Help with Logical Fallacies?

[Blique]

Hello! I'm working to figure out logical fallacies as a personal project. I need help, because I don't know anyone I can talk to who is well versed in logic, and there's so much conflicting information on the internet that I don't know how to make sense of it. Here are some problems I've run into:

"False dilemma": Wikipedia and Fallacy Files categorize it as informal, but Rational Wiki calls it formal, plus both the Wikis call it "Denying a Conjunct", which Fallacy Files agrees is formal. In addition, even if I say that it's formal, there's debate over whether it's a "propositional" or "syllogistic" type of formal fallacy. Is it formal or informal? Is it propositional or syllogistic?

"Argument from ignorance": From what I can tell, this fallacy appears to be a type of "false dilemma" (the argument would be "The answer is either X or proof of not X"). But it's always categorized as an informal fallacy. Is it unrelated to "false dilemma"? Is it formal?

What's the difference between "red herring" and "non-sequitur"? From what little I can figure out, "red herrings" (attempts to mislead) appear to be a type of "non-sequitur" (conclusions that don't make sense)...? Or are they entirely unrelated? Or are they the same thing?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I continue working my way through the list, but those are my current issues. Please help if you can! Thank you!

 

[~~~]

One of the INTPs who has read a bit of logic will probably give you a complete response; but this will get you started. Remember that an argument might fit more than one of the definitions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not a bad reference if you haven't checked it out before.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

 

[onesteptwostep]

@OP

Just to clarify, when you say formal or informal, you mean formal fallacy/informal fallacy correct?

A false dilemma (I'd rather say false dichotomy) is a form of formal fallacy. As far as I know, an informal fallacy is more akin to rhetoric, not formal logic, while a formal fallacy is a presentation of propositions which derives, in a sense 'half truths'. E.g. (going to copy my booklet here): 1) All witches keep black cats. 2) My neighbor keeps a black cat. 3) Therefore my neighbor must be a witch. The neighbor could be a witch because of the cat she owns, but she could also be a doctor who happens to have a black cat.

Moving on, a false dichotomy isn't a syllogistic fallacy because a syllogistic fallacy is talking about the answer. The proposition(s), rather than the answer, is false. It would be a fallacy concerning its propositions.

Argument from ignorance is self-explanatory, i.e. "since I don't know what caused A, X must have caused it". It could be a false dilemma if there were only two options present.

A red herring is something that happens in a debate. Anything that misleads someone into another topic to dodge the question is a red herring. A non-sequitor is something that doesn't follow the propositions/premise that is stated.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jennywocky]

1) All witches keep black cats. 2) My neighbor keeps a black cat. 3) Therefore my neighbor must be a witch. The neighbor could be a witch because of the cat she owns, but she could also be a doctor who happens to have a black cat.

Maybe s/he's a witch doctor.

(And I guess it's a false assumption to assume the witch is female?)

 

[Blique]

One of the INTPs who has read a bit of logic will probably give you a complete response; but this will get you started. Remember that an argument might fit more than one of the definitions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not a bad reference if you haven't checked it out before.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

I think I've seen that source but have only read parts of it here and there. I'll look it over fully this time, thanks!

@OP

Just to clarify, when you say formal or informal, you mean formal fallacy/informal fallacy correct?

A false dilemma (I'd rather say false dichotomy) is a form of formal fallacy. As far as I know, an informal fallacy is more akin to rhetoric, not formal logic, while a formal fallacy is a presentation of propositions which derives, in a sense 'half truths'. E.g. (going to copy my booklet here): 1) All witches keep black cats. 2) My neighbor keeps a black cat. 3) Therefore my neighbor must be a witch. The neighbor could be a witch because of the cat she owns, but she could also be a doctor who happens to have a black cat.

Moving on, a false dichotomy isn't a syllogistic fallacy because a syllogistic fallacy is talking about the answer. The proposition(s), rather than the answer, is false. It would be a fallacy concerning its propositions.

Argument from ignorance is self-explanatory, i.e. "since I don't know what caused A, X must have caused it". It could be a false dilemma if there were only two options present.

A red herring is something that happens in a debate. Anything that misleads someone into another topic to dodge the question is a red herring. A non-sequitor is something that doesn't follow the propositions/premise that is stated.

Hope that helps.

Yeah, formal/informal fallacy.

I've been trying for days to figure out the definitions of syllogistic and propositional fallacies, but no one could ever explain it in a way I could understand before now. Thanks so much for your help!

Are there cases in which argument from ignorance could not be a false dilemma?

So would you say there is no relation between red herring and non-sequitur? I read that all formal fallacies are considered non-sequiturs, and considering the definition, I've been wondering if non-sequiturs are exclusive to formal fallacies only, just like how red herrings are exclusive to informal?

Thank you again!

 

[onesteptwostep]

Are there cases in which argument from ignorance could not be a false dilemma?

So would you say there is no relation between red herring and non-sequitur? I read that all formal fallacies are considered non-sequiturs, and considering the definition, I've been wondering if non-sequiturs are exclusive to formal fallacies only, just like how red herrings are exclusive to informal?

I would say an argument from ignorance could be a subtype of a false dilemma but a false dilemma wouldn't always be an argument from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance usually makes claims that are somewhat non-sequitur (non-sequitur usually have no relation to the premise whatsoever). Here's an example I pulled out of a site:

"Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."

If you want to call that a false dichotomy it's a really weak one at best.

On non-sequitur being formal, yes, they would only apply to formal logic. That's a good observation actually. In most cases I would pull the axioms out of a rhetoric to point out the non-sequitur, but it's through the axioms/propositions that the non-sequitur is highlighted so calling it a formal fallacy would be more fitting.

 

[QuickTwist]

What do you know, you can actually teach people how to be smart. That is something. I always thought a logical mind is something one is born with. Didn't know you could actually learn it in a formal way. Neat.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, so:

Formal vs. informal is an important distinction. I might beat out some basics on you that you already know, but hopefully I build from that which you know into that which you have difficulty with.

Formal = deduction = airtight. If something is a formal fallacy, it means that the structure is bad. Formal does not mean neatly dressed, its about the form of the argument itself.

Informal = inference = loose (but still useful). Any argument in which it's still possible to reach a false conclusion based on premises which are correct. All statistics are informal.

A formal fallacy includes all informal logic, as well as any poor argument forms. Anything that isn't a valid argument form is a formal fallacy.

An informal fallacy is any time the information contained in a premise or conclusion sabotages the truth of the conclusion.

1) All informal logic forms are formal fallacies.
2) All informal logic forms have 'loose' form which leaks logic.
3) All formal fallacies are failures of argument form to guarantee the truth value of the conclusion.
4) All informal fallacies are failures in the information contained in the premises.

So, counter-intuitively, informal fallacies can be committed in formal logic, and formal fallacies are guaranteed in informal logic.

My advice is to learn valid forms first, then you can identify all informal logic by them failing formal criteria. This is the bedrock of logic. Informal logic is what you use only when formal isn't available. There are particular terms that I consider the building blocks of learning logic, as without them your reading comprehension suffers. They are:

Spoiler

Formal Logic
Informal Logic
Formal Fallacy
Informal Fallacy
Valid/Invalid
Sound/Unsound

Second class building blocks are the operators such as conjunct and negation.

Third class is the proofs such as Reductio Ad Absurdum and Modus Tollens.

Fourth is the formal fallacies.

Fifth is the informal fallacies.

So in order, prioritise holistic categories, then operators, then proofs, then fallacies (with preference for formal over informal). Because many of these distinctions are split binarily, by sticking to the primary category (formal, proof etc.) you can infer a lot about the other category when you get to it.

As for the examples you wanted specific answers for:

False dilemma:

Spoiler

It's formal. It's possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false, which means that the form is bad.

(1) It's not true that I can vote both democrat and republican
(2) I don't vote republican
(C)Therefore I must vote democrat

...or I might just not vote. All premises are true, but conclusion false.

As for syllogism vs. proposition, my memory may have faded, but I fail to see the relevance? It seems both propositional and syllogistic. I'm unaware of any reason it can't be both. There was never much emphasis placed on this distinction when I learned, either that or I read past it.

Argument from ignorance:

Spoiler

Again it's formal, because the premises can be true while the conclusion false.

(1) We don't know whether or not Brandon is in his room
(C) Therefore Brandon is in his room

Pretty stupid stuff on paper, but it falls more into the realm of rhetoric in which it can be pretty convincing. Agnostic mindsets tend to get pushed around by this stuff a lot. Often there are hidden premises, such as (2) "if Brandon had left his room, we'd have seen him by now", which make it look far less retarded, but most uses are simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Red Herring:

Spoiler

Informal.

A valid argument can have a red herring in it without affecting the conclusion at all. See:

(1) A
(2) B
(3) C
(4) If A then B
(C) B (Modus Ponens)

C doesn't have any impact, but is still included, and the argument is still sound. If the form wasn't valid, then having a red herring doesn't matter. It's just an irrelevant premise that has no impact on form.

It's an excellent rhetorical device if you're looking to win an argument though. Put in a red herring that is false, it throws off their radar, and they dilute their argument trying to deal with it. Ad hominum works this way, because you've fundamentally altered their position from X, to X^(I am not a pedophile).

Non-Sequitur

Spoiler

Formal fallacy. It's basically the definition.

Edit: @QT

Spoiler

Yep. Logic is a learned skill. Some people pick it up naturally, but most don't to any meaningful degree. This is actually one of the areas where I agree with MBTI, in that the people that pick up logic actually seem to have a fundamentally different mindset to those who don't. When I learned formal logic it was like I was just learning new names for shit I already knew by heart. The gap between myself and the other student rapidly closed though, as once the foundation has been set, it is practiced in almost every interaction and thought. It's far easier to learn than a Language or Maths, since even the most deluded fool has an enormous backlog of information with which to 'spellcheck'. I think it's one of the low hanging fruits in an education, where the most good can be done for the learner with the least effort.

 

[Sinny91]

Dont forget Straw Man, that one never ceases to amaze me..

 

[Stagename]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqtbxcZ7wpwGA6FOK1op5Ig

This guy goes through many of the most common mistakes, and has a structured way of analyzing them.

 

[Blique]

Thank you so much everyone! There's a lot of information to process and videos to watch, so I'm still working on them, but I wanted to express my gratitude for all the help while I'm doing so. I'll probably have more questions later, so I'll post again when I've gotten through everything.

 

[Blique]

Hello, I'm back again! I've been reading a lot more about fallacies, so I'm a bit better with them now, but I still have some questions. It's mainly about semantics and categorization.

1. Would "moving the goalposts" be a type of red herring? It doesn't necessarily change the topic, but it does change the goals within the topic, so I'm not sure if that counts.
2. Is "shotgun argumentation" a type of red herring? It focuses more on overwhelming the opponent with various arguments rather than changing the topic entirely, but it does have a similar trait of distraction.
3. Do "continuum fallacy" and "slippery slope" have anything to do with each other (like as sub-fallacies or "sibling" fallacies), or are they completely unrelated?
4. Would "anecdotal fallacy" be a sub-fallacy of "hasty generalization"?
5. Is "slippery slope" a causal fallacy?
6. Is "naturalistic fallacy" a sub-fallacy of "loaded language"?
7. Is "loaded language" a sub-fallacy of "appeal to emotion"?
8. Is "loaded language" even a fallacy at all? I can't seem to find a solid yes or no on it.

That's all I'm having trouble with right now. Thanks for your help!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The most important fallacy to me has always been the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[kora]

I specialize in ethics and wrote a paper on the naturalistic fallacy. In a general sense It denotes that something is morally acceptable because it is natural, it does indeed in some sense constitute "loaded language" If one considers that "natural" is loaded with the emotional bias and subsequent moral consideration (I suppose they are confusing their aesthetic judgement with an ethical judgement, common mistake really) to the people who use it.

In a more precise sense It is similar to Hume's guillotine whereby the transition from a fact to a value is a logical fallacy. I.E "people pursue pleasure, therefore people ought to pursue pleasure."

However it is interesting to note that the fallacy is in fact violated in reverse, by the fact that a designated moral duty necessarily implies the possibility of acting on that moral duty. That is to say that "ought" implies "can". So if I say "Donald Trump cannot physically save the kitten drowning in the Nile at this moment, therefore Donald trump does not have the moral duty to save the kitten drowning at this moment in the Nile." I am operating a transition from facts to values, thus violating the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think you could use a broader understanding of fallacies.

Fallacies aren't "studied" one by one imo, instead you should know what a person is saying and what is being implied or what their goal is in saying something. It is also important to have a firm grasp on the topic of the discussion so as to spot any inaccuracies or falsities perpetuated by others.

People rely on various rhetorics to win an argument, but there's no real need to point out a particular fallacy if you can prove that they aren't being factual or honest.

In the environment where fallacies can be used to have real effect, it is usually the case that factual dialogue aimed to derive the truth isn't the goal and instead participants aim to win the argument, have fun arguing or downplay someone else's position. What is the point of participating in such things even if you are able to spot every fallacy they use. They weren't interested in listening to what you had to say, or talking about the truth anyway.

 

[kora]

I can see how learning all of them could aid somewhat in critical thought and quick analysis though.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hello, I'm back again! I've been reading a lot more about fallacies, so I'm a bit better with them now, but I still have some questions. It's mainly about semantics and categorization.

1. Would "moving the goalposts" be a type of red herring? It doesn't necessarily change the topic, but it does change the goals within the topic, so I'm not sure if that counts.
2. Is "shotgun argumentation" a type of red herring? It focuses more on overwhelming the opponent with various arguments rather than changing the topic entirely, but it does have a similar trait of distraction.
3. Do "continuum fallacy" and "slippery slope" have anything to do with each other (like as sub-fallacies or "sibling" fallacies), or are they completely unrelated?
4. Would "anecdotal fallacy" be a sub-fallacy of "hasty generalization"?
5. Is "slippery slope" a causal fallacy?
6. Is "naturalistic fallacy" a sub-fallacy of "loaded language"?
7. Is "loaded language" a sub-fallacy of "appeal to emotion"?
8. Is "loaded language" even a fallacy at all? I can't seem to find a solid yes or no on it.

That's all I'm having trouble with right now. Thanks for your help!

Red herring and goalsposts shifting are separate. One is introduction of irrelevant material, the other operates on existent material rendering it redundant. They may end up looking similar, but the fallacy is caused by different sides in each example, and works fundamentally differently.

Likewise, shotgun argumentation =/= red herring. Really, shotgun argumentation is more a rhetorical device than a fallacy, as it may be the case that everything you say is very relevant, but the other party is overwhelmed regardless. I've done this in the past unintentionally, it seems to be my natural style to attack from all angles, but it's not fair on the other party even if it's not intentional.

A slippery slope fallacy is an over generalisation. A continuum fallacy plays on the perception of increments. While they're sort of opposites, I cannot at this time think of a subject matter they share, so it's probably not too useful to group them together.

Anecdotal fallacy seems to fit into a subset of hasty generalisation, HG is pretty vague and I imagine not particularly useful though. I mean, why would you ever refer to something as an HG (as the wording can be misleading too, you don't know their timeframe!) when you could be more specific?

I don't think it's correct to call slippery slope a causal fallacy because you're misidentifying a consequence not a cause. There are similarities though, as you're assuming a consequence then pointing to the current undesired course as the cause.

Naturalistic fallacy does seem like loaded language, though I don't think it's a true subset. People committing naturalistic fallacies usually believe that something being natural is enough for it to be right. It's not just what terms they use, though that is part of it, it's just an erroneous assumption.

I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that loaded language isn't necessarily an appeal to emotion. You can use loaded terms to frame a narrative in the mind of another, without it being emotional. Something along the lines of implying more than is said, or ruling out possibilities preemptively by use of particular language. That might be something else though, since everything I read on it seems to point towards more emotional roots. I just don't see any reason why this has to be limited to controlling the positive/negative connotations.

I don't consider loaded language a fallacy. Again, it seems more like a rhetorical device that causes fallacies to happen.

I agree with Blar that you probably put too much emphasis on the specifics. When you really understand this stuff you're able to identify fallacies and explain why they're invalid, even when you don't have a canned label for it. Whatever works though :P

 

[Blique]

The most important fallacy to me has always been the fallacy of equivocation.

Why might you say so? I've seen equivocation mentioned at the top of most fallacy lists, but I can't think of many real life situations where it's used as an argument, so I've been curious about it for a while now.

I think you could use a broader understanding of fallacies.

Fallacies aren't "studied" one by one imo, instead you should know what a person is saying and what is being implied or what their goal is in saying something. It is also important to have a firm grasp on the topic of the discussion so as to spot any inaccuracies or falsities perpetuated by others.

People rely on various rhetorics to win an argument, but there's no real need to point out a particular fallacy if you can prove that they aren't being factual or honest.

In the environment where fallacies can be used to have real effect, it is usually the case that factual dialogue aimed to derive the truth isn't the goal and instead participants aim to win the argument, have fun arguing or downplay someone else's position. What is the point of participating in such things even if you are able to spot every fallacy they use. They weren't interested in listening to what you had to say, or talking about the truth anyway.

I guess it's just that I have trouble fully understanding concepts unless they have a name put to them. I think I understand good argumentation to a decent degree, it's just that "unnamed" concepts slip from my mind very quickly (or take an excessively long time for me to recall). It probably has something to do with my memory issues, I just retain things better the more organized they are in my head.

So it's not that I'm studying logical fallacies with the intent of accusing people as wrong whenever they use them or anything, it's more that whenever I feel like "This person is saying something inaccurate, yet it sounds so agreeable, why is that?" I have a nicely labeled term for it that quickly comes to mind and helps me understand the situation better.

My goal in identifying individual fallacies is more like a side project to understanding argumentation, kind of like making a wikia of a TV series; it helps serve as a reference guide rather than a substitute for the actual thing.

Red herring and goalsposts shifting are separate. One is introduction of irrelevant material, the other operates on existent material rendering it redundant. They may end up looking similar, but the fallacy is caused by different sides in each example, and works fundamentally differently.

Likewise, shotgun argumentation =/= red herring. Really, shotgun argumentation is more a rhetorical device than a fallacy, as it may be the case that everything you say is very relevant, but the other party is overwhelmed regardless. I've done this in the past unintentionally, it seems to be my natural style to attack from all angles, but it's not fair on the other party even if it's not intentional.

A slippery slope fallacy is an over generalisation. A continuum fallacy plays on the perception of increments. While they're sort of opposites, I cannot at this time think of a subject matter they share, so it's probably not too useful to group them together.

Anecdotal fallacy seems to fit into a subset of hasty generalisation, HG is pretty vague and I imagine not particularly useful though. I mean, why would you ever refer to something as an HG (as the wording can be misleading too, you don't know their timeframe!) when you could be more specific?

I don't think it's correct to call slippery slope a causal fallacy because you're misidentifying a consequence not a cause. There are similarities though, as you're assuming a consequence then pointing to the current undesired course as the cause.

Naturalistic fallacy does seem like loaded language, though I don't think it's a true subset. People committing naturalistic fallacies usually believe that something being natural is enough for it to be right. It's not just what terms they use, though that is part of it, it's just an erroneous assumption.

I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that loaded language isn't necessarily an appeal to emotion. You can use loaded terms to frame a narrative in the mind of another, without it being emotional. Something along the lines of implying more than is said, or ruling out possibilities preemptively by use of particular language. That might be something else though, since everything I read on it seems to point towards more emotional roots. I just don't see any reason why this has to be limited to controlling the positive/negative connotations.

I don't consider loaded language a fallacy. Again, it seems more like a rhetorical device that causes fallacies to happen.

I agree with Blar that you probably put too much emphasis on the specifics. When you really understand this stuff you're able to identify fallacies and explain why they're invalid, even when you don't have a canned label for it. Whatever works though :P

Thank you for all the explanations! I understand things better now. I'll take shotgun argumentation and loaded language off my fallacy list then, as well as hasty generalization. I did find the latter to be a little too vague to work with, and I guess a lot of fallacies would fall under overgeneralizations.



Thank you again to everyone! On a side note, does anyone have any good books on logic they particularly recommend? Either for fallacies or just in general, I've been looking for helpful books on the subject lately. Thanks!

Edit: I just took notice of "psychologist's fallacy" and now I'm wondering if that's the same as "anecdotal fallacy". It seems like the same concept, just emphasizing different aspects of it...PF seems to focus more on "People are just like me" while AF is more "My experiences are true evidence", which I think leads back to "...and everyone must share the same experiences as me". Though...maybe not necessarily? I can't tell exactly how the two fallacies might be related.