Which Logical Fallacies are you Prone To?

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
So I was at the Nizkor Project and I was examining the list of logical fallacies that people use to bolster their arguments or to reach conclusions:


The Link



As I read through the list of fallacies and their descriptions, I remembered instances in my life when I've employed many, if not all of them. I mean, A LOT of them are a little too close for comfort. Reading through the list was sort of humbling.


So, to those whom I have debated in the past, be it on the internet or in real life, I will admit it: I may very well have been wrong. Please forgive me.

It's so hard to move beyond one's preconceptions, one's filters, one's past. And age makes us MORE rigid, not less.

There continues to be this grappling, this continual striving towards seeing things clearly, towards clarity .....

Sigh.


Anyway, the next time you're involved in some raging debate, consult the list of logical fallacies and make sure you're not committing one of them.
 
i can think of few posters on the West Mall that should be very familar with that list, although it would probably be lost on them.
 
appeal to authority is an easy one for me to fall prey to....and i am sure there are others as well, but that one jumps out at me.
 
I'm prone to all of them.

Further, I dont' believe, and I understand some research supports, that the advocacy method (who has the strongest argument) is quite unreliable at arriving at quality decisions.


But that's another thread...
 
NBMisha, that is a confusing sentence, so you are saying that you don't believe that the advocacy method is unreliable? meaning...you think the person with the strongest argument is usually correct?
 
steel shank, are there some that you disagree with? which ones? i didn't see any that didn't belong.....granted i skimmed quickly.
 
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the one I notice most in others and in myself.

And you can believe me, because I never lie and I'm always right.
 
steel, that is funny! i missed it and feel silly.....
blush.gif
 
We can't believe that list, because it was posted by Bevo Incognito, noted hater of puppies and Jesus.

Also, I don't commit any logical fallacies that you don't also commit, so there.
 
Mop
Apologies. I'm saying that my professional experience is that the advocacy method including soley the use of argument is viewed, in my business, as unreliable for significant decision making. The way we argue politics and law is not the way we decide, for example, to spend, or not, or how to spend, a billion bucks, etc.
 
NBMisha

The best argument, in a rhetorical sense, is not the same thing as the soundest argument, in a rational sense. The best rhetorical argument sways opinion; the soundest argument attempts to find the closest approach to the truth.
 
NBMIsha, I understand yet ironically, it sounds like someone is evaluating what is the "best" decision based upon reason and logic......that is funny to me. after all, how do you decide which decision was the "best" decision? certainly it is by measuring the decision against reasonable standards.
 
I don't think that I have ever found myself prone to logical falluses. I'm just not into dudes, whether they be logical or no. This is no knock against the rest of you fellows here on Brokeback Quacks. Get after it.
 
Coel
Good clarifying point. What I'm trying to get to is that logical reasoning is but one part of a quality decision. The decision in my meaning here is to do this, or that, or a third thing, or nothing. This is different than reasoning to "an answer" or "the truth". I'm saying, logical reasoning isn't usually sufficient.
 
What do you call these things that are not based on logical reasoning, but nevertheless assist you in making reliable decisions?
 
And then, to top it off, you can sometimes reach the right (or best) conclusion, but do so via a logical fallacy --- thus reinforcing the fallacy.
 
Coel
In the most recent other thread, you asked about a "name" of this other approach. Of course, "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning have had so much written of them over the last century or more that they are common memes in our culture. This other approach is indeed, less common, formally. I'll try to give an outline.

First, for some references, go to SDG (Strategic Decisions Group, now part of CERA) web site. We adopted our formalized approach from their then current consultive model in the 80's. This is just one example of an approach broader than logic.

So, my question is, what makes for a quality decision? How does one say it was "right"? If dumb luck caused a gain, was it a quality decision? The main elements of a quality decision are suggested:

1) Are we dealing with the right question? This sometimes called the framing problem. Are we trying to decide on the best car design for the US-green-cool demographic, or for the Toby Keith demographic? This oversimplifies the issue, for clarity, but enough work on establishing the boundary of the problem is needed, less the end product risk being useless.
2.) We need a collection of viable alternatives, whose make up covers sufficiently the so-called alternatives space. Here, the key is not deducing the answer, but assessing alternatives against each other. One cannot really deduce the best design for a car, for example, or the best alternative for getting to Mars, for another. A sufficiently broad alternative set is needed.
3) We need information. These are facts and opinions, the input to an analytical/logical process. In the global warming threads, you speak to your discomfort with the state of information. The amount and quality we have and use is obviously important.
4) Values and tradeoffs: I have focused earlier remarks on this issue. We need to establish what is important to us to guide our assessment of alternatives. Is it money and profit? Is it environmental outcomes? Is it the view of an investment partner? There are many things that may be legitimately important to the decision maker. These need to be made explicit and some work done to understand tradeoffs between them that are believed important to the ultimate decision. Now, no one asks for a philosphical disputation justifying common values. At least not in my common experience.
5.) Now comes analysis, logical reasoning, modeling, etc. How can the alternatives be assessed, scored, etc, against criteria derived from the values earlier established. Uncertainty in the information, understanding this uncertainty, and including it in the analysis is important. The UN report on global warming of this past summer does use uncertainty in their modeling, as an example (See June/July Scientific American)
6) The final element is a purley action oriented one. It is an additional criteria consideration for the decision - which alternatives are such that people won't "do them" even if we were to decide on them. (Think drug laws, here.) Which alternatives have more commitment potential? Can we gain commitment to the preferred alternative? What needs to be added to the plan to build commitment, etc?

All this amounts to information at the hands of decision makers. They do not then follow reasoning and proof from there. They exercise judgement.

This is why I have said that logic is only as good as its axioms (information input) and is only a tool in service of the values as expressed by decision makers. Logic does not dictate the values in real decision making, in this perspective.

The biological basis for values is a whole different topic, of course.

To summarize, deductive logic etc is insufficient, in itself, to support most sizeable decisions in the real world. Its a tool among other, necessary, elements. It is completely dependent upon its input, and the value it is to serve. We determine the values.

My logical fallacy here is appeal to authority, I suppose, in that I say this is an approach used in some big dollar decision institutions. But I am really saying its a real life example, for illustration.
 
I just want to point out that challenge your opponent to explain why he should stop at his pet arbitrary point on the slope instead of continuing is not a slippery slope fallacy.

"If you get a shorter haircut than before, next time you'll be letting the barber behead you" is a slippery slope fallacy. Saying "If you're not going to throw a flag when a guy's head gets twisted 180º, why have such thing as a facemask penalty at all?" is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top