OK, this is my anal retentive thread. Some people hate bad spelling and grammar, I hate faulty logic. I can't stand it when I'm trying to debate with someone and it boils down to a case of them grabbing madly and desperately at their age/race/job/gender/bullshit to get them out of it, or when the whole argument they've constructed is based on crippled reasoning. "You don't understand, you're not white/black/asian/straight/gay/young/old/successful/unemployed/whatever" is not an argument. Just because "everyone" knows something, doesnt make it so, and "When I said 'x' I meant 'y'" is just cowardly backtracking because your original point has been disproved.
Even I do it sometimes, but doing it regularly is a sure way to look a prize idiot.
Oh! And we arent talking personal opinion here on matters such as belief or morals, those are very subjective things. We are talking about argument based on impartial fact.
So, I'm putting down a few common logical flaws in the hope people will use them a little less... Hyde Park seems the appropriate place.
(I know, I know, I'm being an annoying persnickety henpecker.)
-Hasty Generalisation [Everyone I know is x, so therefore everyone in the world must be x] Obviously, unless you have met everyone there is a chance of exceptions.
-Affirming the Consequent [If x causes y, then if y occurs, x must have caused it] There may be another cause for y.
-Sweeping Generalisation....harder to explain without a specific example with no letters from the arse of the alphabet in it. [Cutting people is illegal. Doctors cut people. Therefore Doctors are criminals.] This one seems fairly self explanatory.
-Appeal to authority [x believes that it must be so, so it is]. x could be wrong.
-Causation versus correlation [x happens at the same time as y, so x causes y] x and y could be caused by the same thing or completely unrelated.
There are lots more, but it's a start.
For some slightly more funny internet-related ones: see below!
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Even I do it sometimes, but doing it regularly is a sure way to look a prize idiot.
Oh! And we arent talking personal opinion here on matters such as belief or morals, those are very subjective things. We are talking about argument based on impartial fact.
So, I'm putting down a few common logical flaws in the hope people will use them a little less... Hyde Park seems the appropriate place.
(I know, I know, I'm being an annoying persnickety henpecker.)
-Hasty Generalisation [Everyone I know is x, so therefore everyone in the world must be x] Obviously, unless you have met everyone there is a chance of exceptions.
-Affirming the Consequent [If x causes y, then if y occurs, x must have caused it] There may be another cause for y.
-Sweeping Generalisation....harder to explain without a specific example with no letters from the arse of the alphabet in it. [Cutting people is illegal. Doctors cut people. Therefore Doctors are criminals.] This one seems fairly self explanatory.
-Appeal to authority [x believes that it must be so, so it is]. x could be wrong.
-Causation versus correlation [x happens at the same time as y, so x causes y] x and y could be caused by the same thing or completely unrelated.
There are lots more, but it's a start.
For some slightly more funny internet-related ones: see below!
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
