Author Topic: CONTEST - Correctly name that fallacy  (Read 20090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CapSponge

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
FALLACY #5
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2007, 05:20:05 PM »
Tick on the board for Zeno.

Adams' identification:  "Ignoring Everything Science Knows About the Brain"


EXAMPLE #5

Some Elbonians are animal rights activists.  Some Elbonians wear fur coats.  Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.
________________
I like cheese.

Offline Zeno Izen

  • AWESOME POSSUM!
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3814
  • F'ing F!!!
    • The Final Website
Re: FALLACY #5
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2007, 05:40:24 PM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"

EXAMPLE #5

Some Elbonians are animal rights activists.  Some Elbonians wear fur coats.  Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.


Affirming a disjunct?

Offline Rueful Rabbit

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Re: FALLACY #5
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2007, 05:51:03 PM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"
EXAMPLE #5

Some Elbonians are animal rights activists.  Some Elbonians wear fur coats.  Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.

Is that the fallacy of the undistributed middle?

Offline Zeno Izen

  • AWESOME POSSUM!
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3814
  • F'ing F!!!
    • The Final Website
CONTEST - Correctly name that fallacy
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2007, 06:27:32 PM »
It's got something to do with distribution anyway.

Offline CapSponge

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
FALLACY #6
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2007, 09:38:10 PM »
I'd say this one goes to the rabbit.  It isn't a disjunct, but a failure to account for the entire population.

Adams' identification:  "The Few Are the Same As the Whole"


EXAMPLE #6

I'm a liar.  Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.
________________
I like cheese.

Offline moneyman1490

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: FALLACY #6
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2007, 09:47:27 PM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"
I'd say this one goes to the rabbit.  It isn't a disjunct, but a failure to account for the entire population.

Adams' identification:  "The Few Are the Same As the Whole"


EXAMPLE #6

I'm a liar.  Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.


A false premise.  You are assuming that the rest of the population has your specific characteristics, one of which is lying.
kidoo, in response to CapeRoadie's threat of Libel
Quote from: "skidoo"
Your documented evasiveness and dishonesty leads me to no other conclusion: You're a dangerous quack. How's that for a retraction?

Put up or shut up!!!

Offline bracabaoma

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
CONTEST - Correctly name that fallacy
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2007, 05:55:21 AM »
Quote
Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

Offline CapSponge

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
FALLACY #7
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2007, 08:52:20 AM »
This one kind of threw me, too.  The reasoning is obviously incorrect, but I struggled to find a proper name for it.  In my opinion, bracabaoma and moneyman both got a piece of it, but moneyman was closest.

My opinion:  This is a case of affirming the consequent, based on the false premise that whatever applies to me applies to you as well (sort of a mi quoque).  Your characteristics are my characteristics.  I am a liar.  Therefore, you are a liar.

I keep the score, so money gets .75 points, brac gets .25.

Adams' identification:  "Generalizing from Self"


EXAMPLE #7

He's not a criminal.  He just does things that are against the law.
________________
I like cheese.

Offline moneyman1490

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: FALLACY #7
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2007, 09:01:19 AM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"
This one kind of threw me, too.  The reasoning is obviously incorrect, but I struggled to find a proper name for it.  In my opinion, bracabaoma and moneyman both got a piece of it, but moneyman was closest.

My opinion:  This is a case of affirming the consequent, based on the false premise that whatever applies to me applies to you as well (sort of a mi quoque).  Your characteristics are my characteristics.  I am a liar.  Therefore, you are a liar.

I keep the score, so money gets .75 points, brac gets .25.

Adams' identification:  "Generalizing from Self"


EXAMPLE #7

He's not a criminal.  He just does things that are against the law.


Not understanding the English language.  

The statement is internally inconsistent, since the definition of criminal is doing things that are against the law.  I can't think of anything more specific than non-sequiter; maybe the Redefinition Fallacy?
kidoo, in response to CapeRoadie's threat of Libel
Quote from: "skidoo"
Your documented evasiveness and dishonesty leads me to no other conclusion: You're a dangerous quack. How's that for a retraction?

Put up or shut up!!!

Offline LaPalida

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3675
  • To thy own self be true.
CONTEST - Correctly name that fallacy
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2007, 09:32:13 AM »
yeah I was going to say ... redefining words, but not all law breaking is criminal :S BUT that doesn't clear him from being a criminal!
My Read Books List for 2008

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
Mark Twain

Offline CapSponge

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
FALLACY #8
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2007, 09:42:45 AM »
Money got it in one.  This is a "high redefinition" where criminal is construed to mean something more precise than simply someone who commits crimes; perhaps someone who commits only violent crimes, for example.

Adams' identification:  "Argument by Bizarre Definition"

Next one's my favorite...


EXAMPLE #8

I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.
________________
I like cheese.

Offline thefellswooper

  • One of the wittiest statisticians on the forum.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3447
  • Statist
Re: FALLACY #8
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2007, 10:05:12 AM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"
Money got it in one.  This is a "high redefinition" where criminal is construed to mean something more precise than simply someone who commits crimes; perhaps someone who commits only violent crimes, for example.

Adams' identification:  "Argument by Bizarre Definition"

Next one's my favorite...


EXAMPLE #8

I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.


NON-SEQUITUR.
"What I tell you three times is true."
-Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark

Offline CapSponge

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
FALLACY #9
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2007, 10:07:40 AM »
Clearly non-sequitur.  Score for fell.

Adams' identification:  "Total Logical Disconnect"


EXAMPLE #9

I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills.  There's too much risk.
________________
I like cheese.

Offline Rueful Rabbit

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Re: FALLACY #9
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2007, 10:12:39 AM »
Quote from: "CapSponge"
EXAMPLE #9

I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills.  There's too much risk.


Unsubstantiated premise

Offline Tai Fung

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2141
    • Twitter
CONTEST - Correctly name that fallacy
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2007, 10:16:42 AM »
Interesting game -- I do think it's ironic, however, that Scott Adams has a book with a collection of logical fallacies, and yet practices "affirmations" (i.e., a variant on Oprah's "Secret").   :shock:
Atheism should be about "Science and Social Justice" the same way Math should be about "Numbers and Fashion."

Certain forums members on "ignore."  Silence to their points does not equal agreement, it merely means I can't see their drivel anymore.  :D

http://www.twitter.com/tai_fung