Post No.: 0672
Fluffystealthkitten says:
The twin raids on faulty arguments and the fallacious use of language in Post No.: 0648 were thoroughly fruitful, and the finale of our grand quest filtrates into vision. The only things that stand in our way now are the demons of flawed reasoning and post hoc reasoning, and a petrifying menagerie of random fallacies of logic.
What, you haven’t equipped a massive weapon for this mission?
Furrywisepuppy says:
Nope. All our foes will surely rout once they see me wielding my trusty little dirk. But I’m undecided about whether to have a jerkin on or jerkin off.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
…
Furrywisepuppy says:
Your reactions to me in these intros have been truly mystifying…
Anyhew, as aforementioned by Fluffs, let’s get started with some popular fallacies of reasoning and post hoc reasoning.
Ad hoc reasoning or ad hoc rescue – this is about arbitrarily introducing new elements into, or repeatedly revising, one’s argument in order to explain away problems with it and to save a cherished (or stubborn) belief.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Moving the goalposts – very similarly, this is a method of denial that arbitrarily and constantly moves the criteria for proof or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence is presented or currently exists. An example is if spies cannot find satellite evidence that another country is producing weapons of mass destruction then it’ll be believed that this country must be producing them underground. Yet if weapons inspectors cannot find any underground facilities then it’ll be believed that these weapons must be so incredibly advanced and well hidden that only an invasion can uncover them.
This also happens frequently with supernatural or paranormal claims, or pseudoscience.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Hedging – is covering several bases then selecting the most favourable prediction or claim after the outcome has occurred, by using the benefit of hindsight.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Texas sharpshooter effect – similar to hedging, this is painting the target on after one has made one’s prediction or claim. Or improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data when that cluster could be due to sampling errors if the sample size was too small, or pure chance if the amount of data available was large but one only focuses on a small subset of that data.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Rationalisation – post hoc (i.e. after the event) rationalising a position as if this reasoning was made prior to taking up one’s current position.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Special pleading – stating a universal principle but then insisting that your individual case is an exception without justifying why this exception is valid.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Accident – this is when one ignores a valid exception to a generalisation, or when one applies general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions to the rule.
Linked with the one before, it shows us that some exceptions to a rule are wishful whilst others are fair, but we tend to label things as exceptions or not according to our agendas rather than according to the statistics.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Furtive fallacy – believing that outcomes in history have always been caused by the malfeasance of deliberate decision-makers. These lead to conspiracy theories and a general paranoia where people believe that the truth or reality was and is always hidden or ignored. Even the absence of a historical record is met with suspicion. ‘An outcome happened, therefore it was definitely intended to be that way from the very start.’
Furrywisepuppy says:
Historian’s fallacy – assuming that people from the past viewed events from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analysing the same issue.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Naturalistic fallacy or inferring ought from is – assuming that the way things are is the way things ought to be like, or is automatically correct or the best way they can be like. It’s also about arguing that all that is natural must be good.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Moralistic fallacy or inferring is from ought – here, we’re assuming that the way things ought to be like is the way things are. Or arguing that what is bad cannot possibly be natural.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Retrospective determinism – the argument that, because some event has occurred, its occurrence must’ve been inevitable beforehand.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Fallacy of relative privation – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used cliché or platitude, sometimes passing as ‘folk wisdom’, used to quell cognitive dissonance, terminate critical thought or conceal the lack of critical thought. In any case, a debate is curtailed with a cliché rather than a persuasive or cogent point.
This doesn’t mean the cliché is necessarily wrong but it might not tell us something new or help solve an issue. An example is saying, “That is just your opinion” or, “You’re being too negative.”
Furrywisepuppy says:
Oh here we go again(!)
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Well it is what it is.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Broken window fallacy – an argument that neglects the lost opportunity costs, the externalised costs (externalities) or the unintended, hidden or non-obvious consequences associated with rebuilding destroyed property. Going to war, or replacing old stuff for new stuff when that old stuff is still fine, are examples of this. The phrase comes from the mistaken belief that smashing windows just to generate more work for glaziers would be good for the economy because it stimulates spending and production.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Two wrongs make a right – assuming that if one wrong is committed then another wrong will cancel it out rather than make things worse.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Two good things make a great thing – assuming that two good things when separate will always make a great thing when combined.
Like mackerel and gummy bears, or that classic combo… mac ‘n’ gs.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
…So the time has dawned for the final boss battle! It’s a diabolical horde of logical fallacies that we couldn’t (be bothered to) fit into any other category(!)
Reductio ad absurdum or ‘proving too much’ – not a Harry Potter spell but saying that if the premises of an argument are assumed to be true then it necessarily leads to an absurd conclusion so therefore one or more of those premises must be false. It can arise when an argument reaches the desired conclusion but in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary of a larger absurd conclusion, or when using a form of argument that if it were valid could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion. It could also mean assuming the opposite would lead to absurdity, or that the conclusion contradicts a manifestly obvious and ‘incontrovertible’ fact.
In much simpler terms, it’s stretching the conclusion to ridiculous proportions in order to force an absurd result, and then criticising that result.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Begging the question, assuming the answer or circular reasoning – the phrase ‘begging the question’ has a more common, everyday meaning but in argumentation it means providing what’s essentially the conclusion of the argument as its own premise, or deriving a conclusion from unsupported premises that already presuppose the conclusion thus failing to advance the reasoning. In other words, in order to accept the conclusion given, one would already have to assume or accept that the conclusion is true either indirectly (begging the question) or directly (circular reasoning). It can also occur when we make a claim whilst leaving out one or more major contributing factors that may explain the conclusion. An example is God created Earth; Earth exists, therefore God exists.
Tautologies are closely related, and an example of mine is when I say that ‘we don’t know how much we don’t know, otherwise it wouldn’t be unknown’. Whilst not logically incorrect, this line itself doesn’t advance the reasoning, hence why I tend to write more sentences for elaboration. A far more blatant example heard before has been ‘Brexit means Brexit’.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Slippery slope or domino effect – this is when we assume that accepting a position means we must accept the extreme of that position. Or assume that taking a relatively small step will inevitably lead to a chain of related and increasingly radical steps in the same direction without really proving how one thing would inevitably trigger the next and then the next and so forth towards the exaggerated position, or without considering the intervening mitigating factors. Examples include opposing welfare for the needy because it’ll lead to socialism, then communism, then totalitarianism. Another similar one is opposing external industry regulations that protect consumers.
A conceptual slippery slope is claiming that since a series of particular actions cannot change the quality of a certain thing then there’s no difference between cases that have that quality and cases that don’t, or claiming that something isn’t a matter of degree (as if ‘all or nothing’) when in fact it is indeed a matter of degree. This is essentially a bald man fallacy.
A causal slippery slope is claiming that if a certain course of action is adopted then several other incrementally more radical consequences will inevitably result as well.
A fairness slippery slope is claiming that since a certain course of action is fair and since any other course of action that differs from this by only a small incremental difference must therefore also be fair, then it follows that a much more radically different position must also be deemed fair too.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Masked man or hooded man fallacy – confusing the knowing of a thing with the knowing of it under all of its various names or guises. It’s like saying one knows who Lowell is but doesn’t know who the werewoof is, therefore Lowell cannot possibly be the werewoof. (He is.)
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Abusive fallacy or judgemental language – this is about verbally insulting or abusing your opponent rather than disputing their originally proposed argument. Look it’s about using pejorative language to influence one’s audience you ****ing ignoramus(!)
Furrywisepuppy says:
Harsh.
Fallacy of exclusive premises – two negative premises in a categorical syllogism cannot provide a logical foundation for a conclusion as they’ll invariably be independent statements that cannot be directly related. Or if some of something is true/false then this doesn’t exclude the possibility that all of that something could be true/false.
Thus saying that ‘some pets are not smilodons’ doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘some pets must therefore be smilodons’.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Existential fallacy – declaring that everyone in a particular place is something doesn’t necessarily mean that such a person definitely exists in that place.
So saying that ‘every glyptodon that visits my house is stinky’ doesn’t necessarily mean that there are actually any glyptodons presently in my house.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Non sequitur – this arises whenever an argument or conclusion simply doesn’t logically follow from what was said before.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Argument from fallacy or the fallacy fallacy – an unsound argument for a claim doesn’t itself mean that the claim is automatically false since that claim may have simply only been badly presented and argued by someone.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Mathematical fallacies – these involve invalid mathematical proofs that can be subtle and difficult to spot. They usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions, like 1 = 2.
…Well this has been a gruelling expedition. We’ve scuffed our tails along the way. But we raise our paws in victory! A triumphant melody plays while the skies start to clear. The sun beams through the clouds with crepuscular rays, signalling our success.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Yes! So what’s our loot?
Furrywisepuppy says:
Erm, a doomslayer… toothpick, and a couple of groats.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
****.
Furrywisepuppy says:
At least we’ve learnt some interesting stuff along the way eh?
Fluffystealthkitten says:
I suppose.
Furrywisepuppy says:
The fallacies we’ve covered in these four posts aren’t exhaustive so if you’ve come across any others then please share them with us through the Twitter comment button below.
Come on, let’s grab some mac ‘n’ gs.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Okey-dokey pups! Meow!
Furrywisepuppy says:
Woof!
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
