Actually the other Top Logic Fallacies are also worth learning too

Orlando FL

Description

The idea of “logical reasoning” is thousands of years old, (from the thinker Aristotle, 340BC) the original names of the defined fallacies are in Latin! How do you identify a logical fallacy? There are a few ways that one may identify a logical fallacy. One way is to learn and familiarize yourself with all of the fallacy types, and thereby be able to identify on the spot which fallacy may be at issue. Another way to identify a logical fallacy is to consider whether the premise or premises are legitimate, and if the conclusion follows. If not, then either there is a premise that goes too far, or not far enough, or is irrelevant to the conclusion. Or the conclusion is too far, or not far enough, or irrelevant from the premises. Straw Man Fallacy-The Straw Man Fallacy is misrepresenting the position of the opponent. This is done by replacing their position with a different position (a straw man), and then attacking that different position. Changing the opponent’s argument is called a Straw Man because a man made of straw is a weaker version of a man, which is easier to defeat. This fallacy sets up an easy and false version of the opponent’s argument, and then knocks that down or argues against that false position. Meanwhile, the actual argument of the opponent hasn’t been addressed at all. Arguments cannot be conducted under these fallacious conditions because the subject of the argument itself isn’t actually being addressed. Example: Mary says “This is the best Thai food restaurant in the city.” John responds with “You think this is the best restaurant in the city?” Make sure that you understand your opponents position clearly. Restate it to the opponent and ask if what you stated is an accurate representation of their argument’s position. This will also prevent against them changing their position later on. Begging the Question Fallacy-Example: Mary says “Trump always tells the truth.” Bob asks “How do you know?” Mary responds “Because Trump says that he always tells the truth.” Of course Trump’s honesty is what’s in question, and John speaking on his own behalf begs the question. This fallacy is circular because the conclusion is really just the premise restated. Ad Hominem Fallacy-Attacking the person and not their argument. One manifestation of this argument fallacy is saying that the identity of a person disqualifies them from making or engaging in the argument itself. It’s attacking a person, such as their identity or character, instead os attacking their actual position in the argument. Example: Cliff cannot be correct when he says that squares have right angles because he is a bad person and has been known to steal ideas and credit them for himself. The position that squares have right angles or not has been left untouched by this fallacy. You can see this playing out in the political sphere in modern American politics. Post Hoc Fallacy-Assuming causality from order of events. Claiming that since B always happens after A, then A must cause B is the fallacy. Order of events doesn’t mean causation, necessarily. Actual causation would remain unexplained by only attending to the sequence or order of events. The sequence of events needs actual causation to be understood in order for causation claims to be made. Example: Incidents of burglars breaking into cars rises whenever the sun is shining, and declines when it’s raining outside. Therefore, sunny days cause crime. Loaded Question Fallacy-This fallacy occurs whenever a person asks a question which includes their desired outcome, against the position of the person answering the question. Example: The classic example of a Loaded Question is “Are you still beating your wife?” Whether the person answers yes or no, the person is still framed as a wife beater, whether they are or not. This is also a tactic often used with lawyers when they’re leading the witness by asking questions to guide the witness to certain conclusions that the lawyer is trying to attain. False Dichotomy Fallacy-A False Dichotomy is when the arguer is presenting only two possible options or outcomes to a position, when in reality there are more live options. It’s done to narrow the opponent’s position to only two possible outcomes. It’s an argument tactic designed to lead narrowed and specific options. Example: Mom tells her child “Do you want to go to sleep now or in 5 minutes?” The false dilemma is that there are more options than now or in 5 minutes, such as going to bed in 10 minutes. Most kids pick up on this tactic used by parents when they’re still in toddlerhood. Fallacy of Equivocation-To Equivocate means to use language in a wrong or misleading way to either conceal a truth or to avoid being committed to a position. The goal behind this fallacy is to mislead the listener through a manipulation of language. Often the meaning of a word is changed mid-argument to serve the purposes of the one who is being misleading. Equivocate is to make an incorrect equivalence between words (or concepts that are at issue within the argument). Example: An example of equivocating would be to use the word “right” in two ways within an argument: right as in morally correct, and right as in functionally correct (such as the right tool to use for the job). Appeal to Authority Fallacy-Making an appeal to an authority in an argument doesn’t make the argument correct. An appeal to authority can be correct, or incorrect, depending on the substance of the claim that’s at issue. There are experts (authorities) on opposing sides of court cases. They can both be right in certain domains, or within the same domain one can be more correct than the other. Being an expert on a given topic doesn’t mean that anything that the expert claims is therefore correct. Example: Mary says: “Trump won the election” Bob says: “How do you know that?” Mary says: “Because my geology teacher told me.” It’s doubtful that a geology teacher would actually teach this but it illustrates the fallacy of false authority. Hasty Generalization Fallacy-Making a claim about something without sufficient or unbiased evidence for the claim. If the evidence did support the claim, then it wouldn’t be called a hasty generalization, it would just be a generalization. The hasty description means that the generalization was done too quickly and without evidence. This is a tricky one because there is no agreed upon threshold of what constitutes a sufficient number of examples or sample size to be considered as legitimate evidence in any given case. Is it more than 50%? However, it can usually be more easily determined as to what constitutes biased or unbiased evidence. Example: John says “You’re a musician, so therefore you must not have stage fright.” Appeal to Popular Opinion Fallacy-Making an argument that a position is true or has validity because a great number (or the majority) of people hold to that position. The fallacy here is that the majority may be factually wrong as a result of being misled or having partial information and drawing wrong conclusions. We’ve seen this in history, and particularly now among trumpeters, in which the majority of them have been misled by their biased media or by their chosen leaders or by wrong false scientific or philosophical assumptions. Example: Medieval John says “The sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is fixed in place.” Medieval Mary says “How do you know that the sun revolves around a fixed earth?” To which Medieval John replies “Don’t you know that everyone believes that the earth is fixed in place, around which the sun revolves? It’s common knowledge.” Unfortunately “common knowledge” is so common anymore. It’s more like “common stupidity”.