would be out of businness.Usually, "poisoning the well" and "ad hominem" arguments work pretty well, _provided that_ the "ad hominem" itself is based on good evidence.It is a fact that nearly every scientific study since the 60s which claimed that there is no link between smoking and cancer was funded by tobacco companies.Pointing this out to invalidate the study is a "logical fallacy", but to be honest its also a quite convincing argument, first and foremost if you believe certain things about the scientific method.Giorgio
At 10:48 AM, May 04, 2008, jk said...It was the 2004 U.S. Presidential election that raised the straw man argument into my consciousness. I noticed the preface "some people say" on one TV network in particular - enough times to wonder "who are these 'some people' that 'say' (x)?" It's been interesting to me ever since!
Comment Rules:
- Please submit only comments that are related to the topic of the post. To do so, you will have to read it.
- Further, please also read the existing comments in order to avoid redundancies.
- If you want to introduce a topic different from the one that is posted, please consider starting a blog of your own instead.
- Also, this is not an open 'ask-the-expert' forum. If you have a question that is not related to the post, please ask it in a forum that can accomodate random questions.
- Do not bother to submit any kind of advertisement, we will delete it immediately.
- We hope you help us in maintaining a welcoming and pleasant atmosphere in our comment section.
Thanks!
Links to this post:
If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people’s thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word “fair.” It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it.
This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word.
Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and “unfair” to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity— David Riesman, I believe— who said: “The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results.”
If by “fair” you mean everyone having the same odds for achieving success, then life has never been anywhere close to being fair, anywhere or at any time. If you stop and think about it (however old-fashioned that may seem), it is hard even to conceive of how life could possibly be fair in that sense.
Even within the same family, among children born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, the first-borns on average have higher IQs than their brothers and sisters, and usually achieve more in life.
Unfairness is often blamed on somebody, even if only on “society.” But whose fault is it if you were not the first born? Since some groups have more children than others, a higher percentage of the next generation will be first-borns in groups that have smaller families, so such groups have an advantage over other groups.
Despite all the sound and fury generated in controversies over whether different groups have different genetic potential, even if they all have identical genetic potential the outcomes can still differ if they have different birth rates.
Twins have average IQs several points lower than children born singly.
