|
Logical Fallacies Ad
Hominem
(Argumentum ad hominem) - If the person making a claim is a bad person, they must be wrong. "You're just a ....-ist."
Ad hominem attacks include going after motive which is when the
factors leading to why someone is making their argument are
attacked, rather than the validity of their claim. Alex
Epstein says taxing and hyper-regulation of fossil
fuels kills the poor, but this is patently false because he's a
shill for the the petroleum industry? This is tricky because while motive
is not a valid logical proof or disproof of anything, if the arguer
is clearly biased toward a position, the evidence they offer
warrants skeptical scrutiny. When a pundit tries to hide their
affiliations and backers, they appear an obvious fraud and lack
credibility. In some circumstances this can even add weight to
the original claim when fraudsters are exposed and folk ponder why
they were tryin' to hide their motivations. Are they a caped
truth-fighter in disguise?
Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam) - This fallacy occurs
when someone tries to validate a proposition by citing a renowned
figure or institution that agrees. If expertise is
established, authority can certainly add weight to a claim, but even
an expert witness must bring supporting evidence and explain their
interpretations. A prime example of appeal to authority is
when a court of law is placed in a position where they are
attempting to determine an outcome of science. However much we
might like it to, truth does not necessarily obey social contracts
or adhere to legal decree.
Bandwagon (Argumentum ad populum / Argumentum ad numerum) -
This fallacy occurs when an argument plays on a person's desire to
be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than offering logically
relevant reasons or evidence. Even when used as a consensus of
experts this is an erroneous argument. Fallacious Argument:
97% of climate scientists believe in global warming. Truth:
100% of scientists believe belief is not the same thing as proof.
Causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc) - The fallacy of
mistaking correlation for causation. Assuming that A caused B
simply because A happened prior to or at the same time as B.
Is Global warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 because on a
graph CO2 goes up and down with the average temperatures, or could
the global temp drive sustainable levels of CO2 instead? Could
the correlation be random chance (P value)? Could both effects
be caused by something else like volcanoes, solar forcing,
illuminati rituals? Here's a logic test that can help point
out causation flaws. Made up totally untrue example: 75%
of dead frogs were found with trace levels of bromine in their
system therefore bromine is turning all the frogs dead.
Another equally true statement at this level of simplification: 100%
of dead frogs had trace levels of flies in their belly.
Therefore fly eating for frogs is even more deadly right? Ahh
. . . . Things like baselines matter, time constraints, and
numerous other variables need to be identified and removed from the
equation to prove causation. In reality, absolute causation
certainty would require something essentially impossible. To
know all possible factors; i.e. omniscience. Omni-science.
Interesting word. Lotta hubris in that word. Omniscience
is usually a feature associated exclusively with deities and
demigods. Which is why P values are always estimates.
Anyway moving on . . .
Circular Logic (Circulus in demonstrando / Petitio principii)
- Also called "Begging The Question". Circular argumentation
occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of
the proof of that thing. This can be a form of the identity
property A=A, with the 2nd A simply stated a different way.
Everyone loves Raymond. Why? Because Raymond is so
loveable. We find ourselves in a logical loop because our test
fails to accurately target the original question. Which came
first, the chicken or the egg? Chicken come from eggs, but
eggs must be produced by a chicken, but a chicken must come from an
egg. Around and around it goes until you realize the answer is
neither. Humans came up with the concept of speciation and one
day they classified a species as chicken. This happened long
after both chickens and their eggs existed. Further, this classification
includes all phases of said chicken including both eggs and mature
ones. Heck, even dead ones. Since eggs are just a phase of a chicken, the ultimate answer
is that both chicken and chicken eggs first appeared in the same
instant chickens were named.
Equivocation / Doubletalk - Using an ambiguous term in more than one
sense, thus making an argument misleading. This fallacy occurs
when a key word is used in two or more senses in the same argument
and the apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in
meaning. "The U.S. does not torture" - George W. Bush 2006.
By torturing the definition of torture to not include various
creative and insidious enhanced interrogation methods, they were
able to convince folk this lie was true for a while.
Faulty Premise - A complex question that implicitly assumes
something not yet proven to be true by its construction. "Have
you stopped beating your wife?"
Force - This fallacy occurs when an arguer bullies or
threatens to achieve acceptance of a claim. Hatespeech laws
are an insidious form of government force righteously used to
silence speech the gov dislikes. Although might
doesn't make right, it can make dissent a hazardous undertaking.
Capitulation to force for self preservation does not indicate
failure in debate, it indicates instead, failure to be having a
debate at all. Forcing people to agree with a proposition, can
instead indicate weakness of the proposition. Why resort to
using force unless it is because the argument is unable to win based
on merit alone. A valid rationale for force could occur in
rare circumstances. Something like - I'm going to physically push you off this unstable
platform before it gives way and kills us both. Then we can
continue debating if I'm right about it being unstable. Hypocrisy - The "look who's
talking" argument. Note that while hypocrisy of a
scientist does not invalidate their findings, in politics, this is a
very different situation. Rules for thee and not for me, can
be a valid indication that a governor does not even believe what
they are saying enough to follow their
own policies.
Generalization (Dicto simpliciter) - The fallacy of making a
sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific
case. This can include the opposite as well, making an
argument against a generalization by providing anecdotal or specific
instances as a form of disproof.
Ignorantiam (Argumentum ad ignorantiam) - This is the fallacy
of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven
false. The impression that this always does that . . . remains
true of any series of observations. Until this doesn't do that
. . . and instead does something else. Ignorance is also the
excuse of not knowing . . . Ouch! Wahhhh! Nobody told me
if I punched myself in the face it would hurt! The assumption
here is responsibility outside of ones-self for one's own actions or
perceptions. Not healthy, generally speaking. As
ignorance of the law is considered no excuse before many a judge,
the blame-games people play claiming ignorance being the fault of
others should tend to work out poorly for victim-hood claimers in
general terms, but with legitimate warnings, and notifications being
required. But this solution has become unworkable long term.
Legal waivers and warning stickers and safety instructions and
regulation codes have become increasingly ungainly beasts, gaining
girth with every successful product hazard lawsuit, every code and
regulation addition sprouting more branches. This tendency
entirely defeats the original purpose eventually. These
disclosure mechanisms are now ignored or misunderstood or abused
nearly completely, increasing the various harms and injuries they
were created to decrease. There are of course reasonable
expectations for manufacturers about hazard disclosure, safety
instruction etc . . . that are necessary. A sweet spot should
be fairly easily found that is statistically most effective.
But the governance corruption around these inversely successful
efforts to curb ignorance . . . . coupled with . . . well . . .
ignoramus policy makers being the norm . . . have ensured quite the
opposite as the general rule.
Illogical (Argumentum ad logicam) - This is the fallacy of
assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument
that someone has offered for it is invalid. If there are ten
proofs, and one is disproven, the other nine still need tending to.
Instance Counts - With regular frequency, numbers of cases
are used to ascribe a trend and get headline clicks. Whether
the subject is crime stats, weather events, or covid case counts,
what is regularly missing is the per capita rate, the scope or area
involved, or the scale key to evaluate the info. Per capita is
the only way to correctly measure and trend rates of affliction or
occurrences. When you see a number of instances thrown out
without the divisor also included, this is a clue gas-lighting
could be afoot. If X number of people suffered from some
affliction, the following question should always be . . . out of how
many? Across the whole world? In just one country?
One high school? What is our Y. That answer really
matters if we hope to rationally interpret the information.
Verily, it is impossible to comprehend the scope without knowing the
full X/Y.
Naturalistic - This is the fallacy of trying to derive
conclusions about values of rightness or goodness from
statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many
statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them
will be another statement of fact, not a good or
a bad. As a subset of this category, a "Nature" argument is the
fallacy of assuming that whatever is natural is qualitatively good.
Another is "Appeal To Coincidence" - i.e. this isn't just by accident,
therefore it is good. Consideration of moral implications and
philosophy do not belong in a laboratory seeking truth, though these
considerations do rightly belong in the discussion afterward about
what actions to take or policies to enact based on the knowledge
that has been obtained.
Nomenclature - Use of high-brow academic language to
intimidate the uninitiated. Jargon. Technobabble. i.e. "You don't even know what a
'whatever' is called." Yet lack of awareness regarding the
vogue parlance among academic authorities is not
disproof of a position. Exclusionary creoles evolve to protect
what can become major institutions when they are in their infancy in
a manner not unlike typical tribal creoles found among the
subjugated and oppressed. These profession-centric
terminologies, methods and acronyms become essentially gang signs
for the initiated once they are established. Use of
nomenclature was arguably once necessary for some of these
disciplines to protect themselves from the mob and/or the ruling
class in order to develop along paths of reason, logic and truth.
Biologists and physicians adopted Latin to avoid Dr. Frankenstein
style trouble with the peasantry when they were commonly treated as
an outlawed gang. Jurists, doctors and Christian leadership
did much the same. Chemists, Engineering, Mechanics, Math, IT
have all followed along the same lines each with their own unique
patois. But once these institutions gained a foothold, their sci-slang all too often became instead a way to block fresh ideas
and to raise the bar for newcomers by slapping a hefty price tag on
admittance: An indoctrination sentence of many years, and exorbitant
tuition money for the privilege. Alas truth, to a
surprisingly rare extent, belongs to the highest bidder.
Omission - Making a claim that misses the point.
Statins prevent heart attacks. Perhaps, but do they cause more
people to die from other things than they save from heart attacks?
Is this demonstrated in clinical studies particularly for middle-age
men with no prior heart condition who took statins as a preventative
measure based solely on lipid levels? Isn't this vital
information in a conversation about an activity being promoted as a
health measure?
Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam) - This fallacy occurs when
an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion to win an
argument. Bringing feels to a fact fight. Unfortunately,
things that are true can be sad or cruel or scary even if we wish it
were otherwise.
Pivot - Changing the subject. When there are supporting
points in a specific argument but the discussion never lingers long
enough to allow point and counterpoint to happen, we have pivoting.
Instead a proper debate should allow each side to finish before
moving on. This may need to just be a summary of the
disagreement if neither side has relinquished their position.
Red Herring (Non Sequitur) - This fallacy occurs when an
arguer tries to sidetrack the audience by raising an
irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has
effectively been settled by the irrelevant diversion. When an
arguer offers reasons that are logically irrelevant to their conclusion.
Non sequitur: It does not follow.
Repetition (Argumentum ad nauseam) - This is the fallacy of
trying to prove something by saying it again and again. "If
you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it." - by Joseph Goebbels / Nazi
Propaganda Ministry 12JAN41.
Scattergun - A classic debate tactic is to shotgun arguments
across a range of topics. A barrage of statements providing
the opponent only a single choice to counter. The result can
be that only a single point can be countered while all of the others
get through. Worse still, if the single counter is anything
but a zinger, the audience will tend to believe everything that came
along under the umbrella with it.
Slippery Slope - This will lead to that. An argument
that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a
series of other policies or actions also being taken, without
showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the
newly associated consequent policies. This can become a valid
argument if it is proven that "this" does, in fact, lead to "that".
Straw Man - This fallacy occurs when an arguer distorts an
opponent's claim in order to make it easier to attack.
If you are thinking, "Hey, that's not what I said!", you've likely
been the victim of a straw man ploy.
Structure - A lie by structure happens when the thesis of an
argument is proven to be unlikely within the evidence hidden deeper
in the material. This preys upon a tendency in the current era
for folks to scan news aggregator sites or their favorite news
outlet absorbing headlines as fact, never drilling down far enough
to see that the supporting proof is lacking or contradicted.
Tradition (Argumentum ad antiquitatem) - An appeal to the
value of folk wisdom. The way it has been for ages, and the
way it must therefore always be. It is known, Khaleesi.
White Lie (Falsitus ad whiteum) - The excuse of rendering a
falsehood for good. This mindset presupposes superiority in
the mind of the liar. Liars very often believe they know what
is best for others. They are ready, willing and able to tussle
with truth on our behalf, and for our own good they're doing us the
favor of lying to keep us from having to face the music. In
Jack Nicholson's 'A Few Good Men' we have an homage to the whitest
of lies. These are the lies told to us by warmongering leaders
shielding us from the ugly realities of warfare. "You can't
handle the truth!".
Say, let's check your BS Meter. Did you believe the bogus faux latin at the beginning of this fallacy? Bet you did.
That brings us to the next one . . .
Written Word - And so it is written . . . Yeah?
And? Folk have a tendency to believe something written down
more than if it is just spoken. There is a logic to this since
in written form there is less opportunity for interpretation,
augmentation and revisionism. However, just because something
is held to a publishing standard or even peer review this does not
mean it is correct. At best it only means that it is being
offered as a statement. One that is now available for
rebuttal. But disproving things takes time. So sure, the
written word is helpful in nailing things down, but it is not in any
way a measure of the truth of a proposition. Written lies have
particular rules if they are about a person or brand. The
concept of libel revolves around the notion that if someone
publishes slander and lies, they can be forced to pay reparations.
However, just because there is a consequence to being caught by
someone who cares enough to sue, this doesn't diminish the
publishing of lies. It just puts a potential price on the
practice and makes doing so more common among those with means to
defend against the occasional claw kicking back from a struggling
victim.
You Too (Tu quoque) - This is the fallacy of defending an
error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has
made the same error. A subcategory is the "Two Wrongs Make A
Right" fallacy whereby an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.
- “The greatest Liar has his Believers;
and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an
Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion
for it. Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after
it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late;
the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect.” - by
Jonathan Swift / The Examiner 09NOV10 (1710).
Hatespeech
People naturally hate what they perceive as causing them
harm. This is a natural fact of existence as a living thing. For
most beasts, sounds emerging from a mouth-like area are an effective method to
coordinate with others having the same troubles to try solving the problem using team work. See
Wonder Pets for operatic details.
The censorship focal point in the few remaining nations
adhering to any concept of "basic human rights" is banning and
punishing gripes directed toward protected special groups
and their associated grifters. Once the power to
do this is centralized to a governing entity, the scope
rapidly becomes censorship of any criticism of establishment policy or positions.
This isn't a slippery slope argument. This is already
happening in numerous regions already for all to see and has
been in some places like North Korea, China and Russia for a very long
time. Censorship always progresses this way.
Bottom line, what is being codified with "hatespeech" governance is
the machinery to outlaw free talk 'bout what's ailin' ya.
In this paradigm, there's no way from that lofty
perch on top to identify policy problems and course
correct. Nobody but Dear Leader better bring up
flaws in the status quo. Perpetual
governance infallibility is required for this not to end in
disaster or at best stasis and stagnation.
Luckily for tyrants, there's a handy solution. When you snuff out your
own state's capacity for innovation, as long as there are
other places free enough for progress to
happen, it usually isn't difficult to copy and harness their
innovations. An unfortunate vulnerability of the very freedom from which innovation springs,
is its consequent incapacity to keep breakthroughs from enemies of that freedom.
Tyrant states that get good at this become what in the
business world is known as fast followers. They don't
invent it. They instead invent the way to steal it, capitalize it,
dominate the market, kill or eat the competition and if possible, monopolize it,
heck . . . why not hijack regulating agencies and then require it . . . at
taxpayer expense . . . so many ways to turn a profit.
How pathetic existence must be for the wretched, silenced
denizens who live in places where their leaders have been
permitted to crush the population to this sorry state of
subjugation. Everybody is a yes-man, or well, I guess
now they'd be yes-persons. Oh no . . . guess I inadvertently hatespeeched
there . . . deary me.
Anyway you get the point. Voicing displeasure when
displeasure is experienced is about the most fundamental
aspect of being a living creature there is. But spouting off, i.e. venting, i.e. blowing off steam - is being
outlawed worldwide. Catharsis Interruptus.
What might be a result of corking everybody up . . . When the pressure release valve
gets blocked, what happens to a boiler? There's
some basic physics at play. Or if you're more
inclined toward the psychotherapy arts . . . isn't identifying
and bringing forward suppressed feelings and hurtful
memories kinda the center ring of the circus?
Now that I think of it, why aren't therapists loudly raving
about the harm censorship causes their patients? . . . oh yeah duh, what better
way to ensure business is booming than to become the only one allowed to listen
to dissent without both speaker and audience fearing state retribution.
Talk about job security. It works for priests, lawyers and doctors
in previous censorship iterations, so sure, why not.
Have at it you psychos.
Censorship ideology in the Trojan Horse
costume of outlawing "hatespeech" ostensibly to protect victim group du jour - de jure . . . is among the most
fundamental of the various civilization destroying psy-ops underway. It must be countered or we really are
doomed to witness the general terminus of basic human rights
anywhere. Hatespeech suppression is simply newspeak for: "No more belly aching, bitching or complaining
you whiny surfs. Shut it . . . or we'll shut it for ya!" .
. . . .
Ok, fine then. How's this: I love hatespeech
regulation lover haters. Ha. Choke on that ye
censorship AI beotches!
|
Welcome
to Bad Arguments - Learn these to supercharge your bullshit
meter or buy lots of shake oil. Your choice.