Following the great debates on this forum

[Anonymous]

Next time you follow a "debate" on this forum, notice how many times you see the following logical fallacies committed.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth.

*** hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid.

source:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

[BaltACD]

Is not.

Is to!

[edblysard]

Is not!

[CShaveRR]

Just look at you guys!

[jeaton]

You're wrong!!

[Lord Atmo]

no. i'm right!


uhhhhh.....SD45

ok... now this topic has something to do with trains...alrightty


boxcarautoracktankcargondolaflatcarintermodalssuckAC4400CWES44DCSD60SD40-2SD70ACE

[edblysard]

No no no...
The Darkside paper, coupled with the Yoda principal clearly shows that Montana wheat farmers really grow rice, disguised as wheat.

Jeeze, you guys need to learn how to read a graph...[:D]

[TomDiehl]

But this week was next week, last week.

[solzrules]

It has been said that those who are masters at debating have all of these logical phaillicies memorized.

The same goes for polliticians.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

Next time you follow a "debate" on this forum, notice how many times you see the following logical fallacies committed.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth.

*** hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid.

source:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

If only we could come up with a set of abbreviations for your descriptions it might speed up the process and eliminate a lot of space on the servers. And maybe a way to add more quotes to quotes? [#ditto] [:-^] [swg]

[tree68]

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read was not what I meant....




Is too!

[Paul Milenkovic]

Hope this is not too far off topic . . .

There was this TV series called "Earth 2" a while back that didn't last too long. The idea was there was an Earth-orbiting space station with a lot of people on it from all of the World's countries, and the space station was kind of like its own pan-national nation-state -- it was Earth 2, meant to show people on Earth 1 how to live better by having people from all the different cultures get along, have better train service within the bounds of the station (OK, that was unserious).

Anyway, Earth 2 was an Athenian-style democracy where important issues (like Amtrak funding) were all put to a station-wide D and D (discussion and decision) where anyone could speak up in a sort of video town-hall. The wrinkle was that they had computer "logic circuits" that put subtitles on the person debating -- if the person debating was making an emotional appeal based on the memory of their dead grandmother, the words "emotional appeal" would appear in subtitles so that the people participating in the D and D wouldn't be improperly swayed by an emotional appeal, this ruining this kind of democracy.

Anyway, the one show was about how this new guy (some actor famous in the day) showed up on Earth 2, started calling for D and D's to move Earth 2 to become a nuclear power by confiscating an orbiting space weapon from some Earth 1 government, and was practicing on the logic circuits to hone his debating skills. I guess one is calling for "logic circuits" to add text to posts on this forum.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Hope this is not too far off topic . . .

There was this TV series called "Earth 2" a while back that didn't last too long. The idea was there was an Earth-orbiting space station with a lot of people on it from all of the World's countries, and the space station was kind of like its own pan-national nation-state -- it was Earth 2, meant to show people on Earth 1 how to live better by having people from all the different cultures get along, have better train service within the bounds of the station (OK, that was unserious).

Anyway, Earth 2 was an Athenian-style democracy where important issues (like Amtrak funding) were all put to a station-wide D and D (discussion and decision) where anyone could speak up in a sort of video town-hall. The wrinkle was that they had computer "logic circuits" that put subtitles on the person debating -- if the person debating was making an emotional appeal based on the memory of their dead grandmother, the words "emotional appeal" would appear in subtitles so that the people participating in the D and D wouldn't be improperly swayed by an emotional appeal, this ruining this kind of democracy.

Anyway, the one show was about how this new guy (some actor famous in the day) showed up on Earth 2, started calling for D and D's to move Earth 2 to become a nuclear power by confiscating an orbiting space weapon from some Earth 1 government, and was practicing on the logic circuits to hone his debating skills. I guess one is calling for "logic circuits" to add text to posts on this forum.

Neat idea! Although in some cases, all the logic circuits would have to do is look at the poster....[}:)]

[rrandb]

No, but that may work. Instead of a Long Winded Rant for 1,000 words they could type LWR and save us all the trouble. [%-)] [(-D] [swg]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Jeeze, you guys need to learn how to read a graph...[:D]

Mud-slinger! [8D]

[Anonymous]

I woke up this morning looking for something to offend me.

EUREKA! I FOUND IT!

Old Timer

[youngengineer]

Don't you know I'm perfect, and only I can see the light.

My scientist is smarter than your scientist.

LWR!!!

and in conclusion, I stomp your argument into the ground, game, set, match. Any questions?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by youngengineer

Don't you know I'm perfect, and only I can see the light.

My scientist is smarter than your scientist.

LWR!!!

and in conclusion, I stomp your argument into the ground, game, set, match. Any questions?

You're wrong, and everyone else on this forum knows it...(Argumentum ad populum)[;)]

[edblysard]

Fast Eddie's Bar & Grill had a study done by the National Mud Shippers Council showing that, on Friday nights during the Northern female mud wrestling season, slung mud stuck better than on Saturday mornings.

The only logical conclusion one can draw from this is that fresh mud, as opposed to day old mud, sticks better when the person getting struck by it is drunk instead of hung-over.
Back in the day, I spent a lot of time in mud up to my neck...so what have you done!
Ed
[8D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Jeeze, you guys need to learn how to read a graph...[:D]

Mud-slinger! [8D]

[eolafan]

[V] Ooooohhhhh, I have such a headache!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Jeeze, you guys need to learn how to read a graph...[:D]

Mud-slinger! [8D]

You ninnies just don't get it.[:-,][(-D]

[spbed]

You forgot "troll" when the other side does not like you. [;)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

Next time you follow a "debate" on this forum, notice how many times you see the following logical fallacies committed.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth.

*** hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid.

source:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

[edblysard]

Well,
Had BNSF not removed the tracks behind Fast Eddie's, they could have gotten all the mud they wanted, at a fair and equitable price...but because of the monopolistic practices of the railroads, who all conspirer to induce artificially high mud shipping prices, eddies has to truck its mud in from out of state.
This means Eddie’s can only have mud wrestling on Friday night, instead of all weekend long.

The Darkside paper, page 32, graph 5 clearly shows that when BNSF failed to maintain its tracks, mud was pumping all over the place, at a fairly cheap price.

But now that they have abandoned useless tracks, and repaired those with heavy traffic, the mud supply has dried up, forcing most of the mud wrestling venues to close or move to other locations served by truck or barge.

And the Stagger and Fall Act clearly states that if you’re going to sling mud, you have to sling mud everywhere, at a fair and reasonable price.
Ed

[Modelcar]

From above: Is not.

Is {too}....!

[Anonymous]

"And my kid can mud up your honor student" [^][:D]

[TomDiehl]

I noticed that no one has addressed the QUALITY of the mud.

[CopCarSS]

You guys have everything all wrong...

Forget about logic and just remember that everything I say is correct. Omniscience is a wonderful thing! [:P][}:)]

[zardoz]

I haven't seen so much Latin since I was an Altar Boy in church (and that was back in the mid-60's).

[alien]

[CopCarSS]

What about this Zardoz?

Pie Jesu Domine. Dona eis requiem. [banghead]

(Sorry...that's the closest smiley I could get for the Monty Python impersonation...I'm sure Chad has something better).

[edblysard]

Ad asper per aspera...
And the quality of Montana mud is much higher than that found in Kansas...
[;)]