Logical Fallacies And Biases

[blackpudd1n]

Hey everyone,

 

I've been trying to understand logical fallacies. Mainly, identifying them, knowing what they are, recognising them when used by others, and preventing myself from using them myself. I like the idea of having a framework for thinking, and I think a good understanding of them will assist me immensely when I go back to university and have to write essays.

 

However, I'm struggling a bit with them. I'm starting to grasp some of them through reading about them and watching videos on the subject on youtube, but I would be interested to hear what other forum members understand each logical fallacy to be and to help me out with some examples so I can get a better understanding. I'd also like to see how the understanding I have of each matches up so that I can determine whether I'm on the right track or not.

 

Also, if it's not too much, I'd like to look into biases, too.

 

So any help would be much appreciated

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Pudd, I have some notes I used for a little workshop I did on fallacies some years ago, but I don't know how to attach a text file on here! I don't see a feature for that on the toolbar.

 

Christians tend to commit petitio principii fallacies a lot, or "begging the question," i.e. constructing an argument using premises that already contain the conclusion, often only implicitly. One of the most explicit examples is that the bible is the Word of God - proof being in verses from the bible. So the bible's inerrancy or whatever is assumed at the beginning.

 

When you get to university you may want to take a course in logic. Great fun!

[stryper]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LogicalFallacies?from=Main.YouFailLogicForever

 

obvious I love tvtropes.

 

For things like this where you are just looking for general information, they do an excellent job. This list is by no means exhaustive. It does cover many of the fallacies that you see in life. The reason it appears on a site dedicated to tools used in story telling is because....well writers screw up too. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.

[TrueFreedom]

Less Wrong has lots of great material: http://lesswrong.com/

 

I see a meetup in Sydney.

 

The Nizkor project has a nice list with explanations and examples for each fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[blackpudd1n]

Hi Pudd, I have some notes I used for a little workshop I did on fallacies some years ago, but I don't know how to attach a text file on here! I don't see a feature for that on the toolbar.

 

Christians tend to commit petitio principii fallacies a lot, or "begging the question," i.e. constructing an argument using premises that already contain the conclusion, often only implicitly. One of the most explicit examples is that the bible is the Word of God - proof being in verses from the bible. So the bible's inerrancy or whatever is assumed at the beginning.

 

When you get to university you may want to take a course in logic. Great fun!

 

Hey ficino,

 

I would love to have a look at those notes! If you click down in the posting box, there's a button next to "post" that says "more reply options". If you click on that, you end up with a bigger box to write in, and a section at the bottom where you can attach files

 

The straw man fallacy is one that I frequently struggle with, along with special pleading and begging the question. Or are special pleading and begging the question the same one?

 

I will look for a course in logic, but I don't think one is available, from memory

[blackpudd1n]

http://tvtropes.org/...ailLogicForever

 

obvious I love tvtropes.

 

For things like this where you are just looking for general information, they do an excellent job. This list is by no means exhaustive. It does cover many of the fallacies that you see in life. The reason it appears on a site dedicated to tools used in story telling is because....well writers screw up too. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.

 

Thanks for the source- damn, there's a lot to go through! Oh well, I've got some time tonight lol.

[blackpudd1n]

Less Wrong has lots of great material: http://lesswrong.com/

 

I see a meetup in Sydney.

 

The Nizkor project has a nice list with explanations and examples for each fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

 

Wow, that looks like a cool blog! Thanks, I'll put both of them on my to-do list for tonight

 

Oh, and P.S.- I live six hours north of Sydney!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Puddin', I attached some stuff and sent it to you in a PM on Facebook. I think it will be largely the same as the material in the excellent links provided by Stryper and Total Freedom.

 

I understand Special Pleading to be what some people call Moving the Goalposts. Christians do this when they try to defend the historicity of the bible. They demand a higher degree of reliability of their opponents' evidence than what they allow to their own.

[blackpudd1n]

Hi Puddin', I attached some stuff and sent it to you in a PM on Facebook. I think it will be largely the same as the material in the excellent links provided by Stryper and Total Freedom.

 

I understand Special Pleading to be what some people call Moving the Goalposts. Christians do this when they try to defend the historicity of the bible. They demand a higher degree of reliability of their opponents' evidence than what they allow to their own.

 

Oh, I see, kind of like one rule for them, and another rule entirely for their opponent.

[stryper]

which in itself is a double standard.

[blackpudd1n]

which in itself is a double standard.

 

...another logical fallacy meaning the same thing?

[stryper]

It's not a logical fallacy. I'm not really sure what to call it. But saying that it's okay for men to have sex with as many women as they want and they get called a stud, whereas the woman who does that is called a whore, is a good example.

 

So when christians are moving the goal posts, they are also sometimes creating a double standard.

[MrsRoper]

ficino - can you send me the stuff on Facebook too?

 

Pudd - so glad you did this post. I want to understand logic as well. I saw a book called Logic for Dummies at a used book store, but was too embarrassed to buy it. LOL

 

d

[Guest Valk0010]

Strawmen, a arguement based off a mischaracterization of your opponents position.

 

Circular reasoning is using a conclusion to prove a conclusion.

 

Nonsequiter is making a premise or a claim and then you conclusion does not follow from that premise.

 

Red herring, throwing a issue that has no relevance to the discussion into the discussion as to divert from the actual discussion at hand.

 

Special pleading, is another way of saying counting the hits but not the misses. A good example of this is the fine tuning arguement. They say ohh look how the universe is designed perfect for life, but as far as biology there is no reason to say we are designed by a god. A person using the fine tuning argument is not accounting for the miss from biology. Another good example is many a christian proof for the resurrection, that standard of evidence can and does prove equally absurd conclusions like say, the validity of alien abductions.

 

Arguement from authority is a fallacy that says that having authority alone equals correctness. Like for example, god is moral and perfect cause he is god. Just because your in a position of knowledge or power doesn't guarantee logically anyway, correctness. All you are is just in a position of knowledge and power.

 

Appeal to consensus, is a fallacy that says consensus implies correctness. A really good example of this, is Gary Habermas minimal facts arguement for the resurrection. It doesn't matter if a majority of new testament scholars recognize the existence of the empty tomb. What matters was, is there one.

 

A wierd one(which is why its somewhat hard to explain) I just learned about very very recently was what is called a composition fallacy. Its using part of a whole to prove a whole of some thing. A great example of this, is using the supposed gospel reliability to prove the existence of god. Where the fallacy comes is saying that, just because we may have reliable gospel material, that then we can say that alone proves the existence of god. The flaw is in the lack of consideration of other factors like the problem of evil, or various other evidences for the not existence of god, or proof that the concept of a theistic god is logically contradictory that one needs to consider before they even say, ohh the reliability of the gospel material proves the existence of a god or a resurrected jesus. In other words people who say, oh the historical proof of the resurrection of jesus proves Christianity alone, they are asking us to commit the composition fallacy. And from the perspective of a christian theist, they have to practically prove that christian theism is true before they can even say that gospel reliability proves the resurrection to not commit that fallacy. The reason I say that, is because one could say, things like the problem of evil as logically true or valid, and have no reason to comment on the supposedly reliable gospels. They could say I don't know and you don't either. Sometimes you will here some people say. If there is no god there is no way there could be miracles. Its that sort of thing.

 

Those are the most common one's I end up seeing and knowing the name off, that haven't already been mentioned.

[Guest Valk0010]

Oh, I see, kind of like one rule for them, and another rule entirely for their opponent.

The ten dollar word for what you just said, is what is called, a double standard.

[♦ ficino ♦]

ficino - can you send me the stuff on Facebook too?

 

d

 

Hi, I just PMed it to you. Cheers, F

[MrsRoper]

ficino - can you send me the stuff on Facebook too?

 

d

 

Hi, I just PMed it to you. Cheers, F

 

Yeah thanks! So mad I wasted taking Philosophy when I was a bassackward Freshman. I wonder if I will do better as a full blown attention deficit adult!!

[Guest Valk0010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[Vigile]

There are a lot of good sources out there; many have been linked already.

 

This is a little off topic, but related. Many people just use logical fallacies to win debates. They point them out in their opponent and refuse to address their own.

 

If truth is important to you, as opposed to just winning an argument, then you need to be willing to be wrong, keep an open mind and approach new subjects with the attitude of a student. Frankly, BP, I think you already have that going for you so learning a few basic fallacies to help you cut through the noise is just a matter of a tiny bit of study. IMHO

[blackpudd1n]

I'm not really into debating. The way I see it, an understanding of logical fallacies will enable me to get to the heart of something easier. I think that it will help me think clearer and help to immunise me from gullibility. For me, it's not about winning arguments, but just being able to think clearly. Logic appeals to me as a framework for thought.

 

At this point in time, I have suspicions when I read something that doesn't seem quite right, but it takes me a while to articulate the issue that I have with what I am reading. Take, for instance, the following passage from my textbook, Sociology (Fourth Edition, Van Krieken et. al):

 

"The claim that science deals with objective truth in a way that religion cannot has been called into question by writers such as Michael Polyani (1958), who argue that both science and religion are belief systems that operate according to an internal set of rules. A belief system is an interrelated set of beliefs and ideas that helps people to make sense of, and to interpret, their world. Within the system, logic and rational argument prevail, but the rules themselves are not open to external scrutiny. Instead, they are legitimated with reference to the other components-in other words, a circular logic applies. Their claim to truth is accompanied by a refusal to accept the validity of alternative belief systems based on different premises. They are therefore closed systems of knowledge that are supported by a community of believers, in much the same way as religion is. It is the commitment of the believers to the system that supports it, rather than any external criteria of validity.

 

Polyani's arguments about the conceptual similarities between science and religion were strengthened by the work of Thomas Kuhn (1962), who documented the way in which scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Kuhn points out that scientists are not objective but become attached to their theories to the extent that they ignore or play down evidence that contradicts them. They operate within a framework that lays out the 'rules of the game' and is accepted as a 'given' rather than being open to scrutiny. Kuhn uses the term 'paradigm' to refer to these ground rules that scientists operate within. Their commitment to their paradigm means that, instead of objectively assessing the 'facts', scientists operate within a closed frame of reference and try to fit the data within this. Science therefore has its dogmas in much the same way as religion does.

 

Science's claim to being an open system of knowledge has also been challenged. Like religion, science has its community of experts possessing specialised knowledge and language that can be understood only by them. Membership of the community is highly selective, so that it is akin to an exclusive club that is not open to outsiders.

 

Writers such as Polyani and Kuhn agreed with Berger and Luckmann that all knowledge- even scientific knowledge- is socially constructed. It is legitimated according to the prevailing cultural conceptions and is therefore subject to the problem of relativity. From this perspective scientific 'certainty' is diminished and instead takes its place alongside other belief systems that are used to interpret and make sense of the world. Both systems lay claim to the truth, but their means of arriving at it are different. There are also strands within Western culture that bring science and religion closer together- for example, some New Age religions use scientific knowledge to explain religious phenomena and to enhance religious experiences (Hess 1993)."

 

Now, here's my issue with this excerpt. I have a suspicion that there has been quite a stretch to make certain conclusions, such as that religion and science are one and the same. In the last paragraph, I think there is a bandwagon fallacy there. I think science has been grossly misrepresented elsewhere in the quote, but I cannot say for sure exactly how or why. I can spot that this excerpt has its basis in post-modernist philosophy, due to how disparaging it is of science. Unfortunately, however, post-modernism in and of itself is not a fallacy. That being said, though, I do think it was dishonest not to identify the prevailing philosophy that led to the way in which this excerpt was written. But that's pretty much it. I can tell something stinks here, but I'm having trouble identifying it and sorting through the BS in order to form an informed opinion in my own mind about this passage.

[Vigile]

"The claim that science deals with objective truth in a way that religion cannot has been called into question by writers such as Michael Polyani (1958), who argue that both science and religion are belief systems that operate according to an internal set of rules.

 

Ok, so here's a quick lesson in logical fallacies. It sounds like this Polyani is equivocating. Science, if performed properly, is designed to remove human bias, whereas religion is completely wrapped in bias. The scientific method isn't so much a belief system as it is a proven system. This does not mean there is no bias amongst scientists as clearly there is, but the entire system is designed to weed that out.

[blackpudd1n]

"The claim that science deals with objective truth in a way that religion cannot has been called into question by writers such as Michael Polyani (1958), who argue that both science and religion are belief systems that operate according to an internal set of rules.

 

Ok, so here's a quick lesson in logical fallacies. It sounds like this Polyani is equivocating. Science, if performed properly, is designed to remove human bias, whereas religion is completely wrapped in bias. The scientific method isn't so much a belief system as it is a proven system. This does not mean there is no bias amongst scientists as clearly there is, but the entire system is designed to weed that out.

 

Would you say that there is a confirmation bias going on in the passage I quoted? I felt as though the argument started at the end, and then Polyani worked backwatds to make everything fit nicely, allowing him to draw the conclusions that he drew that science was another belief system. I felt as though he was doing the same thing that he was accusing scientists as doing. But I don't know quite what to call everything I just said.

 

I had to stop for a moment and think after reading that passage, because it made me quite angry. I wondered if I was angry because I felt that science was being attacked unjustly, or because I couldn't quite articulate the reason why I felt that science was being attacked unjustly. And this is what I want to sort out before I go back to university. I think that there were far too many claims made in that passage with very weak or insufficient support for them.

[Vigile]

Would you say that there is a confirmation bias going on in the passage I quoted?

 

That's possibly going on, but TBH, anyone who equivocates religion and science is not being self deceptive IMO, they are being wildly disingenuous. If I had to guess, the guy wants religion to have a seat at the intellectual table and is willing to bend reality to get it there. I'd need a lot more background info to be sure, so just call this a gut instinct at this point.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

 

 

"The claim that science deals with objective truth in a way that religion cannot has been called into question by writers such as Michael Polyani (1958), who argue that both science and religion are belief systems that operate according to an internal set of rules. A belief system is an interrelated set of beliefs and ideas that helps people to make sense of, and to interpret, their world. Within the system, logic and rational argument prevail, but the rules themselves are not open to external scrutiny. Instead, they are legitimated with reference to the other components-in other words, a circular logic applies. Their claim to truth is accompanied by a refusal to accept the validity of alternative belief systems based on different premises. They are therefore closed systems of knowledge that are supported by a community of believers, in much the same way as religion is. It is the commitment of the believers to the system that supports it, rather than any external criteria of validity.

Equivocation definitely and possible strawman depending on context. For is arguement to make sense, he would have to prove that religion operates on the same basic principals as science. Evidence shows that this is not the case.

 

Polyani's arguments about the conceptual similarities between science and religion were strengthened by the work of Thomas Kuhn (1962), who documented the way in which scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Kuhn points out that scientists are not objective but become attached to their theories to the extent that they ignore or play down evidence that contradicts them.

Another strawmen, and it sounds a bit like. I know you are but what am I. And he has to show how science is a form of confirmation bias, for his argument to have any value. He is creating his own definition of what is scientific as far as I can see.

 

They operate within a framework that lays out the 'rules of the game' and is accepted as a 'given' rather than being open to scrutiny. Kuhn uses the term 'paradigm' to refer to these ground rules that scientists operate within. Their commitment to their paradigm means that, instead of objectively assessing the 'facts', scientists operate within a closed frame of reference and try to fit the data within this. Science therefore has its dogmas in much the same way as religion does.

Methodology is not the same as confirmation bias. Methods of knowing are not a free for all. Would he say the same thing about logical absolutes? The author just simply missed the point. I suspect he is trying to make a argument, that one has to prove something like methodological naturalism, to use it, when really by track record it has earned its spot as a presupposition. To point it out by contradiction, if one to were not use what is commonly known as "scientific principals" one would have to entertain still things like bipolar disorder being caused by evil spirits.

 

Science's claim to being an open system of knowledge has also been challenged. Like religion, science has its community of experts possessing specialised knowledge and language that can be understood only by them. Membership of the community is highly selective, so that it is akin to an exclusive club that is not open to outsiders.

Does elitism take away from accuracy? The last I checked if, the arguement from authority fallacy is valid, then the inverse should be the case. Authority does not imply in-correctness.

 

Writers such as Polyani and Kuhn agreed with Berger and Luckmann that all knowledge- even scientific knowledge- is socially constructed. It is legitimated according to the prevailing cultural conceptions and is therefore subject to the problem of relativity. From this perspective scientific 'certainty' is diminished and instead takes its place alongside other belief systems that are used to interpret and make sense of the world. Both systems lay claim to the truth, but their means of arriving at it are different. There are also strands within Western culture that bring science and religion closer together- for example, some New Age religions use scientific knowledge to explain religious phenomena and to enhance religious experiences (Hess 1993)."

Relativism is only a problem, if you can't establish fact. To follow along with the example I gave about bipolar disorder. If they are correct, then one would have to say things about the world are true that are patently absurd. Like, its of equal value to say, bipolar can be treated by prayer and incantation as it is to say it can be treated by lithium. That is relativism of the kind they are arguing. But unlike they seem willing to admit, we can have proof that lithium works to treat manic depression. We can tell that prayer doesn't. Its the same kind of thing with even things like evolution. Science works better at finding out those sorts of things. Religion leaves us in muck and bad rationalization.

 

Now, here's my issue with this excerpt. I have a suspicion that there has been quite a stretch to make certain conclusions, such as that religion and science are one and the same. In the last paragraph, I think there is a bandwagon fallacy there. I think science has been grossly misrepresented elsewhere in the quote, but I cannot say for sure exactly how or why. I can spot that this excerpt has its basis in post-modernist philosophy, due to how disparaging it is of science. Unfortunately, however, post-modernism in and of itself is not a fallacy. That being said, though, I do think it was dishonest not to identify the prevailing philosophy that led to the way in which this excerpt was written. But that's pretty much it. I can tell something stinks here, but I'm having trouble identifying it and sorting through the BS in order to form an informed opinion in my own mind about this passage.

I am not a expert, but the people here, seem to have a failing in understanding the methodology of science and the value of the scientific method. It can do things that religion can't. And if there arguing that there are both ways of understanding truth, fine if you only add the caveat of, religion tries to understand things science can't, like about the meaning of life and so on. But to say, that science and religion are totally equal and same in intend and value is insane.

[Thought2Much]

I was going to call "strawman" on this one, because the guy starts out with a false conclusion (that science and religion both follow their own rules without external scrutiny), and then continues to attack the false conclusion. The conclusion is absurd, since the very nature of science is to use new information to see if the rules still hold up. Science, by its very definition, is nothing but endless scrutinization of the rules to test their validity.