Post: #1

Saw this first on 4chan a year ago, and it's only becoming more popular. Here is a useful infographic of nearly all the logical fallacies (the most common and important I'd say):



The most important and relevant fallacy of today is the fallacy of composition/division.

For example, a red pill man will claim that women are emotional creatures who lack fair and proper judgement over political matters, especially with concerns to the strength of the state and maintaining loyalty of it's members. I'm sure you've heard the "not all women are like that!" argument 100x times over. This argument is flawed because when describing women as a whole is different than describing any individual woman.

An analogous example would be saying, "dogs bark," and then someone shows you a dog who doesn't bark. Another example would be, "Cars are fast," and then someone shows you a wheel and says "This part of the car doesn't move fast, therefore cars aren't fast." What 80% of people forget is that the sum is greater than its parts. Womenkind, as a whole, is a completely different topic than one woman by herself.

This is true of all groupings. The whole is always greater than the mere sum of its parts. One man with a gun is a psycho, but 10,000 men with guns is an army capable of killing millions.

Another lesser known, but not included fallacy on the chart is "the fallacy of the sign," which states that just because something was written on a sign it must be true. Same with television, or the internet. However I assume these were not posted because they are merely derivatives of the argument from authority. If you spot any other fallacies missing above, be sure to post them below!

Post: #2

Another helpful graphic. Notice how feminists often stick to the bottom 3-4 rows of the pyramid?

Post: #3

(02-08-2015 01:36 PM)CelMasc Wrote:  

Another helpful graphic. Notice how feminists often stick to the bottom 3-4 rows of the pyramid?

I don't really like this infographic because it doesn't state what's acceptable and not acceptable. The top three rows are acceptable the rest are bullshit.

Post: #4

There are a multitude of fallacies in debates.

The most painful to me especially in supposedly scientific debates are when you point out to hundreds or thousands of studies and actual evidence that everyone can even prove himself - the main response is then that those studies are not published in the biggest "respectable" papers or are not taught by mainstream medicine. The point is often made when I state about high-dosage vitamin C, which is ridiculously easy to prove to a great degree.

Essentially it is so easy prove that it's tantamount to discussing whether a banana tastes sweet and waiting only on reputable studies.

Currently a lot of those debates stem from the fact that only because it has been "proven" by a study, it does not mean that it is true, since a pharma pill or even blockbuster may lower the incidences of some disease by 5-10%. But the funny part is that if they tested an apple, it may have 10-20% effectiveness instead of 5-10% incl. massive side-effects.

The most terrible thing to me is that science is being used as a weapon. You are essentially quoting studies against each other and the one supported by the money-majority supposedly wins.

----

Another terrible point is derived from feminism and they sometimes have started to combat logic itself. Logic and science are supposed to be tools of male oppression, so a woman's rape claim may be true, even if all logical facts counter her allegations. They have started implementing the California YesMeansYes laws into the UK now - they are so restrictive against men that a wife of 10 years can easily accuse an ex-husband of rape years later, because she did not give consent this one time where he pulled her panties down and took her from behind in silence.

If you start combating logic itself, then debates are meaningless expressions of emotions and nothing more. The one who ignites the crowd more wins - objectivism dies and science in the end dies along with it too.

Post: #5

The disclaimer on that chart should be:

"Applies to men only. Everything out of a woman's mouth is a logical fallacy."

Post: #6

(02-08-2015 01:50 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There are a multitude of fallacies in debates.

The most painful to me especially in supposedly scientific debates are when you point out to hundreds or thousands of studies and actual evidence that everyone can even prove himself - the main response is then that those studies are not published in the biggest "respectable" papers or are not taught by mainstream medicine. The point is often made when I state about high-dosage vitamin C, which is ridiculously easy to prove to a great degree.

Essentially it is so easy prove that it's tantamount to discussing whether a banana tastes sweet and waiting only on reputable studies.

Currently a lot of those debates stem from the fact that only because it has been "proven" by a study, it does not mean that it is true, since a pharma pill or even blockbuster may lower the incidences of some disease by 5-10%. But the funny part is that if they tested an apple, it may have 10-20% effectiveness instead of 5-10% incl. massive side-effects.

The most terrible thing to me is that science is being used as a weapon. You are essentially quoting studies against each other and the one supported by the money-majority supposedly wins.

----

Another terrible point is derived from feminism and they sometimes have started to combat logic itself. Logic and science are supposed to be tools of male oppression, so a woman's rape claim may be true, even if all logical facts counter her allegations. They have started implementing the California YesMeansYes laws into the UK now - they are so restrictive against men that a wife of 10 years can easily accuse an ex-husband of rape years later, because she did not give consent this one time where he pulled her panties down and took her from behind in silence.

If you start combating logic itself, then debates are meaningless expressions of emotions and nothing more. The one who ignites the crowd more wins - objectivism dies and science in the end dies along with it too.

Reminds me of an episode of the Twilight Zone where a little boy is born with God like powers and everyone tippy toes around him in order to not upset him. It's a classic episode.

Quote:The adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is "good," since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical "cornfield," from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is "bad" and doesn't "like [him] at all," and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

Post: #7

The Naturalistic Fallacy is a fascinating one to me.

In one definition of the word "natural", everything that exists is "natural", as opposed to "supernatural", the stuff of Gods, The Afterlife, etc.

A lot of arguments in the manosphere hinge on the naturalistic fallacy. That modern gender relations aren't natural and that more "traditional" ones are natural. Obviously social arrangements change over time, and that change is in itself "natural", in that over time we have seen gender roles in society change.

People often harken back to some time-frame where they think things were more "natural", ie. saying the 1950s had more natural gender roles than today. However the 50's obviously had things that were different than how gender roles were 100 years prior, etc.

A lot of the same arguments the manosphere makes could be made without relying on the naturalistic fallacy. Instead of committing the fallacy of saying "today our social arrangements are unnatural, and in the past they were natural" you could just say that "today our social arrangements lead to many social problems, such as divorce, mental instability, high rate of drug abuse, family breakdown, social isolation, narcissism, etc. and the social arrangements typical in the past protected against these ills"

One is not more "natural" than the other, but one clearly has different effects on society and is therefore desirable.

Post: #8

Despite being logically faulty, these fallacies are highly effective in most contexts of debate. In real life, it if very easy for a SJW to call someone a racist/homophobe/anti-dentite and instantly win the argument. But of course, smart folk realize these ad-hominem attacks are really just covering up the fact that the person saying them has no real argument, and can attribute the victory to the criticized.

Post: #9

I see a handful of these fallacies on this forum every day.

Post: #10

One of my tactics is to hit a false cause with a straw man. Nothing more amusing than hearing someone sputter"That's not what I meant!" when you know it is.

Post: #11

Personally I don't find this kind of thing altogether that helpful. When you encounter a person who is accusing you of being a racist / sexist / <whatever>, the response that they are making an ad hominem fallacy is a weak response. Observers who are siding with the accuser in that context will never reconsider their perceptions based on pointing out a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, it's not really clear that it's ever possible to make an argument that doesn't fall into one of these categories. And even if you could, is doing so beneficial? For example, if I see someone who is psychologically damaged arguing a certain position (e.g. SJW) I will take their character into account when evaluating whether the thing they're arguing for is something good or bad. It may not be 'logical' to evaluate a view based on who's advocating it, but human beings aren't logic machines, and everything we do is inevitably tied up in our emotions and identity.

Post: #12

(02-13-2015 10:36 PM)demolition Wrote:  Personally I don't find this kind of thing altogether that helpful. When you encounter a person who is accusing you of being a racist / sexist / <whatever>, the response that they are making an ad hominem fallacy is a weak response. Observers who are siding with the accuser in that context will never reconsider their perceptions based on pointing out a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, it's not really clear that it's ever possible to make an argument that doesn't fall into one of these categories. And even if you could, is doing so beneficial? For example, if I see someone who is psychologically damaged arguing a certain position (e.g. SJW) I will take their character into account when evaluating whether the thing they're arguing for is something good or bad. It may not be 'logical' to evaluate a view based on who's advocating it, but human beings aren't logic machines, and everything we do is inevitably tied up in our emotions and identity.

In the real world of conversation, logical fallacies are powerful and can be used to great effect. But that doesn't make the chart useless: if anything, it's ammo for your arsenal.

In the online world, logical fallacies can be pointed out effortlessly (since words cannot be retracted or denied: what is written stays the same), so this chart is again very useful.

In short, this chart is damn useful whether you're arguing seriously or disingenuously.

Post: #13

(02-08-2015 08:05 PM)Veloce Wrote:  The disclaimer on that chart should be:

"Applies to men only. Everything out of a woman's mouth is a logical fallacy."

That's because the phallus is supposed to go in the woman's mouth.