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

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03
Post a Comment
Read more

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view
Post a Comment
Read more