The list of the most common fallacies . I met them in every forums, they are very frequent on Historum too.

Feb 2011
6,231
#11
There's some fallacies that I've encountered but I can't put a name to them.

1. They bombard you with a series of questions and demands, let's call them questions A, B, and C.

You answer question A and they say it didn't answer question B. You answer question B and they say it didn't answer question C. You answer question C and they say it didn't answer question A. You answer all three at once, and they pretend that each answer was used to answer something it wasn't intended to answer.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy?

2. When you point out additional information that would influence the conclusion. The person who left out the information would say, "well I never rejected the information, so you're a liar". Well of course he never rejected it, how could he when he haven't even mentioned it? It diverts focus away from subject at hand, and it diverts focus away from how the newly presented information would influence the conclusion. Instead it diverts focus into wrongly diminishing the credibility of the person who brought up the additional information, by rejecting an imaginary accusation that was never made.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy? I know it is a sort of "strawman fallacy", but I would like to see if there's another name for it that's more specific.

3. When you present evidence, they accept only their own version of evidence even though the opinion could be proven wrong with other types of evidence. For example, let's say that there's an opinion that Augustus Caesar was 7 foot tall. You present evidence that according to his newly found grave, his remains point to him being 5 foot 10. But the person demands that you present evidence from contemporary literature about Augustus Caesar's height, and if you can't then you're wrong and Augustus was 7 foot tall, period, nevermind the grave.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy?

4. Far-fetched hypothesis: Fallacy which rejects mundane explanations in favor of far-fetched ones. For example, any evidence that doesn't support a favored opinion must have been a forgery, or make insinuations that the person who presented the evidence is lying. If multiple independent sources say the same thing, then each of those sources are forgeries or have been tampered with. This is fine if people present proof that the evidence is a forgery, so that the accusation isn't just based on wishful thinking. But when this don't happen, then it rejects the mundane explanation. And the mundane explanation would be, the opinion is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#12
There's some fallacies that I've encountered but I can't put a name to them.

1. They bombard you with a series of questions and demands, let's call them questions A, B, and C.

You answer question A and they say it didn't answer question B. You answer question B and they say it didn't answer question C. You answer question C and they say it didn't answer question A. You answer all three at once, and they pretend that each answer was used to answer something it wasn't intended to answer.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy?

2. When you point out additional information that would influence the conclusion. The person who left out the information would say, "well I never rejected the information, so you're a liar". Well of course he never rejected it, how could he when he haven't even mentioned it? It diverts focus away from subject at hand, and it diverts focus away from how the newly presented information would influence the conclusion. Instead it diverts focus into wrongly diminishing the credibility of the person who brought up the additional information, by rejecting an imaginary accusation that was never made.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy? I know it is a sort of "strawman fallacy", but I would like to see if there's another name for it that's more specific.

3. When you present evidence, they accept only their own version of evidence even though the opinion could be proven wrong with other types of evidence. For example, let's say that there's an opinion that Augustus Caesar was 7 foot tall. You present evidence that according to his newly found grave, his remains point to him being 5 foot 10. But the person demands that you present evidence from contemporary literature about Augustus Caesar's height, and if you can't then you're wrong and Augustus was 7 foot tall, period, nevermind the grave.

^Is there a name for this type of fallacy?

4. Far-fetched hypothesis: Fallacy which rejects mundane explanations in favor of far-fetched ones. For example, any evidence that doesn't support a favored opinion must have been a forgery, or make insinuations that the person who presented the evidence is lying. If multiple independent sources say the same thing, then each of those sources are forgeries or have been tampered with. This is fine if people present proof that the evidence is a forgery, so that the accusation isn't just based on wishful thinking. But when this don't happen, then it rejects the mundane explanation. And the mundane explanation would be, the opinion is wrong.
The first one is a form of "gish gallop",it is by far the most annoying one in live debates,but in written ones i see it less problematic.
 
Feb 2011
6,231
#13
Yes, that fits for the first part, which can be easily countered in a written argument. It's the second part which I want to focus the fallacy on. In which if you made an answer to the question, they pretend that you were answering another question instead. And then say "you haven't answered the question".
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2016
511
Germany
#14
That still doesn't answer my question. What do you call the falacy of using a small exception to disprove something that is generally true or true in the overwhelming majority of times?
For the while I can only repeat my previous answer: an assertion is either true or false. There are no "exceptions" in the sense that x = true except for special cases. Deviations from a "majority" have to be part of the content of the assertion, not an exception from it. I already gave an example (left-handers vs. right-handers) that you´ve obviously not fully grasped, since you are still insisting on such a thing like a "general truth". However there is no "general truth", there is only "truth".

Please specify your examples, it is no enough to say evolutionism explains x % and creationism y %, you should give concrete information about what it meant. Such (rather felt) quantifications of percentage are questionable in any case.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,517
Dispargum
#15
For the while I can only repeat my previous answer: an assertion is either true or false. There are no "exceptions" in the sense that x = true except for special cases. Deviations from a "majority" have to be part of the content of the assertion, not an exception from it. I already gave an example (left-handers vs. right-handers) that you´ve obviously not fully grasped, since you are still insisting on such a thing like a "general truth". However there is no "general truth", there is only "truth".

Please specify your examples, it is no enough to say evolutionism explains x % and creationism y %, you should give concrete information about what it meant. Such (rather felt) quantifications of percentage are questionable in any case.
You and I have a major philosophical difference. I don't see the world in black and white terms as you do. I do not believe in absolutes. The world is many shades of gray. When I had jury duty, I was not asked to determine guilt or innocence to 100% certainty. The standard was only reasonable doubt. I was still allowed to find someone guilty even if I had an unreasonable doubt. Defense attorneys will argue that any doubt requires a not guilty verdict, but that's not true. Some doubts are reasonable while other doubts are unreasonable.

The Theory of Evolution says that over time species become more advanced. When we look at the fossil record, 98% of the time that is what we see - more recent examples like elephants are more advanced than mastodons or mammoths. But every now and then, we come across an example of more recent animals or plants being less advanced than their ancestors. Whatever happened to that species is not explained by the Theory of Evolution. However, our inability to explain a small number of exceptions does not negate the value of the Theory of Evolution which does explain the vast majority of species advancing.

Another example is when a Congressman in January brings a snowball into the House Chamber and says, "See? Global warming is a hoax!"

Another example was years ago when the health risk of cigarette smoking was still being debated. The government and other public health advocates would point to a mountain of studies that showed smoking caused cancer. The tobacco industry would point to three or four studies that they paid for that said smoking did not cause cancer.

If 98% of the evidence says that A is true and 2% of the evidence says that B is true and someone argues that A and B are equal that's called False Equivalency. When someone argues that B renders A completely irrelevant, that might have a different name, but I don't know what that is.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#16
You and I have a major philosophical difference. I don't see the world in black and white terms as you do. I do not believe in absolutes. The world is many shades of gray. When I had jury duty, I was not asked to determine guilt or innocence to 100% certainty. The standard was only reasonable doubt. I was still allowed to find someone guilty even if I had an unreasonable doubt. Defense attorneys will argue that any doubt requires a not guilty verdict, but that's not true. Some doubts are reasonable while other doubts are unreasonable.

The Theory of Evolution says that over time species become more advanced. When we look at the fossil record, 98% of the time that is what we see - more recent examples like elephants are more advanced than mastodons or mammoths. But every now and then, we come across an example of more recent animals or plants being less advanced than their ancestors. Whatever happened to that species is not explained by the Theory of Evolution. However, our inability to explain a small number of exceptions does not negate the value of the Theory of Evolution which does explain the vast majority of species advancing.

Another example is when a Congressman in January brings a snowball into the House Chamber and says, "See? Global warming is a hoax!"

Another example was years ago when the health risk of cigarette smoking was still being debated. The government and other public health advocates would point to a mountain of studies that showed smoking caused cancer. The tobacco industry would point to three or four studies that they paid for that said smoking did not cause cancer.

If 98% of the evidence says that A is true and 2% of the evidence says that B is true and someone argues that A and B are equal that's called False Equivalency. When someone argues that B renders A completely irrelevant, that might have a different name, but I don't know what that is.
In short, do you think that the world is not digital (1 or 0) but analogue?
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,517
Dispargum
#19
But there is a type of fallacy for that in the webpage: It's called as False dilemma or "Black or White"

Check it:
Your logical fallacy is black or white
Actually, it's the reverse. Insisting the world is either 0 or 1 is the Black and White Falacy. Insisting that things are either true all of the time or false all of the time is another example of the Black or White Falacy.
 
Likes: bboomer
Mar 2018
595
UK
#20
The Theory of Evolution says that over time species become more advanced. When we look at the fossil record, 98% of the time that is what we see - more recent examples like elephants are more advanced than mastodons or mammoths
The theory of evolution says absolutely no such thing. There is no arrow in evolution going from simple to complex. Evolution is purely driven by the ability of genes to reproduce themselves at that given point in time in those circumstances. Being simpler is often an advantage. As an important example, Homo Sapiens have a smaller cranial volume than Neanderthals, but we became the dominant Hominids. That statement also presupposes that complexity in living organisms is quantifiable, which is all but preposterous. I also have no idea where that 98% figure comes from, I've never heard of anything like that before, and I do not believe that is even a quantifiable thing either.


As for the question of logic, @Tammuz is right. Factual statements are either true or false (or possibly nonsense). That is indeed binary (Boolean to be precise), but that's the way logic works. However, the world is not made up of factual statements. Therefore, the world need not be Boolean. There is a difference between a thing and statements about that thing, therefore there is no contradiction here.

To take an uncontroversial example, consider the statement "Men are taller than women". Definitely a statement. However, it is - technically - meaningless. Men/women are a category, and categories have no height property so there is nothing to compare. This is a fairly typical statement however, and one potential interpretation is "Every man is taller than every woman", which is easily demonstrably false. The other (far more sensible) interpretation is "A man is usually taller than a woman", this however is really shorthand for "Take a randomly selected man and a randomly selected woman; that man will be taller than that woman for over 50% of all possible pairs." That statement is demonstrably true.

Thus "Men are taller than women" is a statement which is, at face value, nonsense. In the most common interpretation, however, it is true. But if the person you are arguing against says "that's not true, my mum is taller than my dad", he isn't wrong either. It's your fault for making an imprecise statement; or potentially his for deliberately interpreting something obtusely. Nevertheless, a statement which is not nonsense about the height of men and women is true or false: black or white. That holds even though height of people is in no way a binary variable.