Logical Fallacy?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
asd345
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 7:41 am

Logical Fallacy?

Post by asd345 » February 26th, 2018, 7:42 am

Hello,
I am looking for the term of the fallacy, where when you talk a lot about something, it mentally registeres as having done it (and e.g. being a better person).

Does anyone know? Might have been in the books by dobelli...

Thanks!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6697
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Greta » February 26th, 2018, 11:59 pm

I think it's true but I have no references. My mother was an author and she strongly believed that a writer should not talk out their ideas before committing them to paper as it releases some of the creative intensity that should ideally find its way on to the page.

I find it unhelpful too, although how much of that is a conditioned assumption from Mum is hard to say. I do find that when one speaks about an idea it creates associations. This can add the baggage of overly negative, overly positive or distracting thoughts in the conversation that come to mind unbidden during the creative flow, and stymieing it.

Eduk
Posts: 1504
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Eduk » February 27th, 2018, 11:10 am

That seems like more of a bias than a fallacy.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Hereandnow » February 27th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Sounds like a rhetorical fallacy.

User avatar
asd345
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 7:41 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by asd345 » March 8th, 2018, 12:07 pm

Thanks, but cant find it in rhetorical ones. Yes, its probably a bias. Which one?

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Hereandnow » March 8th, 2018, 4:03 pm

Hmmmmm The subliminal fallacy? I made it up. It's the fallacy whereby motivations for acceptance are put in play that are buried within the psyche and go unrecognized in establishing judgment. Its various sub-fallacies: the repressive fallacy, e.g., the Oedipal fallacy that compels favor grounded in, errrr, you know; subliminal-seduction fallacy, in which the argument is presented by a person with beautiful seductress' image embedded surreptitiously in the the hat he is wearing (or, a seducer in the case of a woman, unless the woman is a lesbian, then......oh, never mind)

User avatar
asd345
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 7:41 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by asd345 » March 9th, 2018, 5:11 am

Thanks, thats at least a start!

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Hereandnow » March 10th, 2018, 12:21 am

you do know I was kidding. There is no subliminal fallacy., or Oedipal fallacy.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6697
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Greta » March 12th, 2018, 4:12 pm

It's your masterful use of jargon, HAN. It all looks like philosophy at first glance ... fallacy ... motivations ... acceptance ... the psyche ... judgment ... sub-fallacies ... repressive ... Oedipal ... subliminal-seduction ...

Whatever, I thought it was true rather than a fallacy, anyway.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Namelesss » March 12th, 2018, 9:00 pm

asd345 wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 7:42 am
Hello,
I am looking for the term of the fallacy, where when you talk a lot about something, it mentally registeres as having done it (and e.g. being a better person).

Does anyone know? Might have been in the books by dobelli...

Thanks!
List of common fallacies

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Compiled by Jim Walker
originated: 27 July 1997
additions made: 26 March 2004

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.
-Robert A. Wilson


When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem:
Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance
(argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience:
(e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

appeal to faith:
(e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy):
(e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):
using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argument from adverse consequences:
(e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

argumentum ad baculum:
An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

argumentum ad ignorantiam:
A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.

argumentum ad populum:
An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

bandwagon fallacy:
concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question (or assuming the answer):
(e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning:
stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

composition fallacy:
when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection):
This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

confusion of correlation and causation:
(e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

excluded middle (or false dichotomy):
considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

half truths (suppressed evidence):
An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions:
embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

meaningless question:
(e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

misunderstanding the nature of statistics:
(e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

non sequitur:
Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias):
pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc:
Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

proving non-existence:
when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

red herring:
when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

reification fallacy:
when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.

slippery slope:
a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

special pleading:
the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)

statistics of small numbers:
similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

straw man:
creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

two wrongs make a right:
trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.



Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

4) Requires testability

5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses descriptive language

7) Performs controlled experiments

8) Self-correcting

9) Relies on evidence and reason

10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

11) Produces useful knowledge



Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

2) Does not require critical thinking

3) Does not require experimental repeatability

4) Does not require tests

5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses vague language

7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

8) No self-correction

9) Relies on belief and faith

10) Makes absolute claims

11) Produces no useful knowledge

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6697
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Greta » March 12th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Logically not all fallacies are logical fallacies. This appears to be a case of misapplied jargon.

The concern of the OP was not about a logical fallacy but about the correctness of the assumption that prior expression of ideas can weaken subsequent creative expression of those ideas.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Namelesss » March 13th, 2018, 1:36 am

Greta wrote:
March 12th, 2018, 11:37 pm
Logically not all fallacies are logical fallacies. This appears to be a case of misapplied jargon.

The concern of the OP was not about a logical fallacy but about the correctness of the assumption that prior expression of ideas can weaken subsequent creative expression of those ideas.
If that is not a great example of "misapplied jargon"! *__-
So, the OP is saying;
"Repeat anything often enough and people will accept as truth!" - Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister?

Wait, isn't "misapplied jargon" an oxymoron?
Can't anything that is clearly understood be explainable without the use of 'jargon' in the first place? Where does the distinction between 'jargon' and not jargon lay?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand... *__-

User avatar
asd345
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 7:41 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by asd345 » March 13th, 2018, 3:47 am

Hi, thank you for the very interesting discussion, but I can't seem to find the bias here still..

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by Hereandnow » March 14th, 2018, 12:25 pm

Last shot: I don't think there is a standard fallacy on this, that is, one popularized. The closest I can come to the phenomenon you are referring to is the self fulfilling prophesy, and certainly anything that interferes with objectivity and removes thought from proper judgment is a fallacy, which is just a term for bad reasonsing. So here, the something that is talked about a lot, as you put it, and is registered as "done", that is, as a fact, can be rephrased as that which is commonly accepted in a society's culture, not questioned, and is registered as true simply because it is accepted, that is, talked about, albeit implicitly, routinely.

Take women and history: why have there been so few women painters, say, through the centuries? Without putting too fine a point on the matter, it was simply not among their prerogatives to paint. It was a man's game, and not only did men believe this, but women did as well. It was simply accepted, or "registered" through "talk" that in ever way drew the line which women did not cross, but had no basis in any objective fact that women should not or could not paint. It was a self fulfilling prophesy, a pervasive thinking that something was true, a registered fact, that was established apiori. The argument was In the talk and its acceptance, you might say.

Fallacy of fulfilling sui (I looked up the latin).

User avatar
asd345
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 7:41 am

Re: Logical Fallacy?

Post by asd345 » March 16th, 2018, 6:49 am

Thanks!

Post Reply