Rhetalogical Fallacies Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
Awesome. Thanks for sharing this! *downloads and reads* | |
Oh god, all these images are getting saved. You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. OT: This stuff should be required reading for posting in this section. Edit: slightly less psyched due to misuse of some terms. | |
It's a pity that it's one big image. I'd like to be able to post every fallacy as a separate image. I will spam the 'Unfalsifiability' fallacy everywhere! | |
You could sort that manually of course :P But yeah, saved. | |
I'm pretty sure you could take those and label each and every post on the Escapist with their symbols, and not a one would stay white. I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of most, if not all, of them myself. | |
Great stuff man, great stuff. This should totally be a sticky for this sub-forum. Hell, it should be required reading in general. | |
Give me till the end of tomorrow and I'll split them up and spoiler them so people can literally throw them around, k? Plus if you wanted to memorise them- definitely not a bad thing- you could use the smaller images to make flash cards. I'll try and get it stickied if enough people think that's a good idea? Actually, you know what, I'm going to make this Part I of a series on Rhetoric. I need something to do.
It's great, isn't it? Rhetoric and Logic are so fundamental to human interaction that individuals pick up some or all of these things just by being human. It's all part of how to lie and how to persuade, and even how to think clearly. I love this whole field. | |
I thought Milk did strengthen your bones, because of the calcium and what not. | |
The key word is "Essential". It's also the intent. The person saying that is just saying it because someone else has said it to them, they're not backing it up with anything else like you are with the "Calcium" comment. | |
Praise Allah for that, I thought for a second all that milk I had been drinking was a lie. | |
Well, not all of them seem entirely correct, at least not outside discussion on measurable facts (...which 1): Aren't enough to discuss, and 2): Makes no sense to discuss as they should simply be measured). Take for instance, the "Appeal to novelty" argument - that something is "better" because it's new - can be quite true, as it's not impossible to consider "new" a quality in and of itself. It doesn't mean that a new PC will be measurably faster, but whether it's "better" doesn't necessarily rely solely on that. Apple wouldn't have a business if it did (...the use of their logo is rather ironic). Another one is the "Appeal to Pity" one, in particular the example attached to it. Not only is "wrong" a subjective standard which "pity" can certainly affect, there are in fact sometimes legal practises that ill health can stay a trial. Meaning that the example given of its falsehood can even be objectively true as well, in that it could be an objective legal wrong to put him on trial when in poor health. Stuff like the "Appeal to tradition" being a fallacy in regard for gay marriage being "wrong" doesn't even make sense, since "right/wrong" is pretty much decided according to tradition from a socially conservative point of view. Such is not a social conservative playing a rhetorical trick, it's them having a different baseline and measurement of ethics altogether. | |
Great! Maybe you could quote me when you have done it, to remember me? Or just send me a message? Thank you! :D
I had to learn all those fallacies in high school ;)
Yeah, sounds great. But please tell people too that saying 'That's a fallacy!' without properly explaining why it is is a fallacy too. Just screaming 'generalization!' doesn't help anyone.
What are your ideas for Part II & III?
In the field of IT, 'newer'&'better' are very closely linked. But for a lot of things, the mere fact that it is 'new' doesn't mean it is 'better'. Some people might like new things for the sake of it being new, but in general, and 'objectively', a 2012-object isn't better than a 2011-object because it's made in 2012.
Agreed. 'No Pity' sounds very... Spartan. (Is this an appeal to fear? :P)
You're demonstrating the relativist fallacy? See Danny, this is why I want the separate images! :D | |
Well I've a book on Rhetoric that's divided into "Offence", "Defence", "Advanced Offence", "Advanced Agreement." I'll separate it out like that. I'll go through it and paraphrase most likely, since the last time I outright copied a source book some other forumites got worried about copyrights and that. This way I'm just sharing knowledge, not the actual words. Plus it's a good read. | |
Bookmarked. I'm already using this against people xD Thank you :) | |
See what you've done Danny. You've just ruined the R&P board. Not only will people be too afraid to post, but when they do eventually post someone will just link them to this thread. mfw what I've said is some sort of fallacy someone will point out
| |
No no, it's not ruined yet, he will post all the fallacies as separate images so we can start accusing each other very accurate! :D It will be epic. And horrible! And epic. Like Gears of War. Chainsawfallacy RAAAARGH!
Simple, appeal to fear. NEXT! | |
I believe that would fall under slippery slope. ^.^ Captcha says laser beams, and I'm gonna have to agree. | |
Your argument is bad because I don't like you and my mother told me that you associate with nazis and she's not the kind of woman who would lie. Over 40 other qualified mothers also said the same thing Dumbnyal. Seriously, shut up, we all know others do it so how about trying to prove to me that they don't? Yeah, I didn't think so. Look I don't hate you, I just expect better, maybe your opinion is right for you, but it's not right for all of us. | |
Well, you're argument might be new, but that doesn't make it right! It's ridiculous, and by appealing to ridicule - F*CK that's an actual fallacy - but I tried to make shit up :( Shit I suck at being wrong :( XD | |
ROFL. Careful. Heads are in serious risk of exploding.
Good at logic, bad at rhetoric. Methinks you'll like this series. :P | |
My word this is one sexy thread. Appeal to probability struck me as an odd one though. If I state that something is unlikely but not impossible and apply it to a very large number of situations where it may occur, then the likelihood of that happening is very high amongst some of them, isn't it? Or is it just included because the example advocates certainty rather than probability? | |
Appealing to probability means that the event will happen, rather than it is likely to happen. Like you said, it advocates certainty instead of probability. | |
So it basically applies probability to the real world as opposed to just pure text book probability (because if I remember correctly, depending on the type of probability you're calculating, then things do happen inevitably, but then again I was quite mediocre at stats) | |
didn't we just have words about this ? ;) | |
It would be nice if people round here new about these things. From my experience of escapists, half of them cannot debate. Which ironically is a fallacious argument. | |
It's important to remember that many of these are not logical fallacies, they're also rhetorical tools. Everything related to the heart (pathos- any emotional tinge to the written or spoken word) and gut (ethos- like your image as a good ol' fashioned honest Texan boy, Bush) may or may not create a convincing argument depending on your audience at the medium through which you communicate. Basically, when debating, all of these are OK- unless you get caught. All of the brown, red, green, and blue ones are more rhetoric than the pure logic (logos) of the purple and pink ones. There's also a lot more to it than the simple glossary of terms here would imply.
I... don't... know? | |
I either fail to see it or false equivalence isn't on there, which is a shame because while much of this is annoying (when I do it, too!), false equivalence is the one thing that never fails to put me into a screaming, table-flinging rage. "Well, politician A thinks it's okay to rape and murder, while politician B isn't opposed to software piracy and jaywalking. Ergo they're both equally bad, so it doesn't matter who I vote for!" NO. Stop it. I'm not sure about "relativist fallacy", since sometimes that actually is the case. I'm assuming it's talking about demonstrable, concrete fact and not something that's wholly perceptual/subjective, where truth does differ between perceivers. That the first Kushiel's Legacy trilogy was spiritually important and emotionally moving is true to me, coming at it with the collection of experiences and filters that I have, while "it's a crappy series" or "it's just soft-porn airplane reading" is equally true for someone else, coming at it with theirs. | |
Heh, I know what you mean.
Well, yeah, you can use such things correctly, which is why they are more fun to use incorrectly. If everyone knew it was always wrong to say a thing, nobody would bother trying to trick people with them. The "Slippery Slope" for example. You can have consequences of a thing that lead to more consequences of that thing. It's only a fallacy if you claim it's likely/inevitable when it isn't. | |
I think the creator called it the "Undistributed Middle". Although FE is slightly different.
This one's causing some confusion I think. "Rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group." Methinks that it's a fallacy when: 1) Relativism is used to argue away, or avoid, actual facts. You're actually wrong. I think almost everyone can testify to the frustration of thoroughly backing up a claim with all sorts of data and rhetoric and then having someone simply turn and say, "Well that's just your opinion." Or, more often, we can see on the news that interviewees will often respond to strong and well-supported opposing viewpoints with, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion." When their opinion is invalid or lacks support. I think it's aimed at that.
A popular example from the news and politics, "Where do we draw the line!?" Captcha: Umbrella Corporation
Done.
As I say, there's more to rhetoric than logic. Waaay more. | |
My bad. Double post. Filler to avoid warning. | |
Yeah, I made a point to not judge each of those cards in a vaccuum lest we mix up the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. While they are good for understanding the basics, context must always be taken into consideration otherwise you end up with people using "pure logic" when it's really a matter of opinion. | |
How does one define "better" objectively though? If it's defined solely as the build quality and specs of the hardware (as I personally would), then it's indeed a fallacy to say "newer = better". But if it's taken to include one's own feelings on the matter, or what recognition one will get from other people for owning it due to hype, then "new" can be a part of "better". Hence my initial assertion that many of these are really only applied when the discussion is on measurable facts.
No, I'm demonstrating that in order for it to apply, you'll need to assume both that ethics aren't a(n inter)subjective matter, and furthermore that the "objective" set of ethics which then exist isn't affected by tradition. That's not really a discussion that's been settled in ethical philosophy yet, and hence "appeal to tradition" isn't a fallacy, so much as it's a view that ethical standards are and should be linked to local cultural tradition. A social conservative saying that gay marriage is "wrong" because of tradition hence isn't using a rhetorical trick or logical fallacy; He is expressing an honestly held opinion on what should help define "ethical standards", a concept for which no objective/authoritative definition yet exist. It might certainly be a loathsome stance, but it's not something that's as objectively false as saying "It'll also rain tomorrow because it's rained for the last 7 days".
Exactly. They're only automatically applicable when the discussion takes place in a context where objective/authoritative standards are applicable. Otherwise many of them are simply a part of what the other party considers the applicable standard to be, with there being no objective/authoritative definition of it to prove him wrong. Hence they're somewhat limited in scope. | |
And yet humanities graduates look in askance at scientists who require something more than logical consistency in an argument. | |
Yeah, I looked at "undistributed middle" (sometimes called "the excluded middle") a couple of times because it's similar, but I agree with you, false equivalence isn't quite the same thing, nor do I think it's used in the same situations.
Makes sense. I often wonder, in situations like that, whether the "it's just your opinion, man" people actually believe that it's a matter of opinion, or whether it's simply a deflection because a) you started an argument and you're being confronted with facts you really don't want to believe or b) because the other person sees your identity as de facto permission to argue with you ("oh, you're one of those liberals? Well, how do you defend Obama's decision to...") and you really want him to get out of your face and leave you alone. It usually seems like a way of saying "I can't deal with what you're telling me and I want this discussion to end now", rather like "let's agree to disagree" is the polite thing to say when you're tired of the two jerks who just fucked up your nice dinner party by arguing politics for the last hour and a half. I'm sure there must be people who really think that facts=debatable opinions, but most of the time I see "it's just my opinion!" it's used to dodge the issue and end the discussion. (Mine IRL is often "I've told you where I stand", which is Polaritese for "asshole, I'm about one more sentence from punching you in the face if you don't drop this line of bullshit and get out of my face".) | |
| Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
I've wanted to make a thread about rhetoric and logic for ages now, but I've just never got 'round to it. Luckily for me, someone else has made some handy images that sum up the tricks of rhetoric and some of the fallacies in logic. I thought it would be good to pop it here as stuff like this comes up all the time:
Image