Logical fallacies

[Devilsadvokat]

Here begins the lesson. Well wiki anyway, it is good source for logical fallacies. Attention at the back of the class the first one is

Argument from Incredulity.

This one is that just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it is not true. Link in next post, I am so excited don't know which logical fallacy to do next

 

[James]

I like “No True Scotsman” - the “appeal to purity”.

No true Scotsman would do that.
No true Englishman would turn that down.
No true Catholic would hold that opinion.
No true football fan would wish for this.
No true Marvel devotee would deny that.

People use this fallacy every day, and it’s hilarious how meaningless their statements instantly become when No True Scotsman is applied.

 

[Pakistanian]

argumentum ad populum - just cause something might be larger in number must mean it's better. This logical fallacy is used often with regards to Pakistan, as a way to put it down.

An example often used: "India has more Muslims than Pakistan, that means India is better for Muslims than Pakistan".

 

[Devilsadvokat]

argumentum ad populum - just cause something might be larger in number must mean it's better. This logical fallacy is used often with regards to Pakistan, as a way to put it down.

An example often used: "India has more Muslims than Pakistan, that means India is better for Muslims than Pakistan".

Funny I thought a better example of this was when people use it to big up religion and/or Islam in comparison to atheist.

By the way there are now more Muslims in Pakistan than India.

 

[JaDed]

argumentum ad populum - just cause something might be larger in number must mean it's better. This logical fallacy is used often with regards to Pakistan, as a way to put it down.

An example often used: "India has more Muslims than Pakistan, that means India is better for Muslims than Pakistan".

Where did you get that number from.Sunny deols movies?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Where did you get that number from.Sunny deols movies?

Please no derail.

 

[ahsan17]

Faulty analogy, often referred to as false equivalence or 'apples and oranges' is a common one. It's when a an analogy between two things within the context of the argument is invalid. It can mean cherry picking certain things, or leaving out other relevant details about one of the two things being compared.

A faulty analogy that I see every now and about Pakistan: that Pakistan is isolated like North Korea. Without going too deep into it, it's a bad analogy because Pakistan is not sanctioned like North Korea and it has good diplomatic relations with nearly all countries.

Keep in mind, however, that an analogy is a faulty analogy if the comparison is bad within the parameters of the argument. If someone says that X is better than Y when it comes to topic A, and you say X is not better than Y in general, you'd be falsely claiming faulty analogy because the comparison made initially was not a general comparison but in a specific topic. This would the strawman fallacy, i.e. misrepresenting someone else's argument.

Example: if someone says Pakistan has better highway network than India, and someone responds that India has a better rail network, that response is strawman fallacy because the initial claim was not about rail networks. You could also reverse this (i.e. claim India has better rail network and someone responding that Pakistan has better highway network), and that would also be a strawman fallacy.

 

[Indiafan]

I know this thread is about fallacies but I want to point out two cognitive biases which lead to fallacies of thinking and which every human being has

1) confirmation bias - if you read/hear/see 100 things, out of that you will only retain information about things you are already biased for. For example if you have a belief that vaccines are bad and you read 99 very well sourced articles about how vaccines are safe and one random blog about how vaccines are bad, you will only read the last one thoroughly and your brain will reject the 99 well researched article. This bias affects your brains ability to search for, interpret, favor and recall information. So you will always find information you agree with and ignore information you dont

2) backfire effect - this is the brains ability to reject information contrary to ones personal bias. So when someone is provided actual proof about how their understanding is wrong instead of accepting the proof their brain doubles down on their false belief. Example would be proof of evolution to someone who rejects it. Any actual proof will only cause the person to disbelieve more.

This is why you never see anyone change their beliefs in any debate. Unless you are neutral or dont care much for a topic, people don't change their views about most things in life. We are not logical creatures

 

[Devilsadvokat]

I know this thread is about fallacies but I want to point out two cognitive biases which lead to fallacies of thinking and which every human being has

1) confirmation bias - if you read/hear/see 100 things, out of that you will only retain information about things you are already biased for. For example if you have a belief that vaccines are bad and you read 99 very well sourced articles about how vaccines are safe and one random blog about how vaccines are bad, you will only read the last one thoroughly and your brain will reject the 99 well researched article. This bias affects your brains ability to search for, interpret, favor and recall information. So you will always find information you agree with and ignore information you dont

2) backfire effect - this is the brains ability to reject information contrary to ones personal bias. So when someone is provided actual proof about how their understanding is wrong instead of accepting the proof their brain doubles down on their false belief. Example would be proof of evolution to someone who rejects it. Any actual proof will only cause the person to disbelieve more.

This is why you never see anyone change their beliefs in any debate. Unless you are neutral or dont care much for a topic, people don't change their views about most things in life. We are not logical creatures

Very welcome post.

 

[Musakhel]

The most common logical fallacy I have observed from athiest or others when arguing about the existence i
Of God, Or Islam in particular is that their understanding of God, is not God to begin with.

 

[ahsan17]

The most common logical fallacy I have observed from athiest or others when arguing about the existence i
Of God, Or Islam in particular is that their understanding of God, is not God to begin with.

I am not sure I follow. Can you elaborate please?

 

[tonmoy]

Usually when I argue Homosexuality with Religious person, there is always the following argument

"Do you think "incest" is right if it is done with the consent of two adults?"

Now, above is like comparing apples and oranges. You can compare homosexuality with heterosexuality. To explain further, In cases where homosexual behavior is wrong (child sex, rape, incest etc) , heterosexual behavior is also wrong in the same cases.

I think the above falls under "false analogy"

 

[Musakhel]

I am not sure I follow. Can you elaborate please?

They give God human attributes, another common one is why does God do xyz or why does God create imperfect creations.

 

[JaDed]

The most common logical fallacy I have observed from athiest or others when arguing about the existence i
Of God, Or Islam in particular is that their understanding of God, is not God to begin with.

And how do you know about GOD?

 

[Musakhel]

And how do you know about GOD?

In Islam at least you can read the Tahawi creed or Sanusi creed, it explains the Muslim beleif In God and His attributes.

 

[JaDed]

In Islam at least you can read the Tahawi creed or Sanusi creed, it explains the Muslim beleif In God and His attributes.

That's an religious belief of GOD which would change based on religions, your idea of GOD is Similar to an atheist idea or theory of the same, unproven.

And burden of proof is usually on the ones that have to prove the idea..GOD/creator exists but it's strength and punishments are theories based on faith.

 

[ahsan17]

They give God human attributes, another common one is why does God do xyz or why does God create imperfect creations.

This isn't a logical fallacy. It's more of a subjective opinion.

 

[Musakhel]

This isn't a logical fallacy. It's more of a subjective opinion.

By logic Alone God must be All powerful, that is not subjective.

 

[ahsan17]

Usually when I argue Homosexuality with Religious person, there is always the following argument

"Do you think "incest" is right if it is done with the consent of two adults?"

Now, above is like comparing apples and oranges. You can compare homosexuality with heterosexuality. To explain further, In cases where homosexual behavior is wrong (child sex, rape, incest etc) , heterosexual behavior is also wrong in the same cases.

I think the above falls under "false analogy"

It's a false analogy simply because incest can result in defective children, while homosexuality by default will not result in defective children (or any children). But, if for some reason you can guarantee that no children will come out of an incest relationship then there should be no problem with two people having incestuous relationship, IMO.