Showing posts with label Logical Fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logical Fallacies. Show all posts

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Logical Fallacies I have Known: Ad Hominem

Have you ever been involved in a debate when the argument turned personal? If so you have probably been the target of an ad hominem attack: an attempt to counter someone's claims or conclusions by attacking the other person instead of their position in the debate. This fallacy can take many forms and, for some reason, seems to be pervasive in American culture. Often this tactic is found on the playground but it seems to have made its way into our culture's collective consciousness as a viable strategy.

For instance, Paul Joseph Watson (InfoWars.com) is arguing for reasons that Hillary Clinton would be good for America when Watson attacks Bush:


Bush has betrayed his fake Christian ethic even more times than he's flipped off a television camera. [1]


By using pejorative terms such as 'fake Christian ethic' and 'he's flipped off' Watson is not addressing the reasons for Hillary but rather attacking Bush's character - a common tactic in political rhetoric. This tactic does bypass the issue at hand and is an ad hominem fallacy.

-Safari Bob

References
[1] http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/hillary_clinton_good_for_america.htm

Friday, November 16, 2007

Logical Fallacies I have Known: Ad Ignorantiam

This is a rampant fallacy most commonly associated with conspiracy theorists, paranormal proponents, and creationists. Essentially, this fallacy contends that a specific belief is true simply because it is not known that it isn't true. For example, Shannon Edwards, in an article musing on why cemeteries are so haunted, argues the following:


It is my theory that the reason ghosts haunt cemeteries is not because they are buried there. In fact, the ghost haunting the cemetery might not even in fact be buried there. I think they reason they haunt the cemeteries is because of the time they spent there when they were alive. Even today, community churches in the rural south still hold church functions on the edges of or at times inside the cemeteries themselves. Teenagers go into old cemeteries at night to party. And we, as ghosthunters can often be found in cemeteries taking recordings and pictures. Who is to say that once we die, we might not haunt the cemeteries that we frequented most often? [1]



The opposite corollary is also used: A specific belief is not true simply because it isn't known how it can be true. For instance, creationists often ask these questions:


How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 19.) [2]


The problem with this fallacy is that the lack of evidence for an argument does not logically prove the argument - it supports the contrary position. If there is no evidence for naturally occurring purple monkeys then the reasonable position is that purple monkeys do not exist in nature. Also, just because someone cannot understand how something can work does not mean that it can't. For instance, I can not possibly understand how people watch American Idol and yet they do!

-Safari Bob

References
[1]http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/articles/general/cemeteries.html
[2] http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Logical Fallacies I have Known: Tu Quoque

Have you ever been in an argument (debate or otherwise) and the person with whom you are arguing ignores your point and responds, "Oh yeah? Well what about you?!?!?" If so, you have experienced my least favorite logical fallacy: Tu Quoque, or 'You too.' This is a common argument tactic often developed on the playground sometime around first grade. I also think of it as 'Justifying your actions through the actions of others.'

The problem with this fallacy is that it avoids the argument all together - usually in the face of a good point. Often people that employ this tactic have no reasonable response so they side-step and try to turn the argument onto the other person. Gee...does this sound like any politician you may have heard?

-Safari Bob