Guide to Logical Fallacies

[LazyGun]

For those of us who like to argue a lot, a nice chart highlighting the most common logical fallacies.

Think I have probably been guilty of one or two of these, from time to time ;)

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

[naomi24]

I haven't. Just like Mary Poppins, I'm practically perfect in every way. ;o)))

[sandyRoe]

If you took them all in you'd be afraid to open your mouth in case you put your foot in it.

[birdie1971]

Brilliant!

[wildwood]

bugger! I am too late. The link's 'Account Has Been Suspended'

[WaldoMcFroog]

PZ Myers has been promoting this, so it's probably exceeded it's bandwidth.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Currently available again!

[tenrec]

That's poster very interesting

[jake-the-peg]

Not quite sure of the bandwagon and appeal to authority ones as falicies. That's a philosophers point of view.

It rather depends on the authority and the reasons they have for their beliefs.

For example I doubt anyone here would dispute the existance of DNA.egree

But have any of you extracted a cell sample and put it in an X-ray crystalography machine and analysed the results?

The degree to which these two are fallacies depends on the qualification of the authority or other people.

Otherwise we'd all have to learn everything we knew for ourselves and the education system would be out of business.

In fact the appeal to authority works the wrong way around.

Someone might describe my position on Global warming as appeal to authority - but their "evidence" to the contrary has most certainly been discredited by authorities in the field. Neither the skeptic nor I have the technical insight to fullappreciate the detail in which case appeal to appropriate authority is easilly the most appropriate and reliable course to evaluate a proposition.

[mibn2cweus]

A reliable authority would never suggest we simply take their word for it. I trust no 'authority' unwilling to publish the facts supporting their propositions for scrutiny. There is no value in 'knowledge' apart from the understanding it is intended to promote. Facts only have meaning to those who can relate those facts logically and consistently to their own observations and experience. Anything else is only beliefs which are subject to the final authority and arbiter of truth . . . reality.

[LazyGun]

You should not believe an argument simply because someone claims it is so because they are an expert, or because they are quoting from a definitive text. Most experts would offer links to supporting experimental papars or books where you can, should you so wish, check out the veracity of their statement, or to see if they are quoting our of context or whatever.

I think this is what is meant by the fallacy of an appeal to authority. If I were to make a clinical claim, then attempt to support said claim with nothing more than the claim that I was a Medic, such a claim should be treated sceptically.

[mibn2cweus]

Re: the business of education . . . should not be treat young minds as sponges stuffing them full of 'facts' from alleged authorities hand picked by business interests, to be regurgitated at the appropriate moment, leaving little room for conjecture. The real profit in education is derived through arming the student with the tools of critical thinking necessary to establish the validity of asserted 'facts' apart from which you've simply moulded them to be nothing more than another brick in the wall lacking the vision to see through it or to grasp the long range consequences of short sighted goals.

[jake-the-peg]

No but if you combine "bandwagon" and "appeal to authority" you end up with how we personally know much about the outside world?

How do you know atoms exist? That there is such a thing as DNA or Quantum Mechanics or that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066?

We know these things because authorities tell us the crucial thing is that it's not a single authority - the authorities agree.

True you shouldn't believe a single authority but when there is a general consensus of authorities you should.

This lead us to how you judge whether there is a consensus and who is a bona fide authority

And that is the big question of the Internet age

[jomifl]

Most are quite regular visitors to AB. Sith is working the bandwagon fallacy to death. I am tempted to tell him why I think so many people convert to islam but he would probably find my explaination offensive even if true. I haven't yet found the 'it can't be true because half the world would be offended' poster yet.

[mibn2cweus]

I'd sooner believe a patent clerk able to explain the basis for his theory than a room full of 'authorities'. Relatively speaking, relativity need not be believed by anyone not able to grasp the concept; it's not likely to have a measurable impact on the way they live their lives if they are not both intelligent and curious enough to learn to do the maths.

//Sith is working the bandwagon fallacy to death.//

Religion is an excellent example of the fallacy of accepting the authority of others as a basis for belief devoid of any concrete understanding of why you should or should not believe anything . . . no matter how many theologians you might find willing to agree with you.

It's not what you think others know that makes knowledge potentially beneficial (ergo Enron) it's how you yourself know it.

[Theland1]

The writing was too small for me.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Each fallacy has its own icon at the bottom of the screen, Theland.

[mibn2cweus]

[Ctrl] + [=] [=] [=] etc

[Ctrl] + [0] to return to normal size

or

load one of the PDF posters then
click on the magnifier at the bottom right of the window.