For arguments sake.

[verse18]

I've noticed a lot of discussion about "straw man" arguments lately. The type of argument * loves to set up and knock down. Although I have a Master's level education, I have difficulty recognizing a "straw man" argument and other logical fallacies. I know if someone starts off by saying "Some people say...," their argument should be taken with a grain of salt. I realize that there are many other types of logical fallacies that the BFEE utilize all the time that I don't recognize. So as I was doing some research and I found this website:

http://department.monm.edu/cata/McGaan/Classes/cata335/FAL-LST2001.335.htm


All the arguments the repugs are famous for using, straw man, red herring, slippery slope, are based on irrelevant grounds. Their purpose is to evade the issue.

For example, stem cell research will lead to human/animal hybrids is a slippery slope arguement.



Anyone have more examples?

[Patsy Stone]

1. Here's a great site

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

[Igel]

2. I've run into a spate of fallacies that

I think the previous poster's page would call "composition", but I'm not sure. I frequently think of fallacies in terms of sets and other highly abstract properties.

You've been presented with a set, given properties of a subset, and been led to generalize those properties to the entire set. In one example: Set = devout Muslims. Properties = some nasty facts, mostly true, about some devout Muslims, those we'd call extremist Muslims. You're led to apply these traits to all devout Muslims, even to those that aren't extremist.

Another kind of reasoning--not really a fallacy, but it could be called that--is abductive reasoning. Deductive logic properly looks something like: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal. Abductive reasoning goes sort of in reverse: Socrates is mortal; men are mortal; Socrates is a man. You end up with something that might be true; Socrates might be what I call my dog. You've formed a hypothesis, nothing more.

It's worth picking up a book on logic. Tedious to work through, but practice. And don't just practice with what the opposition says. Dems produce their share of fallacious gibberish as well. I've seen some things claimed to be fallacies on DU that simply aren't fallacies, or which involved crucially misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was being said. Tricky stuff sometimes, this.

One important point is that rhetoric and logic are distinct. To score points and sway your audience is a goal not related to logic.

[TahitiNut]

3. You're wrong because the moon isn't made of green cheese like you say.

:shrug:

Here's another example ...
"People who're against illegal immigrants are f*cking stupid because there's no way we'll ever round them up and bus them and their families back to Mexico."



Some people (even on DU) seem to assume that Logic is some abstract academic nonsense, as alien to ordinary people as Mr. Spock, that anyone with common sense doesn't really need ... and that it's almost totally irrelevant to the fact they're right, and they proved it!

I can't even begin to say how steadfastly and pridefully ignorant such postures appear to me - close-minded to say the least. I personally regard Logic as a kind of "Owner's Manual for a brain and an essential element of critical thinking - without which we'd buy perpetual motion machines and invest in pyramid schemes.

Many here ridicule FReepers for their bizarre political beliefs - and most credit them to an absence of critical thinking skills. Well, it's no better "borrowing" political beliefs from people carrying the 'correct' membership credentials - since that's a path to the same kind of victimhood.

[EC]

4. Not acknowledging grey

i.e. With us or against us...false choices




These are also found in Dyanetics, (Scientology).

[Cleita]

5. In my Logic class our teacher used to make us dissect

advertising to find the illogic in the claims made by the advertisers. It was a great exercise in helping you to identify the different kinds of fallacies.

For instance back then a certain toothpaste company set up hinted if you couldn't get a date, you could if you used their toothpaste. Of course you know the only thing toothpaste is going to do for you is clean your teeth, but you get the idea what they were trying to make you believe.

You can usually smell the BS right away. Like any sentence that starts with "Everyone hates when Democrats......" You have to ask, who is everyone, or even anyone? But when they set up the premise, then they make a ridiculous claim that "everyone" isn't supposed to like Democrats for. Unfortunately, it works for a lot of people who haven't learned critical thinking.