04-19-2012, 11:44 AM
a little while ago, I got into the work of Jan Irvin. He is a big proponent of the Trivium - a structure of teaching the mind that goes back to the Romans and Greeks.
the Trivium consists of
* grammar
* logic
* rhetoric
and have different meanings than the ones that we know them by now. The issue of logic is quite an interesting one, as it goes to the heart of consistency and how one constructs their viewpoints in the mind.
the list of logical fallacies (or logical errors) is quite a long one, and the full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
the informal fallacies are interesting to look over.
Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[10]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[11]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy) - claiming that because there is some truth in a piece of text (such as a factual city or factual historical figure), that everything mentioned in the text must, by default, be "historical fact".
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on "lack of evidence"
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[12]
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[13]
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[14]
Correlative-based fallacies
Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[15]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[16]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated[17]
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[18]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[19]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole[20]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[21]
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[22]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.[23]
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[24]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[25]
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct[26]
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.[27]
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[28] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.[29]
Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[30]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
Petitio principii – see begging the question
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y[31]
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[32]
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.[33]
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[34]
the Trivium consists of
* grammar
* logic
* rhetoric
and have different meanings than the ones that we know them by now. The issue of logic is quite an interesting one, as it goes to the heart of consistency and how one constructs their viewpoints in the mind.
the list of logical fallacies (or logical errors) is quite a long one, and the full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
the informal fallacies are interesting to look over.
Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[10]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[11]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy) - claiming that because there is some truth in a piece of text (such as a factual city or factual historical figure), that everything mentioned in the text must, by default, be "historical fact".
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on "lack of evidence"
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[12]
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[13]
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[14]
Correlative-based fallacies
Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[15]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[16]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated[17]
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[18]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[19]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole[20]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[21]
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[22]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.[23]
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[24]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[25]
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct[26]
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.[27]
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[28] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.[29]
Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[30]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
Petitio principii – see begging the question
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y[31]
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[32]
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.[33]
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[34]
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
![[Image: shikeiki-wall-of-text.jpg]](http://bignanime.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/shikeiki-wall-of-text.jpg)