The fallacy thread #3: This is not a fallacy and other logico-linguistic nitpicking

[Lockesdonkey]

Call it a conspiracy theory or a lie or whatever, but it IS NOT a fallacy. You might disagree with the food pyramid or the official line on Litvinenko's death, but neither disagreement qualifies as a fallacy. A fallacy is a fundamental fault in reasoning that renders a whole argument invalid.

In both cases, conclusions were presented while ignoring or discounting certain evidence, but in fuzzy areas like dietary planning and reconstruction of an individual's shadowy death, such things are normal, even necessary. Thank you.

And we now proceed to open a thread on logico-linguistic nitpicking/SNOOTery (thanks to David Foster Wallace's "Authority and American Usage" in Consider the Lobster for the latter term). Post your nitpicks and musings about logic and usage here.

For instance, I HATE when people use the phrase "is comprised of." Please. It's "comprises" or "is composed of." Thank you.

 

[ainwood]

Call it a conspiracy theory or a lie or whatever, but it IS NOT a fallacy. You might disagree with the food pyramid or the official line on Litvinenko's death, but neither disagreement qualifies as a fallacy. A fallacy is a fundamental fault in reasoning that renders a whole argument invalid.

Moderator Action: I completely agree... But this isn't a discussion thread.

Can we use this perhaps to discuss umm... something? Actual logical fallacies?

 

[ArneHD]

Is ignoring evidence, either intentionally (to back up your point) or unintentionally (because it is obscure or presented in a confusing manner) a logical fallacy?

 

[Sidhe]

Isn't a fallacy just meant to describe the falseness of x, I don't see anywhere where he said it's a logical fallacy only that the version of events and suspicions are false/misleading or fallacious.

A logical fallacy in strict philosophical terms is an error in argument resulting from faulty premises or conclusions. Saying that something in the news may well be false is not in and of itself a logical fallacy, unless you can prove that in fact the argument against is soundly false, but even then although the original premise is false, the original premise was honestly asked and based on the information at hand; given that, the case itself was a logical one, unless he maintained absolutely that x was false, which of course he doesn't, those are his beliefs.

 

[Xenocrates]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

We're teaching fallacies next week (that's why it was on my mind) and I much enjoyed the OP's Argumentum ad populum .

If you couldn't see the fallacy in my OP, I guess I need to improve my writing!

 

[Fifty]

fallacy ad logicum latinum: thinking that citing informal fallacies and using their names makes you all hella smart and logical.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

We're teaching fallacies next week (that's why it was on my mind) and I much enjoyed the OP's Argumentum ad populum .

If you couldn't see the fallacy in my OP, I guess I need to improve my writing!

1. What exactly about my post was an appeal to the people?

2. So far as I can see, your post included holes in the other person's story. Not exactly fallacies, to my mind, though perhaps you can point the fallacious reasoning out.