Skip to main content

Recognizing logical fallacies

 Recognizing logical fallacies. Here are a few tips. As an undergrad, I was always at odds with someone about something, usually based on logic (of some sort). So,

Tip #0. Listen very carefully. Don’t let fuzzy arguments sway you from genuine logic. Some will try. Let’s call this “blowing it past you.”

Tip #1, Be certain you are both using the same set of axioms, i.e. thing you accept as true. Not close sets of axioms but identical sets of axioms. Know particularly well your own axioms.

Tip #2. Be aware of the “stretch.” Your opponent, says A implies B. Well, maybe A implies B’, but to go to B is a stretch of logic, as in just beyond logical - not quite there. Something like sleight of hand.

Tip #3. Is your opponent using “authority” to make conclusions? For example, one says that Bertrand Russell said that, and thus you must believe it. Authority is often a powerful argument, often used by religious and political persons, to end the discussion.

Tip #4. Stand your ground. One important counterargument is to say not he/she is wrong, but his/hers premises do not support the conclusion being made.

Tip #5. Look for contradictions made by your opponent. Eventually, they may trip themselves up by using conflicting, as in changing, bases for arguing.

Tip #6. Stay calm at all times. Emotion can sway you from logic to opinion, and you might not even notice it.

------------------------------

By the way, formally here are a few logical fallacies, just for your own information. The tips above indicate what to look for  when debating with a friend or opponent. 

  1. Ad hominem - attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
  2. Straw man - misrepresenting the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
  3. False dilemma - presenting two options as the only possible options, when in fact there are other options available.
  4. Begging the question - assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premise of the argument.
  5. Circular reasoning - using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises of the argument.
  6. Ad populum - appealing to the popularity of an idea as evidence for its truth.

The ancients used to take courses in rhetoric, which was essentially the art of debate. Learn this subject. Join a debate team.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more