logical fallacies that I copied from another site

Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. 

Argument from authority
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

Argument from final Consequences
Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

Confusing association with causation
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990′s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.

Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gapsâ” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

False Continuum
The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.

False Dichotomy
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

Inconsistency
Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc
This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”).

Reductio ad absurdum
In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.

Slippery Slope
This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.

Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning
This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

Straw Man
Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

Tautology
tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.

The Moving Goalpost
A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

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.”

Unstated Major Premise
This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.

Free speech

defamation and firstamendment

The above is a link to an article talking about Oprah's case when she was sued for defaming the cattle industry by saying she wasn't going to eat beef for a while on national TV.


california.stolen.valor.ruling

The above is a link to an article talking about another ruling for someone that was sued for lying about his medals of valor.  It was ruled that he could NOT be prosecuted for lying.  The ruling involved the first amendment free speech clause.


I agreed with the Oprah ruling.  BUT I'm pondering IF it's because I like Oprah.  If it had been Rush Limbaugh or that O'Reilly guy, would I feel the same way?  If we are proponents of free speech then it has to be for the people we like as well as the people we don't like.  The rules have to work for everyone. 

BUT...I keep thinking that for the spirit of John Stuart Mill's ideas on free speech to work, the accurate information has to be easily accessible. 

Science and the scientific method

How much evidence do you need before you'll believe something? What experts do you trust? If someone or some group has (intentionally or unintentionally) misled you, will you NEVER trust them again? begin forward from ESkeptic:

In this free audio download of Lecture 1, Dr. Shermer answers the questions What is History? What is Science? and What is the History of Science? Along the way he shows that the facts never just speak for themselves but must be interpreted through hypotheses, theories, models, paradigms, and even worldviews, and that science is a social process conducted by people with a host of cognitive biases, and how this fact led to the development of a rigorous scientific method to help avoid these psychological shortcomings to our observations and conclusions. DOWNLOAD the sample MP3 (65MB)

memes

http://philosophynow.org/issue72/72sugorakova.htm The above article is about memes. Earlier I posted my review of the book the tipping point. Are the two similar? Do memes have a tipping point? Can we do something to force an idea to reach the tipping point so it catches hold? Why does racism still exist? Will the meme to eradicate racism take hold? Or is the tendency to be attracted to one's clan too great? What about humans warlike behavior? Will that be eradicated by peaceful negotiations and compromise? I think if we don't progress towards peace, we will end up blowing each other up.

trying to figure out evolution...leads to Bacon

In searching for the meaning of macro evolution, I found this really cool site. I'm reading Bacon now in the Story of Philosophy. All this shit relates! http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ here is an excerpt from the above link: The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle first laid out a systematic analysis of deductive argumentation in the Organon. As noted above, Francis Bacon elucidated the formal theory of inductive logic, which he proposed as the logic of scientific discovery. Both processes, however, are used constantly in scientific research. By observation of events (i.e. induction) and from principles already known (i.e. deduction), new hypotheses are formulated; the hypotheses are tested by applications; as the results of the tests satisfy the conditions of the hypotheses, laws are arrived at (i.e. by induction again); from these laws future results may be determined by deduction. end excerpt. My mental block about inductive/deductive...causes me to go over it again: Deductive starts from the general and predicts the details. Inductive starts with the details and predicts the general. Aristotle likes inductive whereas Plato liked deductive? But Bacon honed the rules of inductive further than where Aristotle had taken it? Do I have that right? I want to save the below because I want to also know about this idea about natural selection may not be the whole answer to the development of complexity. All very fascinating. excerpt from below link: Perhaps more speculatively, but also most interestingly, some of us are pursuing research that for the first time since Darwin looks seriously at the possibility that natural selection may not be the only natural mechanism generating complexity. Intriguing mathematical models borrowed from complexity theory suggest that intricate forms and behaviors may be generated ‘for free’ as an emergent property of certain types of non-linear systems,20of which living organisms are but one example. http://www.philosophynow.org/issue71/71pigliucci.htm

attended a lecture about "when does life begin"

I went to the below lecture last night. All the questions were good. One woman asked what part the mother takes. Dr. Hull answered it beautifully. His answer made her question make sense to me. Another person asked a question about animal rights. I think the discussion could have gone on all night. I think it would be fun to sit and chat with Dr. Hull all night. He raises questions. He makes me think. ________________ I've been pro-choice for a long time...almost rabidly. I will admit that I didn't want to hear the other side. I don't want to see pictures of fetuses. And the talk has me thinking "Is that wrong?" IF you want to desperately hold to a belief no matter what the facts, are you wrong? ____________________ Some months ago, I was at a wedding and somehow I was seated next to a republican and briefly we discussed abortion. He asked me how late in term would I be OK with an abortion. Today, I might have a different answer than I had at that time. ________________ I want to explore my feelings and my thoughts about the subject. ________________ When I was 21 or so I thought it was my boyfriend's job to make sure I didn't get pregnant.....to make sure his sperm didn't make me pregnant. I had tried birth control pills BUT the hormones made me suicidal. In other words, I felt it was better for me if I didn't take them. Sooooo something went wrong and I found myself pregnant. I missed my first period. I went to the doctor. Being the ignorant person that I was and seemingly capable of denial, I relied on the doctor. He told me not to worry and wait and see if I missed another period. I missed another period. I went back to the university clinic. I'm trying to recall all the circumstances. I think I recall that the nurse that I saw the second time was irate that the first guy didn't give me a pregnancy test the month prior. I was pregnant. I rode my bike from the university clinic straight to the clinic that I knew gave abortions. I made my appointment immediately. I was mad at my boyfriend since I thought it was his job to make sure I didn't get pregnant. But that's another topic about responsibility. So anyway...at that time...maybe 1974 or so.....abortions were legal in Florida up until the 3rd month. At the clinic, on the day of your appointment they make sure you're not over 3 months. Because that one guy had made me wait, I barely slipped in under the wire. This next part, I'm vague on how I know this. And it makes me wonder if I just dreamed it. BUT according to my memory, there was a girl at the clinic that was further along than she realized. They could not give her an abortion. She was crying in such agony that I felt that she was suicidal. I felt for her with all my heart and all my being. It seemed so unfair that something that seemed like a cancer could take over her body without her explicit permission and the medical profession (even though they knew how) would not help her. It was in that moment....in that state....that I become rabidly pro-choice. ________________________ According to my memory, the clinic social worker was calming the woman down telling her about her choices. They told her that although Florida didn't allow abortions if the pregnancy was further than 3 months along, other states did allow them. According to my memory, this calmed the woman. I don't know what she ultimately decided. BUT I came to believe that choice is a good thing. I'm not pro-abortion. I don't think I would ever give advise as to adoption or abortion or making use of social services if someone finds herself broke and impregnated against her wishes. It's a personal choice. ____________________________ So I left it at that. I didn't want to contemplate it anymore. I didn't want to think about whether or not the fetus at some point was actually human and had rights. The lecture last night made me rethink that. Do I want to stay blissfully ignorant so that I can maintain my rabid pro-choice stance without muddling up my emotions? _____________________________ And so back to my original question: IF you want to desperately hold to a belief no matter what the facts, are you wrong? __________________________________________________ First Coast Freethought Society monthly meeting presents: Richard T. Hull, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy SUNY Buffalo; author, editor, bioethics scholar, Humanist. With Dr. Hull, we will explore the ethics of early abortion and stem-cell harvesting. He will try to answer the question, "When do we become persons?" Dr Hull's paper can be found at: http://www.richard-t-hull.com/publications/its_a_baby.pdf

Hugo Black quote

Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights excerpt from above link: Justice Hugo L. Black, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of [Thomas] Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."