• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Fallacy Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 March 2010 - 07:33 PM


Societies have ups and downs, good parts and bad parts. We have been moving along pretty well in the last handful of centuries, breezing on past the dark ages, renaissance and now creating for ourselves the industry and technology eras. It takes a lot of good qualities to come upon things like those, to make these kinds of things happen. For all the good attributes that human kind has there are also of course many bad attributes. I firmly believe that a general ignorance of how to spot fallacy is chief among them. It is an inability to recognize flawed reasoning that it seems, is the root of most all other problems. What we need to do about it is learn to know and spot fallacy ourselves, and ultimately we need to teach fallacy better, more comprehensively, and earlier in grade schools across the world, stressing its fundamental importance.

http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

Formal fallacies

Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
Appeal to Law: an argument which implies that legislation is a moral imperative.
Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Correlative based fallacies
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
If-by-whiskey: An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Is–ought problem: the inappropriate inference that because something is some way or other, so it ought to be that way.
Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
Red Herring: This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
Teleological Fallacy: In which a speaker claims that some object or idea has a purpose, and then claims that the existence of this purpose suggests or requires that the speaker's argument is true. The initial claim that a purpose must exist is rarely explicitly stated.
General Definition Fallacy: In which a speaker will use a general definition of a term to a specific insinuation.
[edit]Propositional fallacies
Propositional fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.
Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
[edit]Quantificational fallacies
Quantificational fallacies:
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Proof by example: where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. ("This apple is red, therefore all apples are red.")
[edit]Formal syllogistic fallacies
Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms.
Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
[edit]Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."
Begging the question (petitio principii): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim
Equivocation: the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Etymological fallacy: which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
Fallacies of distribution
Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Composition: where one reasons logically that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole
Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning
False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct
Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium) (proof by intimidation): submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. see also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.
Prosecutor's fallacy: a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist's fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism: the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
Well travelled road effect: estimates of elapsed time is shorter for familiar routes as compared to unfamiliar routes which are of equal or lesser duration.
Wrong direction: where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
[edit]Faulty generalizations
Faulty generalizations:
Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored.
No True Scotsman: when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
Dicto simpliciter
Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
False analogy: false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem
Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume
Pathetic fallacy: when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects
Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media
Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche--not a point.
[edit]Red herring fallacies
A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to the stick" or "appeal to force"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
Association fallacy (guilt by association)
Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes that a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion
Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
Appeal to pity: a specific type of appeal to emotion
Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion
Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
Appeal to ignorance: a specific type of appeal to emotion
Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
Appeal to nature: an argument wherein something is deemed correct or good if it is natural, and is deemed incorrect or bad if it is unnatural
Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum): thinking the conclusion is affected by a party's financial situation.
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam): concluding that a statement's truth value is affected by a party's financial situation. Very similar to Agrumentum ad lazarum. The terms ad lazarum and ad crumenam can be interchangeable.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it
Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
Poisoning the well: where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say
Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Perverted analogy: twisting an opponents analogy to mean something broader than intended
False surrender (or agree to disagree): offering truce or falsely surrendering the position in order to misrepresent opponent's position as unprovable or ad nauseam while ignoring Aumann's agreement theorem
Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument
Texas sharpshooter fallacy: Picking your target after you shoot the dart ensuring that you are right
Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out
Tu quoque: the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
[edit]Conditional or questionable fallacies

Definist fallacy: involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other
Luddite fallacy: related to the belief that labour-saving technologies increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour
Broken window fallacy: an argument which disregards hidden costs associated with destroying property of others.
Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact
[edit]See also
  • like x 2

#2 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 21 March 2010 - 07:43 PM

Fallacy

Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptions
o Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule.
o Also called destroying the exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid


The argument "cutting people is a crime" is wrong. Cutting people against their will is a crime. The same applies for the firefighter argument.

#3 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 March 2010 - 07:49 PM

I often think about how if I wasnt working with indefinite life extension, I would probably be dedicating my time to helping spread the teaching of free-thinking, anti-fallacy thinking to gradeschools around the world.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that one of the top things, maybe the #1 reason why some people can not think well, ie pro aging trancists, racists, murders, gangs, jerks, blind followers, people that believe things they can not prove, opportunists, war mongers, Jerry Springer guests, etc... is because they were never taught how to spot fallacy in their reasoning and they never figured it out on their own, which can be a catch 22.

Ive always wanted to start a section with in the Movement for Indefinite Life Extension that would cover fallacy. Well, theres not much time for it with just a few dozen of us doing most of the work at this point, but I suppose a pinned topic can help fill in that niche. The ultimate vision is to propose the idea that we might convince some fallacy organizations, some fallacy web sites, to put a forum tab on their web site that links to a catagory related to it here at imminst. That may never happen, but, we can discuss it.

Imagine a forum in-which level headed anti fallacy gurus everywhere helping control the tempo of the forum was the norm. The forum is pretty good the way it is in this regard, its really not all that bad at all, especially in comparison to your typical internet forum, although I think that such a section could really really help us shine and excel. Hopefully this topic can help fill in part of that.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 21 March 2010 - 08:12 PM

I often think about how if I wasnt working with indefinite life extension, I would probably be dedicating my time to helping spread the teaching of free-thinking, anti-fallacy thinking to gradeschools around the world.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that one of the top things, maybe the #1 reason why some people can not think well, ie pro aging trancists, racists, murders, gangs, jerks, blind followers, people that believe things they can not prove, opportunists, war mongers, Jerry Springer guests, etc... is because they were never taught how to spot fallacy in their reasoning and they never figured it out on their own, which can be a catch 22.

Ive always wanted to start a section with in the Movement for Indefinite Life Extension that would cover fallacy. Well, theres not much time for it with just a few dozen of us doing most of the work at this point, but I suppose a pinned topic can help fill in that niche. The ultimate vision is to propose the idea that we might convince some fallacy organizations, some fallacy web sites, to put a forum tab on their web site that links to a catagory related to it here at imminst. That may never happen, but, we can discuss it.

Imagine a forum in-which level headed anti fallacy gurus everywhere helping control the tempo of the forum was the norm. The forum is pretty good the way it is in this regard, its really not all that bad at all, especially in comparison to your typical internet forum, although I think that such a section could really really help us shine and excel. Hopefully this topic can help fill in part of that.


Fallacies can also be subtle and can be used either to support or criticise an argument. For example, some organisms live for many centuries, we are organisms, therefore we live for many centuries. Or, arguing that there are only 7 main causes of aging, when there could be 6 or 8. It seems to me that we can use cerain fallacies to support our argument, because we are open minded and can accept that some so-called fallacies may be proven wrong in the future such as the following fallacy: Large numbers of people result in overpopulation problems, immortality means that large numbers of people will remain alive, therefore immortality will result in overpopulation. No - it won't, and this fallacy is wrong!

#5 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 21 March 2010 - 08:30 PM

A few reasons rationality is not popular:

1. It assumes that you do/will/want to act based off of reason and rationality.

2. You must be serious about gaining insight and applying this to oneself.

3. It takes work and responsibility.

4. It requires giving up personal advantages when reason requires it.

I am sure there are many others. The first three are very similar and, seems to me, the reason the majority reject it. The last seems to be the strongest reason that capable intellectuals reject it.

Edited by cnorwood, 21 March 2010 - 08:36 PM.


#6 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 March 2010 - 08:58 PM

Fallacies can also be subtle and can be used either to support or criticise an argument.


Right, like the sport of politicing is built on.

Or, arguing that there are only 7 main causes of aging, when there could be 6 or 8.


Right, that would be innaccurate. People thinking about it would realize that it is more accurate to say things like, the SENS 7, or, the 7 catagories that much of science thinks there is at this time.

It seems to me that we can use cerain fallacies to support our argument, because we are open minded and can accept that some so-called fallacies may be proven wrong in the future such as the following fallacy: Large numbers of people result in overpopulation problems, immortality means that large numbers of people will remain alive, therefore immortality will result in overpopulation. No - it won't, and this fallacy is wrong!


Right, like cum hoc ergo propter hoc in that its birth that causes population increase and not non death. Its also fallacy in the discounting of human ingenuity and problem solving in this situation but not others. We built cars, but thats not to say that in the future humanity would be incapable if building roads and systems that kept cars from driving around recklessly and crashing everywhere, just how like by creating indefinite life extension we will not be impotent to the coming population changes.

#7 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 March 2010 - 09:09 PM

A few reasons rationality is not popular:



Right, thats that catch 22 I was talking about. However, it seems that the more you inject a concept into a given area, the more likely it is to wear off on large percentages of the people in the area. That is exemplified, seemingly, in pretty much everything really. For example, if we grew up in Suadi Arabia we would probably have been Muslims, at least at some point. If your house has no books, your might not become a big reader whereas you other wise might have, you had a lot of dogs, youll be more likely to think about becoming a veterinarian than not, etc..

It reminds me of the color of fish for some reason, as an analogy. If a fish lives in a pond with a lot of crayfish its belly will turn red. If it lives in rotting muddy areas it will likely be yellow. If it lives in clean flowing water its belly will likely be white. Its like, a version of you are what you eat, for thinking. I think that is quoted around, "You are what you think." But its more like, "You are what you think about, and you think about whats around you."

#8 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 20 April 2010 - 07:14 PM

I really like this thread.

It's funny cuz it really exemplifies why my empathy with most people is so tenuous. I just can never understand how they think. =P

#9 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 13 May 2010 - 02:03 AM

I really like this thread.

It's funny cuz it really exemplifies why my empathy with most people is so tenuous. I just can never understand how they think. =P



I can see where your coming from, but really, fallacy should be the reason why you should have more substantial empathy for people. By realizing that some people are never lucky enough to happen upon the chance of thinking about fallacy, or happen upon the chance of being taught fallacy, or, in many cases even have the time to do either of those things, it can become easier to understand and empathize with them. After all, we are all just idiots that have learned the ropes of fallacy and escaped arent we?

#10 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 04 July 2010 - 07:17 PM

I think that understanding fallacy is so important that its one of these: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=37045

Does anybody agree, disagree? Does anybody want to help keep this discussion moving so we can well, you know, lets keep important discussions moving.

#11 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 05 July 2010 - 06:12 AM

This is a definition I pulled off google.

Fallacy - Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception; An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not


I can see where your coming from, but really, fallacy should be the reason why you should have more substantial empathy for people. By realizing that some people are never lucky enough to happen upon the chance of thinking about fallacy, or happen upon the chance of being taught fallacy, or, in many cases even have the time to do either of those things, it can become easier to understand and empathize with them. After all, we are all just idiots that have learned the ropes of fallacy and escaped arent we?


I don't know if fallacy would be the cure all for stupid behavior or comments. I always thought a watered down version of sociology would be best to teach to children in the early grade school years. If children learned strategies to express themselves early on we as a society would be far better off.

Math is also one of those academic tools that we teach children to learn logic. The higher the math level the greater a person's ability to critically process information. All around the world different cultures push their children to use math as a means to grow reasoning skills. In India the government requires Calculus to graduate high school. Here in the US we only push our public schools up to algebra. It's kind of sad really.

I also doubt that teaching fallacy will somehow make people empathetic to the plight of others. Normally when people make broad statements in conversation they're either trying to change it, or trying to manipulate a situation. It's another social tool. If your talking about it in the context of fallacy making me empathetic to the physical plight of others then I would have to say I'd need to be happy with my current situation before I could be sympathetic with someone else's situation. That might mean I'm an overly negative person, which is probably true. But, truth be told I think life is a crapshoot. If a person who needs help is lucky enough to fall into my scope of influence I'll do what I can, otherwise they're out of luck.

Edited by Reno, 05 July 2010 - 06:16 AM.


#12 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 05 July 2010 - 06:27 PM

This is a definition I pulled off google.

Fallacy - Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception; An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not


Fallacy, like reasoning that doesnt make sense. Logic that is flawed. Things said that arent ordered right. Thoughts that seem to lead from point a to point b but really dont, ignorance, pre-wisdom, non-critical thinking, etc..

I don't know if fallacy would be the cure all for stupid behavior or comments. I always thought a watered down version of sociology would be best to teach to children in the early grade school years. If children learned strategies to express themselves early on we as a society would be far better off.


Although I understand I could be wrong, I am almost positive that elimination of fallacy is a major key to better thinking. Few if anybody that understands fallacy has completely eliminated it from their thinking, I certainly havent, but they are certainly better off than if they were completely in the dark as to how to spot fallacy in theirs and others thinking.

Sociology is interesting, and good, but sociology can be riddled with fallacies. Expressing yourself is important, I agree, and its important that people feel comfortable doing it, however, just that in itself can be a horrible thing. Thats actually one great rampant example of a fallacy, you see all these people whos parents have told them that they are unique and that they should never change for anybody, never let anybody change them, they are special and unique etc... They say it to make them feel special, but if you do that, but dont teach them how to spot fallacy, then many times what you get are these say, pagan ruin stone magic, or alchoholics, screamers, pyromaniac, heroin addict, self cutting etc.. that say things like, "thats just me, you cant change me, Im unique, nah ah, Ill do what I want."

Math is also one of those academic tools that we teach children to learn logic. The higher the math level the greater a person's ability to critically process information. All around the world different cultures push their children to use math as a means to grow reasoning skills. In India the government requires Calculus to graduate high school. Here in the US we only push our public schools up to algebra. It's kind of sad really.


It might help but its not a prerequisite. You dont need to know (x - 43645745 . .54754) x 546 + y - 910 cubed. I have no idea how to even write an equation like that as you can probably see. Of course, I do think its important for people to try to learn if they can. They wouldnt need to know that in order to be able to figure out that joining the army to fight for the idea that a thousands year old invisible friend of some ancient people is a bad idea, or that joining the Flat Earth Society is probably not the greatest use of your time, and other things like those. Thinking puzzles, thinking practice, prolonged, sustained, google, dictionary, library of books, and encycopedias at hand, hard think till you hurt debate and discussions, and of course, combined with an understanding of fallacy, it seems to me, is where it is at.

I also doubt that teaching fallacy will somehow make people empathetic to the plight of others. Normally when people make broad statements in conversation they're either trying to change it, or trying to manipulate a situation. It's another social tool. If your talking about it in the context of fallacy making me empathetic to the physical plight of others then I would have to say I'd need to be happy with my current situation before I could be sympathetic with someone else's situation. That might mean I'm an overly negative person, which is probably true. But, truth be told I think life is a crapshoot. If a person who needs help is lucky enough to fall into my scope of influence I'll do what I can, otherwise they're out of luck.


Not all, but way more. Most people just litteraly cant process their thoughts right. Ie, spend the day getting ribbed on, later that day, your out ribbing on some person, trashing them, telling them they are stupid, but earlier that day you couldnt fathom how people could possibly be doing that to you. Think it through real good, and you find the answers. Another example, you wonder why the important fundraiser isnt reaching its goal. You think to yourself how "they" need to get on the ball. What in the hell are "they" doing? Give a little more money, gees. The only reason you havent given money is because your strapped for cash. No, if its important you can give $10 or $50.

Life can be a crapshoot thats right, and hopefully by talking about fallacy more we can get more people possibly interested in trying to understand it themselves, improving our odds of having less fallacy in this crap shoot hall we throw the proverbial dice in here.

As for needing to be happy with your current situation first, I agree with that too. Thats an example of another great and common fallacy that people go through. Many people are miserable because they get crap pay, and or because they have been single for too long, their clothes are old and holy, their car blows smoke, they eat poorly, they dont get enough sleep, they have ants that crawl on them while they are sleeping that they cant figure out how to get rid of, the sink is leaking and rotting through the floor, their fighting with their mom, their grades are slipping, their grandma died, etc... whatever it may be, any of a number of things. And so distracted by their misery, to whatever degree it may be, they dont focus as much on other things, their thinking for example, they snap at other people, are impulsive, they speed, insist they are right because they are too mentally exhausted to sort this out at the moment, etc....

It would be a fallacy for a person like that to think that thats their lot, and so they should live with it, perfect the use of their crappy situation, perfect the skill of pretending your awake when your tired, perfect the art of defending your shit car thats leaking oil everywhere, perfect the art of insisting that "you have to stand for something or youll fall for anything" so that you can make yourself look like you have a sound system of thinking, etc... What these people need to do is go and get a better job so they can eat better, buy better food, move to a neighborhood where there are some good clubs to get involved with etc... and work on excercising their brain muscles, debate, fallacy, discussion, reading, classes, clubs, etc...

#13 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:59 AM

Fallacy, like reasoning that doesnt make sense. Logic that is flawed. Things said that arent ordered right. Thoughts that seem to lead from point a to point b but really dont, ignorance, pre-wisdom, non-critical thinking, etc..


Sociology is interesting, and good, but sociology can be riddled with fallacies. Expressing yourself is important, I agree, and its important that people feel comfortable doing it, however, just that in itself can be a horrible thing. Thats actually one great rampant example of a fallacy, you see all these people whos parents have told them that they are unique and that they should never change for anybody, never let anybody change them, they are special and unique etc... They say it to make them feel special, but if you do that, but dont teach them how to spot fallacy, then many times what you get are these say, pagan ruin stone magic, or alchoholics, screamers, pyromaniac, heroin addict, self cutting etc.. that say things like, "thats just me, you cant change me, Im unique, nah ah, Ill do what I want."


All of those examples are results of a person's inability to deal with person to person interactions. If a person was able to say no to their friends in fragile social situations, they might not find themselves drinking as much. Bad habits are the reactions produced when a person can't adequately manage the effect of the people around them. "Oh no, johnny ignored me when I greeted him. I'm going to go cut myself." It's a failure to interact socially with our peers.

It might help but its not a prerequisite. You dont need to know (x - 43645745 . .54754) x 546 + y - 910 cubed. I have no idea how to even write an equation like that as you can probably see. Of course, I do think its important for people to try to learn if they can. They wouldnt need to know that in order to be able to figure out that joining the army to fight for the idea that a thousands year old invisible friend of some ancient people is a bad idea, or that joining the Flat Earth Society is probably not the greatest use of your time, and other things like those. Thinking puzzles, thinking practice, prolonged, sustained, google, dictionary, library of books, and encycopedias at hand, hard think till you hurt debate and discussions, and of course, combined with an understanding of fallacy, it seems to me, is where it is at.


I'm sure you remember this from school. "In math there are many wrong answers, but only one right one." Math teaches us to reason out problems. It teaches you how to define facts and use them like tools to define other facts which if applied appropriately can yield you answers to questions which others might have labeled as unknowable.

In academic math the actual answer doesn't matter much. What matters is how you found the solution. Advanced mathematics is all about creating new systems for generating the right answer under certain circumstances or variables. We do the same thing every day. People develop personal systems for getting a certain outcome from the girl at the bar, or for impressing the boss. It's not only about what you say; it's about how you say it.

It is so so important that students learn a solid foundation in logic. Being socially adept without a foundation in logic is like being an all star athlete who can't read, or a world renown physician without patients.

It would be a fallacy for a person like that to think that thats their lot, and so they should live with it, perfect the use of their crappy situation, perfect the skill of pretending your awake when your tired, perfect the art of defending your shit car thats leaking oil everywhere, perfect the art of insisting that "you have to stand for something or youll fall for anything" so that you can make yourself look like you have a sound system of thinking, etc... What these people need to do is go and get a better job so they can eat better, buy better food, move to a neighborhood where there are some good clubs to get involved with etc... and work on excercising their brain muscles, debate, fallacy, discussion, reading, classes, clubs, etc...


I don't know if I'm getting what your trying to say here. I think your saying that it is a fallacy to accept that there are bad situations which are out of your control.

If that is what your saying, then I would say that to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Sure bad things happen. Right now, that's probably why I'm a negative person. But, that is why I have long term goals. I'm throwing the dice and hoping that all things that happen in the next year can fall within my scope of control. An example being a transmission going out. I have family and money to take care of this surprise problem right now. Sure it's a serious pain in the ass and puts a crimp on my summer plans, but I do have contingencies in place to take care of it. The same scope goes for an abscess tooth, or a flat tire, a speeding ticket, or an unexpected visit from an old girlfriend. An example of an event that doesn't fall into my scope of control would be an arrest for felony crime, or brain cancer.

If all things fall with my scope of control over the next year I'll graduate a happy goose, if they don't I'll be fucked. So there you see the philosophy that says, "if your life sucks do something about it" doesn't quite work when it's all a means to an end. I suffer now so that in time I'll reap the benefits.

Edited by Reno, 06 July 2010 - 06:11 AM.

  • like x 1

#14 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:46 AM

Heres another great discussion/thinking tool: http://en.wikipedia....Socratic_method Im sure many of you have read all about it.

#15 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:02 AM

All of those examples are results of a person's inability to deal with person to person interactions. If a person was able to say no to their friends in fragile social situations, they might not find themselves drinking as much. Bad habits are the reactions produced when a person can't adequately manage the effect of the people around them. "Oh no, johnny ignored me when I greeted him. I'm going to go cut myself." It's a failure to interact socially with our peers.


See thats a fallacy there, your implying that because it can be classified in other ways, and I agree, that it cant also be the cause of the kinds of fallacies I went over to describe that.

I'm sure you remember this from school. "In math there are many wrong answers, but only one right one." Math teaches us to reason out problems. It teaches you how to define facts and use them like tools to define other facts which if applied appropriately can yield you answers to questions which others might have labeled as unknowable.

In academic math the actual answer doesn't matter much. What matters is how you found the solution. Advanced mathematics is all about creating new systems for generating the right answer under certain circumstances or variables. We do the same thing every day. People develop personal systems for getting a certain outcome from the girl at the bar, or for impressing the boss. It's not only about what you say; it's about how you say it.


Sure math might help develop logical sequencing ability, like the ability to get the right shapes in the right holes, but it just leaves them at faceless shapes, fallacy teaches the shapes that fit, and uses shapes that have values like morals, constructivity, innovation, enterprize, ingenuity, creativity, goal orientation, priorities, etc...


It is so so important that students learn a solid foundation in logic. Being socially adept without a foundation in logic is like being an all star athlete who can't read, or a world renown physician without patients.

Thats exactly what Im saying, and fallacy, though not the only thing, is at the heart of logic. In fact I think you might be able to teach that and have all else unfold naturally. Kids will then want to learn all the rest. If kids think that plums grow in super markets and that 2 pac is a respect worth pimp then they probably arent going to grow up to contemplate the nature of existence and the path into the brightest future very seriously.

I don't know if I'm getting what your trying to say here. I think your saying that it is a fallacy to accept that there are bad situations which are out of your control.


No its a fallacy for people to think the game is over when its not over. Its a fallacy for them to think they cant draw the right cards out of the deck. Its a fallacy to think that when your life is on the line you should tip your last 3 pawns over and forfeit. You fight until the king has no way out.

If that is what your saying, then I would say that to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Sure bad things happen. Right now, that's probably why I'm a negative person. But, that is why I have long term goals. I'm throwing the dice and hoping that all things that happen in the next year can fall within my scope of control. An example being a transmission going out. I have family and money to take care of this surprise problem right now. Sure it's a serious pain in the ass and puts a crimp on my summer plans, but I do have contingencies in place to take care of it. The same scope goes for an abscess tooth, or a flat tire, a speeding ticket, or an unexpected visit from an old girlfriend. An example of an event that doesn't fall into my scope of control would be an arrest for felony crime, or brain cancer.


Right, break all the eggs for all the omlets you want. Its like they say, good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment, but just dont be forgetting about the omlets and putting the eggs in your pocket along the way, or throwing them at houses, or smashing them over your head in despair. Get those omlets made. People that dont understand fallacy (Im not saying you) dont understand that they can get that omlet made. "The man is holding my omlet down, he'll never let me make one." or "Im just not good at making omlets, I just can never be." etc.... Those are fallacies.

#16 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 02 August 2010 - 04:43 AM

Normally, I like to keep my comments short. I vary rarely have the patience to go quote for quote in a discussion like this. The only reason I went as far as I did on this one was because I was asked to.


All of those examples are results of a person's inability to deal with person to person interactions. If a person was able to say no to their friends in fragile social situations, they might not find themselves drinking as much. Bad habits are the reactions produced when a person can't adequately manage the effect of the people around them. "Oh no, johnny ignored me when I greeted him. I'm going to go cut myself." It's a failure to interact socially with our peers.


See thats a fallacy there, your implying that because it can be classified in other ways, and I agree, that it cant also be the cause of the kinds of fallacies I went over to describe that.


No sir, that is a fact not a fallacy. There is a very big difference. Social interactions are very subjective and require either a natural ability to deal with people, or learned approaches to deal with people. Just knowing what a fallacy is and how to spot one does not change a person's approach to a conversation.

I'm sure you remember this from school. "In math there are many wrong answers, but only one right one." Math teaches us to reason out problems. It teaches you how to define facts and use them like tools to define other facts which if applied appropriately can yield you answers to questions which others might have labeled as unknowable.

In academic math the actual answer doesn't matter much. What matters is how you found the solution. Advanced mathematics is all about creating new systems for generating the right answer under certain circumstances or variables. We do the same thing every day. People develop personal systems for getting a certain outcome from the girl at the bar, or for impressing the boss. It's not only about what you say; it's about how you say it.


Sure math might help develop logical sequencing ability, like the ability to get the right shapes in the right holes, but it just leaves them at faceless shapes, fallacy teaches the shapes that fit, and uses shapes that have values like morals, constructivity, innovation, enterprize, ingenuity, creativity, goal orientation, priorities, etc...


****** You've stated your shortcoming in math before in this article. So without having a good deal of experience in the purely logical nature of math I don't see how you can make such a comment with any real certainty. The truth is math is a good deal like chess. The more you play the game, the more you will start to look at how each choice you make influences all those variables around you. Math is the same way. It exercises a person's ability to think logically.

Spotting fallacies, by itself, is not an exercise in critical thinking or logic. It is a tool a person can use to guide a person through the social dynamics of a conversation.

******* Again spotting a fallacy, by itself, IS NOT an end all solution to guide yourself through a conversation. All the ability to spot a fallacy does is supply you with just another fact, another piece of insight about the person your talking to in order to help you make the best decision in conversation. All these facts together with a sense of logic and an understanding of social dynamics enable a person to make a successful argument.

It is so so important that students learn a solid foundation in logic. Being socially adept without a foundation in logic is like being an all star athlete who can't read, or a world renown physician without patients.


Thats exactly what Im saying, and fallacy, though not the only thing, is at the heart of logic. In fact I think you might be able to teach that and have all else unfold naturally. Kids will then want to learn all the rest. If kids think that plums grow in super markets and that 2 pac is a respect worth pimp then they probably arent going to grow up to contemplate the nature of existence and the path into the brightest future very seriously.


Kid's only learn when they're pushed. That is a universal fact. Just the act of teaching a young man what a fallacy is won't stop them from going home and playing nintendo. Kids need to be pushed to exercise their minds. That is where subjects like math and science come in. Every day the teacher pushes the children a little farther up hill, until one day, something flips a switch and they realize that the more they know, the better off they'll be.

I don't know if I'm getting what your trying to say here. I think your saying that it is a fallacy to accept that there are bad situations which are out of your control.


No its a fallacy for people to think the game is over when its not over. Its a fallacy for them to think they cant draw the right cards out of the deck. Its a fallacy to think that when your life is on the line you should tip your last 3 pawns over and forfeit. You fight until the king has no way out.


"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." -The Gambler

That is what is called reality. Those that believe every situation has a positive solution are idealist. An adult has learned to recognize situations which are beyond one's abilities so that one of two choices can be made. You can walk away, or step aside and let someone with more experience take over. When a person is not capable of "folding" you end up with situations like congressional impeachments, failing economies, and wars in the middle-east. FYI: Those are examples, not special cases or fallacies.

If that is what your saying, then I would say that to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Sure bad things happen. Right now, that's probably why I'm a negative person. But, that is why I have long term goals. I'm throwing the dice and hoping that all things that happen in the next year can fall within my scope of control. An example being a transmission going out. I have family and money to take care of this surprise problem right now. Sure it's a serious pain in the ass and puts a crimp on my summer plans, but I do have contingencies in place to take care of it. The same scope goes for an abscess tooth, or a flat tire, a speeding ticket, or an unexpected visit from an old girlfriend. An example of an event that doesn't fall into my scope of control would be an arrest for felony crime, or brain cancer.


Right, break all the eggs for all the omlets you want. Its like they say, good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment, but just dont be forgetting about the omlets and putting the eggs in your pocket along the way, or throwing them at houses, or smashing them over your head in despair. Get those omlets made. People that dont understand fallacy (Im not saying you) dont understand that they can get that omlet made. "The man is holding my omlet down, he'll never let me make one." or "Im just not good at making omlets, I just can never be." etc.... Those are fallacies.


I don't know what your getting at here. I agree those examples you said are fallacies.

Edited by Reno, 02 August 2010 - 05:00 AM.


#17 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 14 August 2010 - 06:49 PM

that is a fact not a fallacy. There is a very big difference. Social interactions are very subjective and require either a natural ability to deal with people, or learned approaches to deal with people. Just knowing what a fallacy is and how to spot one does not change a person's approach to a conversation.


Im not sure if we can call it a fact, but Im sure we can find a lot of evidence for that, and it might be, however that doesnt make the concept that pointing to one potential source of a problem instead of the general source of the problem (non understanding of fallacy), not a fallacy. You point out that learning fallacy doesnt guarantee that they will be able to spot them and use them, I agree, but they are much more apt to. They are certainly not going to be able to spot them and avoid them if they dont think about them.


****** You've stated your shortcoming in math before in this article. So without having a good deal of experience in the purely logical nature of math I don't see how you can make such a comment with any real certainty. The truth is math is a good deal like chess. The more you play the game, the more you will start to look at how each choice you make influences all those variables around you. Math is the same way. It exercises a person's ability to think logically.


I deal with the "mathematics" of arranging principles and priorities. I have a hard time getting past the triviality of arranging numbers for the sake of it. I know how to figure it out, I just cant convince myself that Im not wasting my time. I understand the utility of it, its just that Im drawn like a moth to a flame to cutting to the heart of the matter.

Spotting fallacies, by itself, is not an exercise in critical thinking or logic. It is a tool a person can use to guide a person through the social dynamics of a conversation.


I understand what your saying, but what I find, and Im sure you might agree is that it is, its the most important tool, its the heart of the matter. If you give somebody a court with a hoop but no basketball they can think about it and try to figure it out, but you give them just a basketball and they are going to be able figure it out, if they can, much more quickly. Also, spotting fallacies is not just one tool, it is one of the best examples, thats what Im arguing here, Im arguing that its thee best example.

You teach somebody math or chess and they get in the swing of things but they put random concepts into the swing. You teach them how to spot fallacy and youve put them in the swing of things with the substance.

******* Again spotting a fallacy, by itself, IS NOT an end all solution to guide yourself through a conversation. All the ability to spot a fallacy does is supply you with just another fact, another piece of insight about the person your talking to in order to help you make the best decision in conversation. All these facts together with a sense of logic and an understanding of social dynamics enable a person to make a successful argument.


Right, just like how being able to dribble a basketball isnt going to put you in the NBA, or even on the college team, or even on the high school team, or even in the neighborhood pick-up game, or even in the game with your cousins by the garage. Its not the only tool, but its the most important tool, and its better to give them just that then all the other tools and not that. However Im not arguing that we should just teach more fallacy in grade schools and all over, Im arguing that fallacy is the keystone.

You insinuate that if we had two people, one understands fallacy, and the other doesnt, that we arent going to get better answers in the field of logic, principles, and priority out of the person that understands fallacy.

Kid's only learn when they're pushed. That is a universal fact. Just the act of teaching a young man what a fallacy is won't stop them from going home and playing nintendo. Kids need to be pushed to exercise their minds. That is where subjects like math and science come in. Every day the teacher pushes the children a little farther up hill, until one day, something flips a switch and they realize that the more they know, the better off they'll be.



I understand that pushing them can be good but Im sure you would agree that we cant go so far as to call that a universal fact. Thats another part of the essence of what Im arguing here. Im saying that if you teach them fallacy everything else will more naturally follow. They will realize there are things they want to learn about and realize that they dont have as much time for Nintendo. They will naturally want to continue down the road of figuring things out. Math and science are great yes, but they are only secondary tools to fallacy. You teach a kid fallacy and he will naturally fill in his aptitudes with math, science, philosophy, free thinking, sports, jurisprudence, teaching, or whatever it may be.

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." -The Gambler



Exactly, and with out an understanding of fallacy many people hold and fold at all the wrong times.

Those that believe every situation has a positive solution are idealist. An adult has learned to recognize situations which are beyond one's abilities so that one of two choices can be made.


I know what your saying, but what Ive found, and I suspect you might agree, is that what we are saying here is not at all that every situation has a positive solution, but that an understanding of fallacy helps increase the over all number of positive solutions that are reached. If those adults learn to spot fallacy as kids, then they are going to be much better equipped to steer their lives down the best courses available.

I don't know what your getting at here. I agree those examples you said are fallacies.


What Im getting at is that the conspiracy theorists, the religious, the depressed, the bigots, the condescending, the pro aging trancists, the petty, the dull, the trivial, the dim witted, the tyrants, the bullies, the are breaking all the eggs they want, but they dont have an understanding of how to make omlets, (understanding fallacy) and so they are breaking the eggs on their heads, and throwing them at houses, and putting them in their pockets and doing just about everything but make an omlet. Eventually many of them figure out how to make the omlet because they have broken enough eggs, and practice makes perfect, but a recipe makes it 100 times easier.

#18 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,912 posts
  • 122

Posted 17 August 2010 - 01:49 AM

Read Predictably Irrational.

#19 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:28 PM

I like that term, predictable irrationality. People that freely, unknowingly use fallacy have systems with in their chaos. Kind of like a fractal, its random, but its ordered in a random way. It reminds me of the experiments they give to grade schoolers, they may have them say, design their own car. In science class I remember that they asked us to design our own creature that could live on mars and then we had to explain why. Most people just put random ideas together with out much thought beyond each particular idea in general.

That book goes over great ways to phrase the way fallacy ridden people act. I read the excerpts and found it on youtube. I think I might buy that, thanks.



#20 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:10 PM

Heres a run down of fallacies. This should become a classic.



#21 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:33 PM

I was watching a show about the plague from the 40s and one of the characters, an old man, imparted an interesting religious fallacy upon an Army officer character. The plague was around and they were dealing with it. One person has it and is being worked on by a doctor. The old man said to the army guy "you believe in god dont you?'" and he said some complicated thing about beliefs and that he knows what he sees. Then the old man said something along the lines of, "Well you see Dr. Soandso dont you?" and he gave a light, slowly emerging smirk, as if to say, "see, you see that obviously the Dr. couldnt save him, you fool."

In other words, because the Dr. could not intervene in the plague victims condition, there must be a god. As if to say 'the all powerful god would not let your little Dr. intervene you fool.' He says this as if it isnt a hypocritical contradiction, or maybe more like suppressing the correlative by begging the question.

#22 TelepathicMerg

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 4
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:23 PM

"It is an inability to recognize flawed reasoning that it seems, is the root of most all other problems. What we need to do about it is learn to know and spot fallacy ourselves, and ultimately we need to teach fallacy better, more comprehensively, and earlier in grade schools across the world, stressing its fundamental importance."

I agree. I also agree it is urgent. However I see the improvement in the way we analyze parallel to the quality of our natural language. I see us ready to make a jump of enormous proportion in that area, now, with the technology already prepared. (e- communication based at this time on BCI)

CONSIDER:
Even the first abc of the e-comm would allow people here spread their wisdom to kids all over the world, via cell phones, in seconds.

#23 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 15 December 2010 - 07:08 PM

I agree it could be taught in other ways, but what other method offers a consistent systematic standard like a k through 12 school does?


That would be great to discuss good new ways to teach people things like this. Im all for it. Some other similar discussions include teaching through song and games. People do those things a little already, but it seems there is a lot more room for it. Maybe some consistent systematic standardized method involving text or something similar.

However, to begin with, we already have a consistent systematic standardized k through 12 system and a platform for spreading fundamentals doesnt get much more in depth than that. So I could be wrong but I think it starts there, unless you can convince us otherwise.

#24 TelepathicMerg

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 4
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 07:29 PM

"doesnt get much more in depth than that" -- this is an assumption. I would love to convince others about numerous other possibilities. This is why I am here. Aside from the one method I have in mind and hope to present, there must be many ... However nothing can be seen or presented without the desire. Same is with the entire process of learning. It must be voluntary. The systematic is less effective. VOLUNTARY is the key. I do believe that the method I want to share (soon, perhaps through this website, in cooperation with the like-minded) will provoke much voluntary interest, particularly among young, just like the e-games and texting has them mesmerized (:.

#25 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 15 December 2010 - 08:11 PM

I wrote that wrong, I think it can get more in depth too. What I meant to convey is that that is a good solution for spreading the teaching of fallacy because it is in depth. I agree though that it could get better, but for the sake of implementing the solution, and not waiting for possible experimental things to evolve, thats the place to go, at least for now.

So you have the outline for a system or a method that you think can do a better job at teaching people? That sounds like a project that might fit well in step five of that 6 point plan. Step five is a list of teams that we are looking to mobilize to get the word out once we reach that stage.

What are more of the details of what you have in mind with this spherical e-communication?

#26 TelepathicMerg

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 4
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:05 AM

I wrote that wrong, I think it can get more in depth too. What I meant to convey is that that is a good solution for spreading the teaching of fallacy because it is in depth. I agree though that it could get better, but for the sake of implementing the solution, and not waiting for possible experimental things to evolve, thats the place to go, at least for now.

So you have the outline for a system or a method that you think can do a better job at teaching people? That sounds like a project that might fit well in step five of that 6 point plan. Step five is a list of teams that we are looking to mobilize to get the word out once we reach that stage.

What are more of the details of what you have in mind with this spherical e-communication?


I know our hopes are mutual and, possibly, most of us here are on a similar journey looking to help the cause... Possibly I don't convey my messages well.. I do believe the e-comm is inevitable and worthy the effort... Twitter: TelepathicMerg Youube: TelepathicMerger Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...t_athr_dp_pel_1

#27 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:26 AM

I wrote that wrong, I think it can get more in depth too. What I meant to convey is that that is a good solution for spreading the teaching of fallacy because it is in depth. I agree though that it could get better, but for the sake of implementing the solution, and not waiting for possible experimental things to evolve, thats the place to go, at least for now.

So you have the outline for a system or a method that you think can do a better job at teaching people? That sounds like a project that might fit well in step five of that 6 point plan. Step five is a list of teams that we are looking to mobilize to get the word out once we reach that stage.

What are more of the details of what you have in mind with this spherical e-communication?


I know our hopes are mutual and, possibly, most of us here are on a similar journey looking to help the cause... Possibly I don't convey my messages well.. I do believe the e-comm is inevitable and worthy the effort... Twitter: TelepathicMerg Youube: TelepathicMerger Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...t_athr_dp_pel_1



Can you rephrase how it relates to indefinite life extension? Again, this sounds lot like the FM2030 predictions.

#28 Panther

  • Guest
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:49 AM

Forgive my perhaps straying and loose terminology, I am not formerly educated, and unaccustomed to the methods of this forum. Ignore me, should I have been overly rude.


When a person is born, they know little. As they grow, they will make mistakes. Now stray with me, imagine a car that continues to run without maintenance. Individual damages will occur, each problem will degrade the quality of the machine's operations. Those degradations will increase the likelihood of more damages being incurred. Downward spiral.

My point is this. Fallacy, in my ignorant opinion, can derive from two sources. Ignorance and insanity. The solution to ignorance is apparent. But what of insanity? The notion that one is correct in their own opinions is very comforting. Many people lie to themselves for this very comfort. And the act of lying to one's self is like.. removing the nerves to an appendage to alleviate an unpleasant sensations. This of course would degrade control and sensitivity, increasing the likelihood of damages incurred. A sloppy metaphor, I know, but let's continue. The mind is more complex than the body, each lie, to be believed by the person, must be supported by other lies. Downward spiral. These lies, utilized to please one's self, make perceiving the world logically a simple impossibility. Thus, a fountain of fallacy. More so when like-minds of this nature get together.

I do not pretend to know anything. Please, tell me your opinions on this idea's relation to the topic, as well as my methods of expressing it, so I may find the faults and correct them.

Edited by Panther, 17 February 2011 - 10:01 AM.

  • like x 1

#29 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:07 PM

Forgive my perhaps straying and loose terminology, I am not formerly educated, and unaccustomed to the methods of this forum. Ignore me, should I have been overly rude.


When a person is born, they know little. As they grow, they will make mistakes. Now stray with me, imagine a car that continues to run without maintenance. Individual damages will occur, each problem will degrade the quality of the machine's operations. Those degradations will increase the likelihood of more damages being incurred. Downward spiral.

My point is this. Fallacy, in my ignorant opinion, can derive from two sources. Ignorance and insanity. The solution to ignorance is apparent. But what of insanity? The notion that one is correct in their own opinions is very comforting. Many people lie to themselves for this very comfort. And the act of lying to one's self is like.. removing the nerves to an appendage to alleviate an unpleasant sensations. This of course would degrade control and sensitivity, increasing the likelihood of damages incurred. A sloppy metaphor, I know, but let's continue. The mind is more complex than the body, each lie, to be believed by the person, must be supported by other lies. Downward spiral. These lies, utilized to please one's self, make perceiving the world logically a simple impossibility. Thus, a fountain of fallacy. More so when like-minds of this nature get together.

I do not pretend to know anything. Please, tell me your opinions on this idea's relation to the topic, as well as my methods of expressing it, so I may find the faults and correct them.


I don't know anything either but I think a way to treat the "insanity" cause of fallacy is to make sure that people don't become "insane" as you described it in the first place. And that is from education. I'm sure There are many people who used to have irrational beliefs and were part of a group who also held those beliefs but now know how to spot fallacy and thus disbanded with that group so "insanity" how you described is not probably permanent.

The sad part is there are people out there who spread fallacy and know very well that what they are saying is complete fallacy but they do so in order to manipulate people. L.Ron Hubbard and Adolf Hitler are prime examples.

Edited by The Immortalist, 17 February 2011 - 09:29 PM.


#30 Panther

  • Guest
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2011 - 10:24 PM

Immortalist,

I would certainly agree that what we are currently calling insanity can be corrected. And prevention is worth an ounce of cure. But the education bit, that has me biting my tongue. Ideally every kid would be taught psychology, but most education? Now forgive me, I'm sure I will begin hammering toes. Higher education, while extremely important for the progression of humanity, has a tendency to produce people lacking a certain perspective on the world. To be perfectly honest, having the resources to make it through college suggests a great deal of fortune. A person, no matter how intelligent, cannot make something out of nothing.

Now, this good fortune, though it allows one to progress easily in some areas, weakens them in others. Emotional turmoil born of constant hardluck tests a person in very specific ways which contemplating abstract concepts cannot. It's the lessons learned from these experiences which those of higher education tend to lack. Though everyone has their problems, the less fortunate simply have far more of them, and they tend to entwine, complicating things vastly. Those capable of dealing with these difficulties have a tendency to become very emotionally mature, and are capable of relating to and aiding others in their own difficulties with uncommon proficiency.

My overarching point is that humanity suffers from ignorance of itself. And perhaps, that ignorance must be rectified for us to properly handle the societal changes necessary for a smooth assimilation of LE.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users