LOGIC
Modal Logic {Necessity & Possibility)
Mood that Affirms {Modus Ponens){M.P.}
Mood that denies {Modus Tollens} {M.T.}
Formal{Structure}{Non-sequitur} Fallacies
If I uses these brackets { } I just mean alternatively called... like this:
One{1}{single}
If I strikethrough text it is not critical to know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
If you have no other specialized knowledge, logic can keep you competitive as it is a necessary pin in the construction of any specialized view. You can use this skill to eliminate ideas even if you have no competing data, nor alternative interpretations.
If you are not prepared to defend a claim or fear debate may indicate you don't have enough data or redone the research necessary to conclude reasonably.
Just because a topic has been debated or peer reviewed does not make it holy it just does work on it like crafting a piece of art.
Debate is not a battle of people, it’s an interfacing of two minds to work as one, to examine alternative perspectives.
Peace Hike is a strategy for how I conduct a healthy debate.
Logical thought is not just studying the Negative Fallacies but the Positive Rules of Inference.
When you know the valid dollar you aren’t fooled by counterfeits.
So let’s study both!
This can have one of the two values i.e. True or False, but it cannot see inside prepositions and take advantage of relationships among them.
The purpose of logic is to characterize the difference between valid and invalid arguments. A logical system for a language is a set of axioms and rules designed to prove exactly the valid arguments statable in the language. Creating such a logic may be a difficult task. The logician must make sure that the system is sound, i.e. that every argument proven using the rules and axioms is in fact valid. Furthermore, the system should be complete, meaning that every valid argument has a proof in the system. Demonstrating soundness and completeness of formal systems is a logician’s central concern.
An argument is a sequence of premises{p}{r} followed by a conclusion{q}{∴}.
An argument is only valid when it is impossible for the conclusion{q}{∴} to be false when all the premises{p} are true.
Example;
{Premise} All men are mortal
{Premise} Socrates is a man
{Conclusion} Socrates is mortal
This can be written as a formula(tautology) which is true in every possible interpretation;
∀{for all}x{subjects}(Man(x{subject})→{equals}Mortal(x{subject})
Man(Socrates{specific subject})
∴{conclusion}Mortal(Socrates{specific subject})
Without definitions it looks like this
∀x(Man(x)→Mortal(x)
Man(Socrates{specific subject})
∴Mortal(Socrates)
This can be written as a truth table that covers all the possibilities, where each row{atomic sentence} is always accurate.
All men are mortal | Socrates is a man | Socrates is mortal |
True | True | True |
False | True | False |
True | False | True |
True | False | False |
This uses quantified variables over non-logical objects and allows the use of sentences which contain variables.
It is like Propositional but additionally covers predicates and quantification. It’s an expression of one or more variables defined on some specific domain, instead of just true or false.
The form of the Socrates argument is:
All pigs fly. All A are/have/do B. (Premise)
Porky is a pig. C is an A. (Premise)
Therefore Porky flies. C is/has B. (Conclusion)
and
All blitzgedorffs have plurak zingers.
Gnafftzku is a blitzgedorff.
Therefore Gnafftzku has plurak zingers.
It doesn’t matter what you replace the letters with, as long as A is replaced with a kind
of thing, C with a thing of that kind, and B with a property that such things have (and
you adjust for grammatical correctness). In every argument of this form, whenever the
first two sentences make true statements, the third sentence will make a true statement.
The two premise-statements need not be true (pigs do not all fly). It doesn't even
matter whether they are meaningful (what is a blitzgedorff? plurak? a zinger?) for us
to be able to say that the argument is valid. In every argument of that form, if the
premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.
An invalid argument:
All Norwegians are human.
All Europeans are human.
Therefore all Norwegians are Europeans.
Is even if its premises and conclusion are all true, because it is an argument of the form:
All As are B. (Premise)
All Cs are B. (Premise)
Therefore all Cs are A. (Conclusion)
If we fill in the A blank with “woman” and the B blank with “human” (making appropriate grammatical adjustments), and fill in the C blank with “men.” We get:
All women are human.
All men are human.
Therefore all men are women.
The premises of this argument are true; its conclusion is false. But the argument is just
as good(bad) as the Norwegians argument, since it has the same form. This shows that the
Norwegians argument is invalid
.
Here we cannot use truth tables to show invalidity. We have to use the method of
counterexample – find another argument that has the same form and that has true
premises and a false conclusion.
We can prove theorems in predicate logic, even when we cannot show them to be tautologies (because we cannot use truth tables). As a (silly) example, we can show "If there are no unicorns, then if Benji is a unicorn then Benji is orange." I translate this as
The end depends on no premises. ~∃x (Ux) ⊃ (Ub ⊃ Ob). is a theorem of predicate logic. But it is not a tautology.
This is an expression (like ‘necessarily’ or ‘possibly’) that is used to qualify the truth of a judgement. Modal logic is, strictly speaking, the study of the deductive behavior of the expressions ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that’. However, the term ‘modal logic’ may be used more broadly for a family of related systems. These include logics for belief, for tense and other temporal expressions, for the deontic (moral) expressions such as ‘it is obligatory that’ and ‘it is permitted that’, and many others.
In propositional logic, validity can be defined using truth tables. A valid argument is simply one where every truth table row that makes its premises true also makes its conclusion true. However truth tables cannot be used to provide an account of validity in modal logics because there are no truth tables for expressions such as ‘it is necessary that’, ‘it is obligatory that’, and the like.
This is actually a family of many types of logic.
Modal Logic □ It is necessary that …
◊ It is possible that …
Deontic Logic O It is obligatory that …
P It is permitted that …
F It is forbidden that …
Temporal Logic G It will always be the case that …
F It will be the case that …
H It has always been the case that …
P It was the case that …
Doxastic Logic Bx x believes that …
In Modal Logic we use Possible{Imaginary} Worlds to explore the value of premises which may vary in each of those worlds.
I could dig in and decode this type of logic in detail but for now just remember to take care when introducing imaginary anything into your argument, getting conclusive results about the actual world is verifably challenging.
simple argument forms that can be used to construct more complex argument forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rules_of_inference
(p∧{and}(p→q))→q
Example Variables
p=it is snowing
q=I will study
Example Argument
{Premise} if it is snowing, then I will study
{Premise} it is snowing
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study
(ᄀ{not}q∧(p→q))→ᄀp
Example Variables
p=it is snowing
q=I will study
Example Argument
{Premise} if it is snowing, then I will study
{Premise} I will not study
{Conclusion} therefore, it is not snowing
((p→q)∧(q→r))→(p→r)
Example Variables
p= it snows
q= I will study
r= I will get an A
Example Argument
{Premise} if it snows, then I will study
{Premise} if I study, i will get an A
{Conclusion} therefore, if it snows, I will get an A
(ᄀp∧(p∨{or}q))→q
Example Variables
p= I will study math
q= I will study literature
Example Argument
{Premise} I will study math or I will study literature
{Premise} I will not study math
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study literature
((p)∧(q))→(p∧q)
Example Variables
p= I will study math
q= I will study literature
Example Argument
{Premise} I will study math
{Premise} I will study literature
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study math and I will study literature
(p∧q)→p
Example Variables
p= I will study math
q= I will study literature
Example Argument
{Premise} I will study math or literature
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study math
p→(p∨q)
Example Variables
p= I will study
q= I will visit Paris
Example Argument
{Premise} I will study
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study or I will visit Paris
((ᄀp∨r)∧(p∨q))→(q∨r)
Example Variables
p= I will study math
r= I will study literature
q= I will study geography
Example Argument
{Premise} I will not study math or I will not study literature
{Premise} I will study math or geography
{Conclusion} therefore, I will study geography, or I will study literature
p ∨ ( q ∧ ¬q ) ⇔ p
p ∧ ( q ∨ ¬q ) ⇔ p
p → q ⇔ ¬p ∨ q
¬( p → q ) ⇔ p ∧ ¬q
p ↔ q ⇔ ( p → q ) ∧ ( q → p ) (Bidirectional elimination)
p ↔ q ⇔ ( p ∧ q ) ∨ ( ¬p → ¬q )
p → ( q → r ) ⇔ ( p ∧ q ) →r
p → q ⇔ ¬q → ¬p (Contraposition theorem)
These are fallacies of Invalid Structure
These are failures to form a coherent argument as instructed above.
Non-sequitur means, the conclusion does not logically follow the premise
a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.
making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
the assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise
the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.
The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.
“All dogs hate some cats.”
This is an impossible claim to validate. It may be the case that some some dogs hate some cats, but it would be impossible to determine whether or not all dogs hate only some cats.
“Financial experts agree that everyone should invest in technology stocks.”
This statement implies that, all financial experts agree, which may not be the case.
a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
a categorical syllogism that has four terms.
a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.
the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
confusing necessity with sufficiency. A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. X does not bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used.
a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.
These are fallacies of Invalid Content.
These are failures to fill an accurate argument.
Arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises.
assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.
improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
"I'm not fat because I'm thinner than John."
defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.
arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.
counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.
using a middle term with multiple meanings.
changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer first states the controversial position, but when challenged, states that they are advancing the modest position.
changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.
purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.
an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are emotionally sensitive and ambiguous.
inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.
assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.
assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
assuming that something true of a composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. Selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning
Two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.
describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.
assuming that decision-makers of the past had identical information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. This should not to be confused with presentism, in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically projected into the past.
believing that certain results occurred only because a specific process was performed, though said process may actually be unrelated to the results. Supposing that historians can obtain the "whole truth" via induction from individual pieces of historical evidence. The "whole truth" is defined as learning "something about everything", "everything about something", or "everything about everything". In reality, a historian "can only hope to know something about something".
using a "middle-man" for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. It explains a concept in terms of the concept itself without explaining its real nature (e.g.: explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker a homunculus inside the head simply identifies an intermediary actor and does not explain the product or process of thinking).
arguing that, if experts in a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point within that field, no conclusion can be reached or that the legitimacy of that field of knowledge is questionable.
insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison.
the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so).
a sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.
using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
failing to take into account that non-regulated random occurrences unknown unknowns can affect the probability of an event taking place.
the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy, which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
making an argument using only quantitative observations (measurements, statistical or numerical values) and discounting subjective information that focuses on quality (traits, features, or relationships).
assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception.
inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought). Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy.
argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition.
a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object (e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: "nobody" was in the room).
treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity (e.g.: saying that evolution selects which traits are passed on to future generations; evolution is not a conscious entity with agency).
believing that, because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made the event inevitable (e.g.: because someone won the lottery while wearing their lucky socks, wearing those socks made winning the lottery inevitable).
asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
the arguer attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption (e.g.: a defendant who murdered his parents asks for leniency because he is now an orphan).
using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly). While Loaded Label is not inherently fallacious, the use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy. When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives." Use of the term "unhealthy additives" is used as support for the idea that the product is safe.
the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with (e.g.: all bachelors are unmarried males)
someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. (E.g., "Have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?".)
reaching a conclusion from weak premises.
an exception to a generalization is ignored.
makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.
using individual cases or data that confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may contradict that position.
using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position.
a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.
an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it. Basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample. an argument that results in an overly generalized conclusion (e.g.: arguing that drinking alcohol is bad because in some instances it has led to crashes).
involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of forethought, move on to other topics, etc. – but in any case, to end the debate with a cliché rather than a point.
the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.
a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.
X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.
the inverse of the gamblers fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that on the basis of an unlikely outcome, the process must have happened many times before.
ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
"I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."
argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) – repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more and referencing that lack of objection as evidence of support for the truth of the conclusion; sometimes confused with proof by assertion.
assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.
an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic
attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
Stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.
a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy, guilt by association.
an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion.
a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.
manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.
generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.
using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.
generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.
mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.
generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.
using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.
embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect
arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.
judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. (opposite of appeal to tradition)
supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor. (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.
a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.
arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.
Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.
a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.
inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.
a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.
dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.
a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact-value distinction.
sometimes confused with appeal to nature, is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argument (e.g.: If someone says that killing animals is wrong because we are animals too saying "It is not true that humans have no moral worth" would be a strawman since they have not asserted that humans have no moral worth, rather that the moral worth of animals and humans are equivalent.)
improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.
stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it.
assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.
a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.
Since debating hundreds of people, and considering the nature of considering, I have determined that anything that gets in the way of the complete argument, that is the logical steps from one world view to another, either by interruption, misrepresentation, or other fallacy is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Your job as a logical being is to discover a foundational worldview and then attempt to logically deconstruct it. Your opponents are not your enemies they are helping you deconstruct your worldview, and you there's. This is in the hopes to find a worldview that is indestructible and more likely accurate then perspectives that are not tested to this degree.
This is any statement that ends the conversation without all logical steps from the opponent’s position to yours completes to your conclusion. It is often performed by another fallacy but can be as simple as exhausting the opponent’s patience causing the discussion to end before the arguments are complete.
There is no evidence
There is no doubt
I trust the experts
That's Ok(soft claims without precise definition
in which you point out a fallacy or mistake such as spelling or a detail unrelated to the validity of the conclusion, in order to embarrass your opponent or derail their arguments and thus end the conversation prematurely. This is delicate because an honest debater would want to show errors in logic without letting the debate be derailed. To avoid committing the tattle fallacy, step back and force them to reaffirm each key step of the argument so the fallacy isn’t skipped over but gives them an out to save face and maintain the dignity to continue the debate.
“so don't even try and since u wont counter, I won.”
This is a type of adhominium because it implies that the opposition did not use evidence or reason for their case, it is best to instead say I haven't seen the evidence.
Same with “references” I’ve heard people try to ditch a debate with an ultimatum that demands references or the they won’t continue. This isn’t what it appears because even if you do provide data they will question your source saying it’s not valid so they don’t have to listen. So it’s a moving the Goal post Fallacy too.
It is possible and good faith to argue logic from an
If; the reported promise is accurate,
Then; debate from that perspective.
This attempts to increase one’s own claim’s credibility, to discourage checking the data for yourself, or even discouraging you from continuing the debate at all. Using phrases like, “Verifiably Accurate, Obviously True, Unquestionably the Case, Undoubtedly, Sound, Founded, Demonstrably so, Closed Case.
Some people have agreeable personalities, so if you ask them what they think they may say one thing but if you put words in their mouth in a way that would be uncomfortable to correct you on, you can preemptively get them to change their claim for that debate. This effect is also enhanced in public as the pressure to be nice is greater with accountability. This is similar to a strawman fallacy but with a manipulative twist.
Convince the audience or the person you are debating that to side with you will improve your popularity. This is done with humor most often but also status and cadence. Be unaffected by the others points showing no room for uncertainty on your face. Be unsuprizable and well planned appearing.
Using fancy speech to try to portray your are more educated by using latin, unnecessarily complex terms...
Lay-person, amature, professional, scholar...
This is a shifting the goal post fallacy mixed with a ditch fallacy where you refuse to agree on a definition or term
This is an unagreeable definition fallacy, but where you categorize in an unagreeable way, rather than define directly.
Nature, Past, Pity, Authority, Power...
Convince the audience or the person you are debating that your relationship or life is at risk and is more valuable than the truth.
What if you can’t address an argument, but want to wiggle free? Avoid the argument.
Use adhomoniums to delay the debate. You should go read xyz before we continue.
Upset the foundation, retract base assumptions that have been assumed or common or agreed on, perhaps including the very ability to think itself.
If your not ready to touch that argument Derail the logic train delaying your return to that argument.
As a last ditch effort you can use the humor for arguments you can’t segway directly from with other side step options.
Similar to scottsman except this is an appeal to shame classing in the name of sanity and is a form of indirect adhominium.
"Worth their salt"
"you’re living in a sci-fi marvel universe in your head" People can actually believe this legitimately, but it's still fallacious if they dismiss your ideas based on this labeling. It doesn't have to be meant as an attack, even thinking it is fallacious, because it frames everything you say with disrespect and doesn't take you seriously based on the merits of the idea itself but by your merits which is ad hominem. This can be an unclean fallacy because it may be a legitimate conclusion based on merits of the ideas, but if you frame future ideas based on this conclusion then it doesn't necessarily follow logically, you can't borrow old conclusions to skip logical work.
‘‘No serious, actual, honest, legitimate, respected, intellectual, expert, professional, scholar, scientist... thinks that.
This includes appeal to authority by discrediting your appeals.
“Nobody uses that argument anymore.”
To suggest or attempt to fight people rather than quantify ideas to try to disregard the ideas, or prevent having to analyze an idea.
This also arrises by threatening the you if you follow that line of reasoning, or ask that question.
To rely on a legal principle to avoid founding claim in reason is faulty activity not just pure logic but argument purpose wise.
If you quote many sources with high acclaim in your argument you may indirectly suggest authority and be softly guilty of the arguing from authority. Sometimes it is necessary to quote the reference so that others can search it easier but as far as possible it is proper to try to stick with the ideas themselves holding their own merit.
Many people eliminate possible interpretations because they see it is contradictory with another conclusion. This doesn't mean it is not true, it only means both can’t be true and so it is possible you may need to unravel the implications and you may found you were wrong about a lot but you shouldn't eliminate possible interpretations for the purpose of avoiding facing your possible error.
Some people internally defend a position for the reason of using it’s implication’s power. For example they defend inerrancy so that they can use it’s authority. Worse yet with large books like the bible there is a tone of ammo, even more if you snip verses out of context. With that you can make it say just about anything you need to enforce. This is done with constitutions or any large authoritative document. The fallacy is to weigh the reasonability of a claim based on the bias of it’s maneuvering power.
Go with the causal principle until you reach your desired goal and then you dismiss it like a hack because you don't want there to be a cause of your entity.
This is a type of ad hominem in which you are labeled defensive if you provide reason, this shaming tactic is used to discourage you from providing reason.
This is another type of ad hominem where if the reason is complex it is written off as desperate. Sometimes reason is complex but that is not a logical reason to dismiss it. Occam's razor is actually an example of this fallacious axiom.
Logic can be considered and voiced by anyone regardless of qualifications. It is common to hear, "You have no say because your not a 'minority', or you haven't experienced 'it' or you have no authority..."
It is common to hear people say, "the bible or constitution or rules say this is right" when it can be used to support their position but fail to mention when that same authority says another of their positions is wrong. This is a combination of two fallacies; arguing from authority and contradiction.
It is common to hear, "80% of cases show this is true" and they omit 40% tolerance that shows the 80% is inconclusive or goes against the narrative of their position. This is a form of cherry picking.
Cherry picking or fallacy of incomplete evidence are examples that show that it is possible to be fallacious my only by what you say but by what you don't say.
There are many elements that are not clean logical : fallacious lines but are blurry contextual fields.
personal experiences, are not off-limit pieces of evidence, they simply have to be framed for what they are and not misconstrued as having the weight of statistical evidence or special authority.
Hyperbolic speech can be more effective than boring technicalities, and can be intentionally deceitful or dramatically obvious. It can be used to teach or motivate effectively. It can br prefaced with disclaimers that there are exceptions or other interpretations.
Leaving out details is not necessarily cherry picking fallaciously but just a way to lay down coats of ideas rather than an indigestible all at once fact.
The Weighing Reliability(Or likeliness of value) can’t be used as an argument against their ideas, otherwise you are guilty of argument from authority or adhominem, but you can use this to choose an order of examination.
To utilize the most respectable voice or attractive appearance, either your own or enlisted, is an unspoken fallacious use of known weakened bias rather than the merit of the idea.
Lately I've been noticing a trend to use the rebuttal of "That's a false equivalency fallacy" anytime someone uses an analogy. Obviously a tree isn't a human but it can be used to draw on your prior knowledge of a specific branching system to illustrate an idea. False equivalency would only apply to a claim of equivalence and does not apply to claims of similarity or relations. It does little good to call out a fallacy like this. They use it as a conversation ender because they are not strong enough to travel the road you suggest.
This is a form of the strawman fallacy, but it may be true about you however it is a weaker argument for your position than you would make.
Other fallacies that directly affect the claim at hand can also be unmentionable because they are not crisp enough to concisely dispute or you they could sidestep disputes by redefining or claiming different intent.
Other fallacies still may be critical to the claim and unhinge it, but if you have another crit you may choose one rather than both in order to pace the time/energy available, but this is on a per case and purpose measure.
Have you ever heard someone quickly rattle off a long list of claims or evidence or reasons? it is intimidating, convincing, overwhelming. It’s overwhelming because it is many debates in one, you would need to take each and weigh its own merit which will take time, and as you debunk them their defense is just bringing up another rather than defending the first. This fallacy is a setup for moving the goalpost fallacy.
Moving the goalpost fallacy is that which sets up an argument but if the argument is debunked the person will change the argument again and again to prevent critical analysis of their argument.
I've found people who do this on the other side too, if someone else makes an argument these people will respond, "I'm not convinced" while moving their standard of evidence just beyond whatever is provided. Another form of this is "I don't find this interesting".
but is a weight argument not a certainty argument.
This fails to take weight into account using an inappropriate form logic, boolean rather than first order logic.
When someone makes mistakes that has no affect on the argument, especially when everyone knows what they really meant, be it pronunciation errors, or unsubstantial technicalities, and you correct them every mistake they make just to discredit them. Death by a thousand cuts. This happens in formal debates but also by the audience who discredit a position in their mind just because they do not speak in an educated accent or make a mistake, then throwing out their argument on these fallacious grounds.
This is yet another adhominium>appeal to qualifications, by publicly testing someone's intelligence by asking questions of knowledge rather than just explaining it. This attempts to expose credibility rather than face the argument so people can dismiss on illogical grounds. This can also appear as a question about your education, this is quite clever as it is not yet an argument as your answer would illicit the building blocks of the argument destined to be fallacious, but just to ask it brings up the fallacious argument in the audiences mind. You may seem desperate if you directly point this out as its too complex to do quickly and long winded seems desperate. Perhaps this could be combatted by preloading the audience with what to look out for and instructing them to dismiss those instances.
It is irrational to think there is nothing outside the universe adhoc.
If God exists it is possibly possible for miracle interference to exist. You cannot dismiss the possibility just because it is supernatural as this is presuming your position to support your position.
"X never happened, we know it never happened because it can't, we know it can't because it never has if you exclude all the examples of X happening."
You don't need an explanation of the explaination in order to show it best explains the evidence. If you see a bowl of cereal on the table in the morning...
The anthropic principle is the belief that, if we take human life as a given condition of the universe, scientists may use this as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe as being consistent with creating human life.
“We ought not be surprised by the fine tuning of the universe because if it were not fine tuned we would not be here to be surprised about it.”
This fallacy could be shown easily through analogy.
“Imagine you were traveling to mexico and you were framed and arrested and to be executed by a fire squad of 1000000000000000000000 trained marksman, the command is given and they all fire, but all the marksman missed. Should you then say, “We shouldnt be surprised they all missed, because if they had not missed I would not be here to be surprised about it.”
"You only believe that because your culture does, if you were brought up in an intellectually superior culture you wouldn't believe that."
If someone does something wrong to you, and you let them know, so often instead of either repenting or defending with a logical argument they will get offended at you for being offended by them.
Of course you should never take offense but always fly above the situation instead of being immersed in emotion. Give measured responses instead of "fair" reactions. Never retaliate but give love which is worse than acid for haters.
But then again be ready for people who are programmed to consider anything offensive that changes them, going to neglects, anything short of making them the world's royalty. Victim is the new argument from authority.
I find the lack of conversation UI and AR makes it easy for people to use memory loss as a way out of confronting critical thinking. They might say there is no evidence for a round earth, and then you give him a list of evidence and then later they again say there is no evidence hoping that narrative will stick regardless of the evidence provided. This is done subtly too and cleverly to hide the fact that they snuck back in premises and conclusions that have already been addressed.
making multiple statements without allowing for a proper opportunity to debate each one. This can be a result of poor organization or impatience, but it's often used as a deliberate tactic to overwhelm the opposition.
Instead of offering each point for criticism and discussion, the person making the argument simply dumps a large number of statements on the table, making it difficult for the opposition to respond to each one. This is akin to going on a hike with someone and then suddenly taking off running without allowing for agreement at each fork in the road. By the time the opposition can object, they are left with a long, painful hike back to the last agreed-upon fork.
The assumption reality would be like a simulation. You must to format the argument that if the systems and inputs and scope match reality the results should match reality.
To set up someone in a way where no matter how they answer you can reject it, like raying strawman anytime the response by shifting your meaning afterward arguing.
To believe your interpretation of a person's beliefs or definitions or intentions above the believer or definer or intender.
Hogging time so you can't make your argument. This can appear as nitpicking each point or definition just to delay the argument. Often it is just talking in a long winded way and repeating themselves.
"Because most do/are we should act like this will/is" This sounds reasonable but does not actually logically follow. You need more substance to make a claim beyond statistics to get to an ought.
Convincing by any means other than logic is logically fallacious because it is does not submit itself for logical criticism but wishes to slide by untested. Using curse words or emotional strumming are examples of this.
To appeal to popularity (Ad Populum) is a fallacy as it states that because it is commonly believed it is true which has no logical merit.
“There is no serious expert who seriously believes that x is true.” This is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy plus a No True Scotsman Fallacy
Misusing an argument outside its reach. They sneakily call up an argument then misapply it to new unfounded conclusions.
“We cant outlaw the death penalty because why should I have to pay for criminals food in jail?"
The switch from a because to a why is to say x is wrong because y is wrong, my answer is solve both wrongs. This can be an unending chain in any imperfect system. Don't grow weary doing good.”
If they don't like a topic because it is sensitive or unfounded/undefendable they will change the topic.
"Some may ask you a question and say it's a yes or no question."" Its like a Strawman except using you to complete it."
some might say Jesus endorsed the Old testament because he used the Old testament when talking to people. it's not an endorsement to use something as a tool. Jesus often started with where the people he was talking to were and worked on them from there. he would often say you've heard it said but I say and instead of just saying the opposite sometimes he would just expand on it but he would start with where they were.
some may say Jesus never used the word xyz so that means he didn't care about it enough to mention it. this neglects the text that mentions that Jesus did many things that were not recorded or ever could be recorded because of the number. she often also spoke to specific people and those topics may not come up for those people. basically you can't jump to the conclusion without showing the connection from the premise could only connect one way.
To lob a volley to the opposition that requires so much nuance that it crosses the emotional threshold of incredulity. The audiance has a threshold of complexity of which they will refuse to do the energy expensive work to parse. Fallacious people have used this to their advantage.
By demanding a frame or question in a way that forces a response outside their true perspective or argument. Such as demanding a yes or no question that you don't think is a yes or no answer.
To get out of a critique or question by rambling.
Argumentum ad unpopulum,
appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the minority, appeal to the people
"You aren't a xyz person so you don't have a say." "you're man splaining, you don't get to teach me" Ideas are right or wrong regardless of who says them and everyone has the right to share them.
"That isn't interesting" "I'm not convinced"
If you interrupt the argument you are trying to prevent them from being heard which is fallacious.
Overpowering the conversation by yelling or causing noise or inciting threats to prevent arguments is fallacious.
Leaving after being heard without listening to a response is fallacious.
"Its a yes or no question" Yes people may avoid a question, but you can not enforce a frame that you have not both agreed to. It is often used as a fallacy by trying to corner an opponent and use the frame to force a trap response that would not have applied in the other persons true position / frame. Its a fallacy because it does not get at truth but a strawman. It's also used as a smear on their inability to answer if they refuse which is like claiming you are guilty unless you prove your innocent. They often double coat the fallacy where if you choose to answer in your own frame they will misrepresent the answer back into their frame "So that's a no."
Someone may make an argument and use one subargument to support it and then another one and then another one and if you go address those that chain could be long enough in which the person could go back to the first without it being noticed and you never get anywhere because they keep digging up old posts that you've already buried.
Overwhelming someone with information or several claims or arguments to prevent reasoning.
How often can you send messages?
Do frequent communication seem needy?
How long can messages be?
Do long messages seem angry?
Magnitude
Probability
Fallacylessness
More then Certain Truth, there are effective axioms that we can apply to make the most of what we can know.
Let’s collect and develop our best reasoning strategies.
By Dotails
Simular to Pascal’s Wager
“a person should wager as though God exists, because living accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.), but without the selfish incentive/consequence.”
Except instead of considering personal gain or loss, I consider merely objective good.
If; objective good is relative to how closely an object fulfills its purpose,
Then; good is only possible if; you act on purpose.
So; irregardless of certainty about our purposeful creation, we ought wager as though we were.
Let’s take a case where the explanation of cereal in a bowl on the table in the morning is either
The breakfast was made on purpose by your mother,
Or; infinite variations of the world exist, each slightly different, and you happen to be in the one with the cereal,
And; there is not enough data to distinguish which explanation is owed the most weight,
Then: we ought act as though the cereal has a purpose. Because that is the only possibility capable of objective fulfillment.
Even if you don’t know the ultimate purpose of breakfast at age 2,
You are capable of taking the next logical step, trusting your mother knows more than you.
Similarly even if we don’t know the purposer’s purpose, we can trust his proposed capability implies more likely access to innate goodness than we have.
By Dotails
Similar to Occam’s Wager
Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
Except instead of necessity being the restraining factor, I consider exceptions
For each case of objection
If a new exception is made to the proposed explanation
Then this lowers the weight of the proposed explanation.
Understanding what contributes to thought that abandons pure logic, is helpful to find a convincing path back to logic.
Bias, Fear, Education and other factors contribute to illogical conclusions.
Bias is often said to be a bad thing but that is only if it is misplaced, as you can bias a result on purpose to compensate for other biases or unmerited favors in your arguments.
Applied negative bias to explanations that would fit anything and everything the more it fits the less you should be certain that it is the case without evidence accompaniment.
Both God and evolution are examples of this where just because it would explain it because it would explain everything you need to also have extra evidence that weighs the case for that explanation.
The more simple you make a complicated thing the less likely your description is accurate.
Things can only be simplified as far as they are simple, so if you simplify it further add negative bias to the validity of your result.
Things like “That's just” or “”That's not how the world works” You have evidence that you have a oversupplication fallacy on your hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Here’s some notes for what I’d like to do next to this document.
Add More external resources, PDFs, Videos, Links...
Decode Theorems into Plain English
Delatinize Fallacies made to put people in classes which itself is a fallacy of higher education.
Reorganize/Categorize Fallacies
Consolidate Witnessed Fallacies if any standard fallacies already apply
Integrate
DEDUCTIVE
ABDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE
PROBABILITY CALCULUS
BAYESIAN CONFIRMATION THEORY
Link to the Reality Model Document