Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

[Akka]

Oh, strawmen can be constructed very beautifully and smoothly. It's almost an art form sometimes.

Well, it's the basis of trolling. No wonder both share so many traits.

BTW, strawmen are actually my pet hate, though I tend to deeply hate most logical fallacies (despite being FAR to be immune to making them, sadly).

Though what I hate the most is arguing in bad faith - not bothering to see a point made - and logical fallacies are just a tool to be able to do that. And strawmen are the closest form of fallacy to this principle, so it's no surprise I loathe them the most.
Some "logical fallacies" don't really irk me when it feels they are not so much fallacies as incomplete reasoning made in good faith - and sometimes they are simply valid. The slippery slope argument, for example, is only a fallacy if taken too far, but it's something very real in many cases. And the "ad hominem" is one that is actually used so many times "defensively" as a way to weasel out of a tough spot, rather than to show a flaw in a reasoning (that is, people claiming "ad hominem fallacy" when it's just flaming and not a basis for argument) that I found it lost a lot of its value.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think that the "tu quoque" fallacy has a grey area. Consider this discussion:

Poster A:The Soviet Union was a tyrannical state that suppressed the democratic movements of the people subject to it.
Poster B: Oh yeah? Well, the US had committed - and still commits - numerous acts of tyranny and suppression across the globe! You Americans did all that, too! There goes your blabbering!

Obviously, this is tu quoque (perhaps with a smattering of black-and-white and collective responsibility). Instead of arguing with Poster A's thesis, Poster B just reflects the criticism on A's nationality.

Now, consider this discussion:

Poster A:The USA was totally unlike the Soviet Union - a tyrannical state that suppressed the democratic movements of the people subject to it. The USA was, and still is, a force for freedom around the world.
Poster B: Oh yeah? The US had committed - and still commits - numerous acts of tyranny and suppression across the globe! You Americans did all that, too! There goes your blabbering!

This is not tu quoque. Poster B is clearly attempting to refute A's argument about the USA's benevolence.

Now, what if Poster C, who has a history of praising and defending the USA, starts a thread attacking the Soviet Union (while saying nothing about the USA for the time being?) Is it tu quoque to reply that "USA did it all, too"?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think the general rule is that those logical fallacies are only consistently valid fallacies if one does not consider context. As soon as there is context, one needs to use his brains to check how that may influence a supposed fallacy. As such context can also be hidden subtext (as in your example), not always easy, and this is also why bombing people with the names of fallacies is IMO not a good idea.

I may hang this poster on my wall though.

 

[Dachs]

Finally somebody has a post worth quoting in this circle jerk of a thread.

Mise's would have been if quote pyramids were still a thing on CFC. Which they haven't been for years. If they were, the good part of his post would've shown up.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I got to say, I find this self-righteous post-ennobling repulsive.

 

[bathsheba666]

As I understand it, 'no true Scotsman' is more about moving the goalposts rather than actually making claims about groups of people.

If I correctly recall the last time the scots played at wembley, they did indeed move the goalposts.

 

[Tahuti]

I think that the "tu quoque" fallacy has a grey area. Consider this discussion:


Obviously, this is tu quoque (perhaps with a smattering of black-and-white and collective responsibility). Instead of arguing with Poster A's thesis, Poster B just reflects the criticism on A's nationality.

Now, consider this discussion:


This is not tu quoque. Poster B is clearly attempting to refute A's argument about the USA's benevolence.

Now, what if Poster C, who has a history of praising and defending the USA, starts a thread attacking the Soviet Union (while saying nothing about the USA for the time being?) Is it tu quoque to reply that "USA did it all, too"?

Note that in both cases, both posters are begging the question. Neither elaborate on why these are true, even though proving so is the very point of it. And yes, Poster C would be guilty of the tu quoque fallacy too.

 

[Gary Childress]

As for a discussion:

Which logical fallacies annoys you the most? Are there certain topics where some fallacies are especially popular? Do you find it easy to recognize logical fallacies, especially in real life?

The most common fallacies on the net I see are Strawman, and Ad Hominem. Those are also a couple of the easiest to spot. Fallacies don't annoy me too much. I commit them sometimes without realizing it. Probably others are the same. Few of us are logicians who monitor our own syntax constantly. Now if someone continues to use the same fallacy when pointed out and refuses to accept rational argument, that is what most annoys me.

 

[Mise]

You know, I don't think you really see "ad hominem" as often as people claim. Or at least, most of the time when people say "ad hominem", it isn't really an ad hominem, and most of the time when ad hominem is committed, people don't see it.

 

[Gary Childress]

You know, I don't think you really see "ad hominem" as often as people claim. Or at least, most of the time when people say "ad hominem", it isn't really an ad hominem, and most of the time when ad hominem is committed, people don't see it.

I personally haven't seen a lot of people mistakenly call something an ad hominem when it wasn't but I suppose what forums you go to maybe makes a lot of difference.