Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Bucket

Logical fallacies

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to compile a list of logical fallacies (yes I have the page that shows up on Google). However, I can't seem to find the argument by evidence. It goes something like this:

1) X is a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

It would be the equivalent of saying, "The Easter Bunny exists because it lays Easter eggs, and we have Easter eggs all over our lawn." I can't seem to find an official designation for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

I'm trying to compile a list of logical fallacies (yes I have the page that shows up on Google). However, I can't seem to find the argument by evidence. It goes something like this:

1) X is a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

It would be the equivalent of saying, "The Easter Bunny exists because it lays Easter eggs, and we have Easter eggs all over our lawn." I can't seem to find an official designation for it.

Part of the problem might be the order you are putting things in. In a logic problem you state the known facts first and then the conclusion that can be drawn from those facts. In this case, it should look like the following:

Known: X exists.
Known: X is said/thought to be a product of Y, for which there is no other direct evidence.
Conclusion: Y exists.

It may be a fallacy of hearsay, because, like in your easter egg example, it is using third-hand information, in this case a cultural symbol, as factual information.

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to have a list of logical fallacies that are easy to understand. All the documents I've found on them seem pretty verbose and almost in legalese.

My favorite logical thing is the thought-terminating cliché.

There is also a funny circular flowchart image a few years back on arguing with fundies, but I can't find it.

Edit: yeah Kristus, "GOD SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT!" makes my brain do a cache miss.

Share this post


Link to post

@Quasar: The God equation. ;)
You can find plenty of logical fallacies on theists websites.

For instance.
How do you know X exist?
X exist because Y say so,
How do you know Y = true?
Because X say so.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking that this doesn't quite fit the definition of non sequitur but it's similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

"[X] SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT!"


ftfy because other religions, movements and even atheists commit the same fallacy. Just replace X with a god (there's plenty to choose from) or figurehead of a religion, movement (political, religious, social, etc.), and/or Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens/Sam Harris/Daniel Dennett/[insert name of outspoken atheist here] and voila! Same result.

Also, I find straw man fallacies to be amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

1) X is _only_ a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

There is nothing wrong with that logic (I clarified a bit).

Put garbage in (like easter eggs are only made by easter bunnies) and you get garbage out.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

I'm trying to compile a list of logical fallacies (yes I have the page that shows up on Google). However, I can't seem to find the argument by evidence. It goes something like this:

1) X is a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

It would be the equivalent of saying, "The Easter Bunny exists because it lays Easter eggs, and we have Easter eggs all over our lawn." I can't seem to find an official designation for it.


=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent]affirming the consequent?

edit: never mind, misread the page

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

I'm trying to compile a list of logical fallacies (yes I have the page that shows up on Google). However, I can't seem to find the argument by evidence. It goes something like this:

1) X is a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

It would be the equivalent of saying, "The Easter Bunny exists because it lays Easter eggs, and we have Easter eggs all over our lawn." I can't seem to find an official designation for it.


It's called "Circular reasoning".

I can post more Logical Fallacies, if you would like.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ is the page that shows up on google, but it is an excellent resource.

From what you've described, it seems that the latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" best exemplifies what you're talking about. It basically means, X happened before Y, therefore, X always causes Y.

So in your context, the eggs that come from the bunnies exist, therefore these bunnies must also exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Nems said:

Also, I find straw man fallacies to be amusing.

Am I to asume that the first section of your post is a joke then?

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

Am I to asume that the first section of your post is a joke then?


twtj

Share this post


Link to post

Had I actually known you, it would have been more obvious. But it's not like there aren't some people that would make that same argument. It being internet, the possibility of the post being sincere was plausible, so I had to ask to make sure. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Qaatar said:

From what you've described, it seems that the latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" best exemplifies what you're talking about. It basically means, X happened before Y, therefore, X always causes Y.

I suppose that would be the closest so far - except for the fact that you're not trying to prove causation, you're already implying it. So it would be, "proof of existence through assumed causation," or something like that.

kristus said:

How do you know X exist?
X exist because Y say so,
How do you know Y = true?
Because X say so.

Ah, the old "begging the question". God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is right because God wrote it.

Share this post


Link to post

1) X is a product of Y.
2) X exists.
3) Y exists because it makes X.

1) beaver poop is made by beavers
2) beaver poop exists
3) beavers exist because they make beaver poop

I think 'logical fallacies' are generally wikipedia pages created by groupthinking atheists, so whenever a religious person says something they can say 'that's a logical fallacy' and appear smart.

When its someone's birthday, you generally say the specific phrase 'happy birthday'. Why not 'fun birthday' or 'joyful day of birth'? Because those would be original thoughts composed by an individual instead of mindlessly immitating the specific 'happy birthday' phrase.
Similarly, you can spot ghey religion vs. science internetz wars from a mile away when you see the specific phrase 'logical fallacy' anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post

You're absolutely right. We trickster atheists invented things such as debate, reason and critical thinking just to bring the God people down.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

...just to bring the God people down.


I think that might be part of the problem. Rational/scientific people who want to feel superior participate in the argument to bring the god people down. What they are accomplishing is making the god people more vehement and warlike with their beleifs.

To keep things peaceful and keep time-wasting internet wars to a minimum, we just need to ignore the god people, and let them keep beleiving whatever they want to beleive. We need to never respond to their posts, so they feel like they are ignored. It does get annoying when they try spouting beleifs, but then the atheists start fighting back and everyone looks idiotic for the useless internet brawl.

(of course, problems arise when they start trying to mess with public school textbooks and forcing their beleifs on others, but those are real world issues, not really internet gaming forum issues)

Share this post


Link to post
gggmork said:

When its someone's birthday, you generally say the specific phrase 'happy birthday'. Why not 'fun birthday' or 'joyful day of birth'? Because those would be original thoughts composed by an individual instead of mindlessly immitating the specific 'happy birthday' phrase.
Similarly, you can spot ghey religion vs. science internetz wars from a mile away when you see the specific phrase 'logical fallacy' anywhere.

How many times can you rephrase the same basic sentence and still make it individual. This whole argument is absurd. That traditions should be abolished for being traditions is in itself illogical.

gggmork said:

Using sarcasm says the opposite of the truth so its a logical fallacy.

Not really. It's actually using the logical fallacy to exclaim how illogical it really is. Then there are of course the cases where sarcasm is used against completely logical arguments. In these cases it's usually a case of using sarcasm to defame a logical argument in relation to the norm.

The problem with logic, is that you actually have to think for yourself. But at the same time, it's the beauty of it.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with fallacies is that they are easy to get into the gullibles' heads, and hard to get out, in the same way that it's easier to shatter a glass panel than crafting it. Often the guy trying to undo a fallacy, unless he's in an undisputed position of authority, will have as "easy" a time disproving it as much as the eponymous guy who had to prove that he's not an elephant. Good luck with that...

Share this post


Link to post

Remember kids, this is NOT a logical fallacy:

1. If someone doesn't play doom instead of looking at this thread, the world will end tonight.
2. Nobody will play doom instead of looking at this thread.
3. Therefore, the world will end tonight.

GET IT

Share this post


Link to post
magicsofa said:

GET IT


That's the same thing they said in "Plumbers don't wear ties", and we know how well that one ended. COINCIDENCE?!

Share this post


Link to post

I remember having to cover all of these in Critical Thinking a few years ago... interesting but the only conclusions I really came to are that arguing is seriously over-thought at some levels, and that you'd have to be a right arse to use this sort of extreme logic at any other level.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×