# Logical Fallacies



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

So I came across this page and all it got me thinking _so damn accurate_

http://www.springhole.net/logical-fallacies/index.html


Like basically there's *no arguing with these people* because its firstly
more _unsatisfying_ than arguing with slow or uncaring people and secondly 
it makes you want to_ stick a burning poker up their ass
_
Unfortunately, I do have to meet such people and I don't always get the chance to analyse or predict their reactions before engaging conversation.

Plus there's no way to counter these things because they're usually accepted by people who don't see what's wrong with them at the first instance —which is majority society—



Or is there? *What would you people do if someone tries the *—insert logical fallacy—* on you?
*

Because what I foresee:
try to point out their fallacy, the argument gets sidetracked
try to do it back at them, they say you're doing it too
attempt to ignore it, you're at a disadvantage
_seven hells

hmm whoa i believe i've discovered one other thing that i hate more than hypocrites

_And another question, after reading the list:* 
Which logical fallacy do you dislike the most?

*Personally, for me, its the _Attack the Source_ one, even if I'm not the source. Its unbelievably, well, not so unbelievable but still, ridiculous and biased and low.
Polarization is pretty annoying too. My mother does it. Can't get her to stop. Blearghh.

Actually come to think of it, sometimes I'm not immune to this fallacy syndrome either. I think I've exhibited the Observational Selection at the start of arguments. 
*Which syndrome(s) do you think would be most likely exhibited by each of the MBTI temperament?*


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

There's a big difference between an honest error in reasoning coming from someone who's willing to learn, and poor reasoning coming from someone who is more interested in preserving their own view than finding truth, and who is unable and/or unwilling to see the holes in their arguments. I don't mean to suggest that everyone is always either one or the other, but in general, if you're talking about the latter, why even bother debating them?


----------



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> There's a big difference between an honest error in reasoning coming from someone who's willing to learn, and poor reasoning coming from someone who is more interested in preserving their own view than finding truth, and who is unable and/or unwilling to see the holes in their arguments. I don't mean to suggest that everyone is always either one or the other, but in general, if you're talking about the latter, why even bother debating them?


Well, you see, sometimes I haven't got much choice.

People like friends I hang out with, or my mom.

They do it repeatedly and I don't want to break off the friendship, but neither can I just ignore them/let them continue on a wrong view when they start the topic. Especially if its academics-related. This —above— happens when I try to convince them on something they're not accurate about.


_But,_ my point above is that some people don't see it even if you try to tell them, which makes it not an honest error. Of course if I can't argue appropriately I'll attempt not to. 

Though regarding the latter group you pointed out, sometimes it's not possible to get into a debate knowing exactly how someone would respond.

For example, a situation I might not be able to back out from would be:
(I know this example is not the best or most sensible but its appropriate to my point.)

—person A copies homework—
B: "It's not right to copy homework."
A: "Well, you do it too!" —distraction—
B: "What I do has nothing to do with whether it's wrong or not."
A: "What right have you to accuse me of ___ if you do it too?" —more distraction—

Never mind B didn't _accuse_ the person of doing it, only pointed out that it was wrong.

Agreed, this example, would mean that the person is, as you accurately put it, is more interested in preserving their own view than finding truth, and who is unable and/or unwilling to see the holes in their arguments. 


But if you were person B, would you walk away right after that statement? _Could_ you walk away right after that statement?

Doing so would not only imply that A has won the argument, but would mean these:
That I have done the same thing.
That I have accused the person of doing it.
That I have lost the argument.
And several others, by extension.

All of which, of course, may not be true.


So apologies, but as a fault of mine, I've got a bigger ego than humility.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Auxuris said:


> Well, you see, sometimes I haven't got any choice.
> 
> People like friends I hang out with, or my mom.
> 
> ...


Ok, so someone says something that's clearly wrong (at least as you see it) and you have an impulse to correct them. Is that right? I know that frustration. Different types pay attention to different things. Logical inconsistencies tend to really stick out and are extremely irritating to NTs, but may be less important to other types. That's not to say that the other types are necessarily less capable of reasoning, but they're probably not looking for the logical holes unless they've specifically decided to focus on them, and they may have different ideas about what they want to get out of the conversation. Are you talking about conversations where both parties were aware it was a debate from the start, or conversations that, perhaps unintentionally, ended up turning into debates? It can be frustrating either way, but how you deal with it will probably depend on which it is.


----------



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> Are you talking about conversations where both parties were aware it was a debate from the start, or conversations that, perhaps unintentionally, ended up turning into debates?


Ah sincere apologies, regarding your last point, i might have submitted that edited post while you were reading the unedited version. ^^




Octavarium said:


> Ok, so someone says something that's clearly wrong (at least as you see it) and you have an impulse to correct them. Is that right? I know that frustration. Different types pay attention to different things. Logical inconsistencies tend to really stick out and are extremely irritating to NTs, but may be less important to other types.


No, not actually. If that answer is clearly wrong (or at least as I see it), I don't have the impulse to correct them unless it affects me personally. Their errors are their errors, for them to bother, for them to learn. Unless I was feeling particularly altruistic, I wouldn't really care.

I would however, care, if we're _discussing_ the issue in the first place and an error was made in a statement.




Octavarium said:


> That's not to say that the other types are necessarily less capable of reasoning, but they're probably not looking for the logical holes unless they've specifically decided to focus on them, and they may have different ideas about what they want to get out of the conversation.


I also did not say that _other types_ are less capable of reasoning, but that some people in general do make these mistakes yet they do not care, which is frustrating. Though now you mention it, I do feel that quite a larger amount of other types do have the tendency to conveniently overlook or not instinctively recognise these fallacies. 



Octavarium said:


> It can be frustrating either way, but how you deal with it will probably depend on which it is.


Hmm yeah, true, which was why I asked what was your method of dealing with it. :3


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

I always question them as to their source and if they reply electronic media I will state that only mindless lobotomized zombies believe what the media tells them due to their inability to think for them selves and with out doing their own research it is only ignorant opinion and then I mentally bitch slap them


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Auxuris said:


> I also did not say that _other types_ are less capable of reasoning, but that some people in general do make these mistakes yet they do not care, which is frustrating. Though not you mention it, I do feel that quite a larger amount of other types do have the tendency to conveniently overlook or not instinctively recognise these fallacies. :3


I wasn't saying you'd said that other types are less capable of reasoning, but I thought that could be how some thread readers might interpret my statement about NTs being more focused on logical holes than the other types. In other words, I was anticipating objections to my post rather than commenting on what you said.

As for your example from your edited post: I agree that whether or not person B copies homework is irrelevant to whether copying homework is wrong, and their own conduct has no impact on the validity of their arguments. However, depending on the context, it may well be right to point out the hypocrisy in someone saying a given action is wrong when they do that very thing themselves.


----------



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

vinniebob said:


> I always question them as to their source and if they reply electronic media I will state that only mindless lobotomized zombies believe what the media tells them due to their inability to think for them selves and with out doing their own research it is only ignorant opinion and then I mentally bitch slap them




wow




Octavarium said:


> I wasn't saying you'd said that other types are less capable of reasoning, but I thought that could be how some thread readers might interpret my statement about NTs being more focused on logical holes than the other types. In other words, I was anticipating objections to my post rather than commenting on what you said.


Ahh I understand now. Wondered why you'd say something like that. Thanks for explaining.



Octavarium said:


> As for your example from your edited post: I agree that whether or not person B copies homework is irrelevant to whether copying homework is wrong, and their own conduct has no impact on the validity of their arguments. However, depending on the context, it may well be right to point out the hypocrisy in someone saying a given action is wrong when they do that very thing themselves.


I don't really think its a matter of whether pointing out the hypocrisy is right or wrong, but whether its appropriate or not. Either way, hypocrisy is not saying that someone is wrong when they do it themselves, but rather that someone shouldn't do it when they do it themselves. 

Okay that confused even me, let me give an example:

*If I say candy is bad for you and I eat it, its not hypocrisy.
But if I say candy is bad for you, tell you that you shouldn't eat it, yet eat it myself, that's hypocrisy.*

But yes, I do agree that sometimes in such context, there is underlying meaning that can be assumed, albeit not always very accurately.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Auxuris said:


> I don't really think its a matter of whether pointing out the hypocrisy is right or wrong, but whether its appropriate or not. Either way, hypocrisy is not saying that someone is wrong when they do it themselves, but rather that someone shouldn't do it when they do it themselves.
> 
> Okay that confused even me, let me give an example:
> 
> ...


I think the two examples you've given are slightly different. In the "it's wrong to copy homework" example, there's a definite negative judgement; why would anyone say it's wrong to do something if they weren't judging? It's likely that there's also a negative judgement in the "candy is bad for you" example, but it's possible that it could just mean "candy is bad for you, but I eat it myself because I don't care about healthy eating, and I'm not judging anyone else's diet", in which case there's no hypocrisy. An analogous homework-related example might be, "copying homework is against the rules". That probably means, "copying homework is against the rules, so you shouldn't do it", and someone who says that and copies homework is a hypocrite. It could also mean something like, "Copying homework is against the rules, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but I'm telling you what the rules are so you know what the consequences of your actions will be". Again, there's no hypocrisy in someone copying homework and saying that. On the other hand, I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to assume there's a negative judgement in any of those examples; that seems by far the most likely meaning.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

*If I say candy is bad for you and I eat it, its not hypocrisy.
But if I say candy is bad for you, tell you that you shouldn't eat it, yet eat it myself, that's hypocrisy

no it is not, if I say candy is bad for YOU then I am referring to you, no one said candy is bad for me. if I am eating candy and you ask me for some and I do not feel like sharing then I will say candy is bad for you and I care about your well being*


----------



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> I think the two examples you've given are slightly different. In the "it's wrong to copy homework" example, there's a definite negative judgement; why would anyone say it's wrong to do something if they weren't judging?
> 
> It's likely that there's also a negative judgement in the "candy is bad for you" example, but it's possible that it could just mean "candy is bad for you, but I eat it myself because I don't care about healthy eating, and I'm not judging anyone else's diet", in which case there's no hypocrisy. An analogous homework-related example might be, "copying homework is against the rules".
> 
> ...


Hmm point taken, perhaps I should've put 'against the rules'. Apologies for the confusion.





vinniebob said:


> *If I say candy is bad for you and I eat it, its not hypocrisy.
> But if I say candy is bad for you, tell you that you shouldn't eat it, yet eat it myself, that's hypocrisy
> 
> no it is not, if I say candy is bad for YOU then I am referring to you, no one said candy is bad for me. if I am eating candy and you ask me for some and I do not feel like sharing then I will say candy is bad for you and I care about your well being*


*

... I'm sorry, my brain's a little jumbled after a whole day. 

Is this a serious opinion, like you mean that the 'you' above has got diabetes or something that would make candy bad for 'you' and not 'I', or were you just kidding around..?*


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

My pet hate is when people make accusations of fallacious logic simply because an argument in some aspects resembles an actual fallacy - I guess you could call that a form of association fallacy? One that particularly irks me is when people claim a use of the slippery slope fallacy when the argument would only be fallacious if it also carried some suggestion that these possibilities _necessarily would occur_, as opposed to simply expounding upon concerning possibilities.

Also, I tend to find this list far more comprehensive.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Auxuris said:


> Hmm point taken, perhaps I should've put 'against the rules'. Apologies for the confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was joking


----------



## Auxuris (Feb 28, 2014)

@StunnedFox 
Whoa cool

@vinniebob 
Yes my brains jumbled
don't mind me xD


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

and no, you can't have any candy it's bad for you


----------



## Dr. J (May 11, 2014)

Auxuris said:


> *Which syndrome(s) do you think would be most likely exhibited by each of the MBTI temperament?*


I'm going to answer this a slightly different way. I think that "interpretations of syndrome" might be more along the lines of what I see, rather than people actually engaging in "logical fallacy". I think INTP are most often accused of "derailment/red herring" and INTJ most often accused of "erosion of definition"- although both could be accused of either. 

Just thinking of a discussion on "define this word for me so that I can understand you" discussion in INTJ threads. Even though INTJ is actually trying to understand, so asks questions- the other person could view this as "erosion fallacy". As INTJ, if a word is misused in an argument- that can render the entire premise invalid, because what they mean ISN'T what they say, or what they say ISN'T what they mean. How am I expected to know when to change "dictionary definitions" in conversations?

For red herring- INTP might go off "on a tangent", but the data or story presented in the tangent _really matters_ to the point they are trying to make. Let's say the other person can't connect the dots- or is viewing different data, so views this "tangential information" as "distraction"- when truly it was relevant to INTP discussion. 

INTJ and INTP exhibit both of these above behaviors- but I think they are rooted in logical thinking and can be construed by detractors who don't understand NT thinking as fallacy.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

*What would you people do if someone tries the (insert logical fallacy)*
Well the specific logical fallacy is irrelevant to me its about picking and choosing battles. I guess me personally is one for not really getting peeved by quantity of arguments. I tend to hold back and be selective what I call out. I guess because I tend to think that people that do this come off very petty & simple. When your selective and you use more logic in listening it actually arms you better against the types most prone to doing this. All the S in the world might make them have reactive speed, but they tend to lack in in-depth insight because they are in fact reacting quick to the hear and now. So I would say that its best to in general not stoop to their level, but reserve what they under estimate, your intuition. 

I am pretty skilled on arming myself with peoples holes or faulty arguments. Probably as a survival measure against my mother who was very tactical in bad sport way. Also my ex spouse too was very argumentative. Its more about listening intently and exposing them when they back you into a corner. 
*
Which logical fallacy do you dislike the most?*
Present Content Out Of Context-This is just often done by very dumb people who simply take pieces of selective hearing and don't tend to listen. Or its done by trolls for entertainment.

Proof By Assertion
I find it hysterical when people think they "win" or are confirmed "right" because someone stops talking to them when they are unreasonable.

Straw Man
This is pretty much done in live news all the time if you listen closely. 

Observational Selection (cherry picking)
Another good one known for news & lobbying formats


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Dr. J said:


> For red herring- INTP might go off "on a tangent", but the data or story presented in the tangent _really matters_ to the point they are trying to make. Let's say the other person can't connect the dots- or is viewing different data, so views this "tangential information" as "distraction"- when truly it was relevant to INTP discussion.
> 
> INTJ and INTP exhibit both of these above behaviors- but I think they are rooted in logical thinking and can be construed by detractors who don't understand NT thinking as fallacy.


I agree with everything you said. 

I tend to like to fish for people to contradict themselves. Thats my favorite form. Another user called it well I thought, the socratic method. 

Anyways I can see why this would be annoying to black & white types, its is patronizing way of exposing them. And nothing bothers them more. I honestly derive pleasure in it tho to be honest because they tend to use a combination of so many very dirty tactical practices and its in my opinion a really easy way to expose them at their own game.


----------



## Dr. J (May 11, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I agree with everything you said.
> 
> I tend to like to fish for people to contradict themselves. Thats my favorite form. Another user called it well I thought, the socratic method.


Yes, answering a question with a question to lead them down a path of thinking in a particular direction. When you get there- then they can usually see what they're doing and why it doesn't make sense. But they're not your friends afterwards, and usually get pretty "hurt" over it, because you "made them feel bad". Doesn't matter that you just "exposed" the flaw in their "logic". You did them a favor. If they could see past their emotions, they would thank you.



Cinnamon83 said:


> Anyways I can see why this would be annoying to black & white types, its is patronizing way of exposing them. And nothing bothers them more. I honestly derive pleasure in it tho to be honest because they tend to use a combination of so many very dirty tactical practices and its in my opinion a really easy way to expose them at their own game.


Agree. wish they taught logic courses earlier in school. Maybe then we would see less "dirty practice", or maybe more people would be able to see through the false/flawed practices that some use.


----------

