Master List of Logical Fallacies (2018)
utminers.utep.edu
utminers.utep.edu
This isn’t a fallacy and I’m not sure the complaint other than this author doesn’t like it.
It’s particularly hilarious that somehow the author thinks there should be research for an author to choose a writing style. And doesn’t cite any research showing supporting their own style decisions or rationale for clarity, tone, etc.
I’m not familiar with whatever field would study success based on writing style, but E-Prime [0] has arguments for its use and someone choosing to follow it shouldn’t be criticized for choosing this method.
If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one.
I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook:
"A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
Korzybski's work is very valuable in my opinion. It lets me think about things in a much less dogmatic and either/or way.
I was interested in criticism as I don’t like most formal language rulesets but this content didn’t really give any insight as to e-prime’s flaws. Other than the author doesn’t like it.
I also find it useful as part of the “nonviolent communication” toolkit of trying to remove and work around ego as part of discussion and persuasion.
P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
Arguing on the Internet doesn't scale.
And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response.
> P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another?
Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph:
> Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact.
And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]:
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305
[1] Keith Lehrer, Why Not Scepticism?, Philosophical Forum 2 (3):283 (1971)
I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting.
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is:
1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true).
2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?)
> It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application
So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application.
Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here).
EDIT: s/OP/you/
As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.
In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity.
Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.
To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness.
I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims).
IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo.
So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument.
Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic.
I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.
On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.
When that happens, declare victory and leave the conversation.
I think this is almost always the “winning move” when dealing with intellectual, yet idiot types.
My reaction upon starting reading, was that most of the "fallacies" covered are thought patterns that are sometimes useful and sometimes bad.
In other words, for most of them, saying that the pattern is always wrong or always right are both fallacious. This is covered by fallacy 42 (Either/Or).
Also, while each "fallacy" is not universally true, they can still be useful for two reasons: 1) They can be used in bad faith (to manipulate people who are likely to fall for them). For this, knowing this list can provide "Defence Against the Dark Arts" 2) To break out of indecision, or to avoid a decision when indecision is better. May of the "falacies" have a set of situation where their claim is valid
For instance: A: Let's say your brother owns a business that is, and alwyas has been losing money, and comes to you to ask you to invest in his business. If you don't see any reason why the business should become profitable, you could say "I don't throw good money after bad", as a way of explaining the situation. This does not mean that you would never invest in a busness that has lost money for some period, as long as it is reasonable to think that profit will come in the future, but it places the burdeon of proof on the one that wants your investment.
B: "Trust your gut" may sometimes be a bad idea, but in some situations, intuition may be the most reliable guide. If one listens to one's inner voice (and knows how to do it), one may sometimes "hear" things that are probably true, but perhaps uncomfortable. Maybe you are about to marry a young, beautiful person, but your gut tells you it is for the money? In that case, your gut may be right, even if he/she insists its your humor.
C: "Two-sides fallacy": Even though there are some cases that clearly does not have two symmetrical sides, there are also a lot of situations where there ARE two comparable sides. Sometimes, one may weigh evidence differently, and sometimes one may prioritize different values. When people are too quick to label others (or Others) as either delusional, dishonst or plain evil, they may need to be reminded that perhaps they should try to see the alternative perspective. Then of course, sometimes there are conflicts where compromize or an agreement to disagree is not acceptable. It is possible that your spouse/boss/parent really is a psychopath that really wants to hurt you as much as possible, your country may be facing a military enemy that cannot be alowed to exist (ie Hitler), or you may not want to waste time considering if the earth is flat. To resolve those cases, though, you have to use some kind of force, like total war, a court order for your ex to keep his/her distance or a law banning teachers from teaching about the flat earth.
My brother once said to me the surest way to get the right answer to something you post on Reddit is to intentionally post the wrong answer. Someone will always correct you.
This is not the way to develop your truthseeking, in fact it may make you worse at it. The unbiased way to check validity of others' statements is to be able to check validity of your own beliefs. If you can do that then you have nothing to worry about: even if you get convinced by a flawed argument, you'll soon debug it out of yourself.
To take a software metaphor, you reuse the same libraries. Work on that self-skepticism, because this ability translates into the ability to be skeptical of thoughts coming from others.
You cannot hope to correct people making these mistakes though. The foolishness is more important than the substance of an opinion even though poorly formed and provably so. Pointing the logical fallacy out to a HN comment will reward you with down votes and possibly flag your comment.
Better to focus on such mantras as "What do I know and why do I think I know it?" or "If homeopathy is effective, I desire to believe homeopathy is effective; and if homeopathy is ineffective, I desire to believe homeopathy is ineffective. Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want."
Or if you like memorizing things, anti-epistemology (https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/anti-epistemology) seems better to spend time on than logical fallacies.
- programming / applied maths;
- being forced to memorise ~20 logical fallacies in high school;
- growing the hell up and learning that being right just doesn't matter.
The third point was the most important. As a child / teenager, I always wanted to win discussions. Even if I knew I was wrong, I'd use every trick in the book to try and win an argument nonetheless. Then, I started studying computer science and I met a lot of highly neurotic people who wanted to be right no matter what. I obviously found them extremely annoying before I realised I was in fact one of them.
The very words you use ("You see the many flaws of the enemy camp and don't see as many in your own") are the ones I now try to avoid at all times, because viewing the other as the enemy is what really messed up my reasoning skills.
Learning to treat a discussion as a genuine learning opportunity has been a huge blessing for me.
That is completely dependent upon the subject of conversation. On some topics people are only looking for agreement.
A better alternative is to detect whether the person is proposing an alternative course of action followed by a successful example. The person that provides the most workable and actionnable solution usually wins. A good example of this is the design of the University of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
Quote from https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/03/03/thomas-jefferson-m...
In his multi-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson and His Time, Dumas Malone tells the story of how Jefferson handled the first meeting held to decide the organization of the future University of Virginia. The University had been Jefferson’s idea in the first place, but (as is the case everywhere, not just in open source projects) many other parties had climbed on board quickly, each with their own interests and agendas.
When they gathered at that first meeting to hash things out, Jefferson made sure to show up with meticulously prepared architectural drawings, detailed budgets for construction and operation, a proposed curriculum, and the names of specific faculty he wanted to import from Europe. No one else in the room was even remotely as prepared; the group essentially had to capitulate to Jefferson’s vision, and the University was eventually founded more or less in accordance with his plans.
The facts that construction went far over budget, and that many of his ideas did not, for various reasons, work out in the end, were all things Jefferson probably knew perfectly well would happen. His purpose was strategic: to show up at the meeting with something so substantive that everyone else would have to fall into the role of simply proposing modifications to it, so that the overall shape, and therefore schedule, of the project would be roughly as he wanted.
This is why deadlines are useful. The customer cares what was delivered, not how exquisitely sculpted my code was.
So the acme of skill is to nail the 80% of the challenge that is readily automated, eschew the yak shaving, and then maybe "polish the cannonball" if the problem comes 'round again.
I've never checked if this story is true. But it sounds like something Aristotle would do, so I believe it. ;-P
The best tactic is to avoid talking about myself so that people can't find any angle.
It reminds me of several things:
* "do as I say, not as I do"
* "Kill the messenger"
* "Separate the art from the artist"
Generally pseudonymity almost allows people to express without fear of being judged.
For instance "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't a logical fallacy, it's just an idiom/argument.
Also some of the definitions of things that aren't logical fallacies themselves contain real logical fallacies. For instance the 'proof' of 'The Passive Voice' seems to include an a-priori argument ('Rape statistics are reported as number of rapes rather than number of rapists, thus this was intended to shift the focus from men to women and is a logical fallacy'). This ignores the fact that the number of rapists can't be known, while the number of reported rapes can be known.
And of course misses what you brought up in that rapes are more knowable than rapists.
> This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the saying popularized by Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," to an absolute law of logic.
I have never heard anybody claim absolute logical validity for an argument like this. I think the author of this list mistakes other people's intentions and believes they are trying to argue by "absolute laws of logic" when they really aren't. Arguing by absolute logic is a game that can occasionally yield stimulating results, but enforcing the rules of this game isn't a constructive contribution in most conversations.
It is fun to read and healthy to be aware of these, but I hope that, in reading these, one doesn't paint broad brush strokes and declare that any appeal to nature, or pity, or tradition is fallacious.
As one example:
> 12. The Appeal to Tradition
A lack of any respect for tradition is a serious issue for a society. It's not fallacious to give credence to tradition, meaning to tread carefully around it.
If people before you designed a system in a certain way, it's important to be able to fairly note the advantages and disadvantages of their system, and why they designed it the way they did before changing it. Use the principle of charity. Assume that they, intelligent and resourceful as you, had considered your option and decided against it. Why? Is there anything you're missing?
In support of it being a fallacy, there are people who cling to clearly disadvantageous things based solely on tradition regardless of objective consideration, but there's just as many people who think through the pros and cons of the new and old and use tradition healthily. These days they're often labelled as fallaciously appealing to tradition for even giving the past consideration.
To give no consideration to tradition is a terrible idea for society; it devalues the work and thought of those who came before us, and it leads to throwing out hundreds of babies with the bathwater.
We're in agreement on the fallacy of "it goes without saying...," but many people in society today show no consideration to history or tradition, and see no value in attempting to understand it enough to see its advantages.
In other words: this 100% can be a fallacy, but in modern society, we're currently in more danger of forgetting the value of history and tradition, than the danger of valuing it too much.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
I would imagine the other browsers have a similar feature... maybe as an add-on, if not built-in.
I'mUnprovable
I'mNotProvablyConsistent
MyTheoremsAreEnumerable
the literature (Wikipedia, encyclopedias, text books, etc.)
See the following for an explanation:
I do like the idea of classifying self-contradictions (as above) and other irritating paradoxes as "monsters" or "bugs."
I tend to agree that they are relied on in a number of incorrect "proofs" as well as informal arguments, often for unrelated propositions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
It's arguing to defend one's ego, group affiliation, job, or simply doubling down on an incorrect position to avoid being wrong.
I guess it's more of a motivational fallacy?
The definitions given for these "logical fallacies" are packed with rancourous comments that don't throw light on the nature of the fallacy. The names given for them are not the standard names; the classical Aristotelian fallacies are usually named in Latin (and they aren't all there).
And indeed, a lot of the so-called fallacies are not fallacies at all, because they aren't a type of faulty argument or reasoning; they're just sayings.
This is a much better list of fallacy definitions: https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Introduction%20to%2...
It doesn't claim to be a "master list"; in fact it states on the front page that a complete list is impossible.
> Open Courseware | OCW |This work is dedicated to the Public Domain..
A benefit of having such a doc on GitHub would be the ease with which others could critique and contribute, potentially making the list stronger.