There have been some TWEBbers who are quick to label particular sentences as informal fallacies when they are not necessarily fallacies at all. It just sounds good to label an argument. And as an instructor of logic and critical thinking, I thought I'd open this up for discussion.

For instance, if I say most all people or scholars think otherwise, someone may label that as Ad Populum, appealing to the the people, or Ad Verecundiam, appealing to authority.

It's only a fallacy here if that's the only evidence I use to support my claim. But I am permitted to say what people believe as part of the evidence for my claim. And I can appeal to those who have authority in the matter under consideration, without a fallacy. After all, most of what we believe is based upon authority, and we cannot research everything out. So I can merely say most people believe this, so there, I don't want to bother looking at it myself. This isn't a fallacy. It's saying I'm comfortable believing what most people believe, since I do not have the time to check every belief of mine out for myself--no one does.

If out of frustration I call someone "stupid" then I'm accused of some form of Ad Hominem, attacking the person. But I am permitted to vent, without it being an argument at all, much less being an informal fallacy. I could formulate that into an argument though, and argue that the person cannot think through a mildly complex argument, and argue that such a claim is true, without an Ad Hominem informal fallacy.

If I sidestep a question because it is off the main topic, then someone may wrongly label that "begging the question." But I am permitted to stick to what I consider the main question without allowing myself to be sidetracked. I may call that sidetracking argument of my opponent a "red herring"--off the topic, but it may not be off the topic to my opponent who may think it is crucial to the debate itself.

And this goes for all of the informal fallacies I can think of off the top of my head.

What needs to be understood is that most all of the great philosophers have committed these fallacies within their best arguments! Or, at least that's what those who disagree with them will argue.

I took a class with Wm Lane Craig on "Descartes," and I wrote a paper on the Cartesian Circle. It is claimed by some that Descartes argued in a circle when he argued from the Cogito ergo sum to the particular clear and distinct ideas which were used to argue for the existence of God. Did he? Well that's the whole question.

It is argued that David Hume begged the question of miracles in his definition of miracles as "violations of natural law." Did he? Well that's the question.

It is further claimed that Hume is guilty of a "hasty generalization" when he claimed that miracles cannot be known to have happened because natural law is what a wise man should proportion his belief upon. They claim that the evidence may not all be in, and that in the future God may again do a plethora of miracles. So Hume draws his conclusion too hastily. Did he? Well that is the question.

The fact is, many times what is seen as a fallacy to one person is merely an anomally to the other. And we all have anomalies to all of our control beliefs. That's the place where you say, "it's turtle all the way down..." [This turtle is what supports the elephant, which supports the tiger, which supports the dog, which supports the world].

John Locke used this story of "turtle all the way down," when asked how he knows that objects actually exist if all he can know are the things that represent the objects to him--his representational theory of knowledge. He just assumes they do, and many can claim he assumes what needs to be proved, that he begged the question, a fallacy. But did he? That's the question.

So just calling a sentence or group of sentences an informal fallacy doesn't make it so. You have to do the additional work of arguing why it is so .

------------------------------------

Just so some people see this post, I'll call their attention to it: Tophet, CaptainOrchre, MountainMan, SalvationFound, ApologiaNick, Sparko. I'm not saying all of these named people are guilty of this. I just wanted to call it to their attention for comment.

Originally posted by Doubting John

So just calling a sentence or group of sentences an informal fallacy doesn't make it so. You have to do the additional work of arguing why it is so .

Quite true. But is an award of a Golden Screwball a formal fallacy, or an informal fallacy?

Sorry, John ... wrong thread....

Cup of Mystery:

A screwball award coming from a screwball is an honor. You wouldn't want to be honored by a screwball would you?

No one has ever pointed out a logical inconsistency with what I've argued and made it stick. They are just irritated with me. One person even pleaded with me to to stop destroying their faith (below)! I guess if I'm hurting them you'd expect nothing less. And since the tag says this is the place to debate theology seriously, so I do.

Here's what Vance said:

Important: you haven't just walked away from Christianity. There would at least be SOME honor in that if you could see the morality of (then) keeping your problem -your personal struggles- to yourself. --> Your heart has been darkened so, so you will not resist the temptation to now go very hard at work as a "de-converter," which I think is a detestable thing for you to be doing. If you lost your faith, "fine," but to try to turn on Christianity like you have here, over and over again - thread after thread after thread, is ...inexcusable, because you are doing people real spiritual harm.

What are your motives, DJ ? What is your pay-off ? Think about that. Think about that. Why -WHY- are you doing this ? Revenge against God ?...someone who hurt you, even though they were/or claimed Christianity...? - - - Or "Misery loves company," so to speak ?

Something strong is no doubt driving you to commit this evil towards those still 'weak' in the faith, or those potentially who could otherwise have a 'much better shot, minus you' (to) find a saving knowledge and faith in Jesus.

I hope you will come to soon have the decency to stop. Let your spiritual troubles rest on you, and your own shoulders alone. Don't take anything out, of such importance as this may just be, out on innocent others. That is the right thing to do, and you know this.

Originally posted by Doubting John

A screwball award coming from a screwball is an honor. You wouldn't want to be honored by a screwball would you?

Whaddya mean? In my case the shoe fits! :silly:

Though I am ... a bit disconcerted by some of your discussion tactics. From time to time you seem to dismiss the opposite argument without addressing it: to my mind, that seems as invalid as calling an informal fallacy without prooving the fallacy.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

Whaddya mean? In my case the shoe fits! :silly:

I liked it! And I'm not above being a screwball, either. Sometimes I'm just having fun, but just like the Pharisees did not like Jesus' humor, they don't see anything funny in mine.

I have received pearls from Christians who think I take the ribbing with good natured humor, and many times I do, but not always.

Though I am ... a bit disconcerted by some of your discussion tactics. From time to time you seem to dismiss the opposite argument without addressing it: to my mind, that seems as invalid as calling an informal fallacy without prooving the fallacy

Have you ever dismissed an argument? Would you spend much time discussing a side issue that you thought had no relevance to the topic at hand? How long would you discuss whether or not the Holocaust occurred?, or whether space aliens abduct people? How many times would you make the same point over and over before you just figured the other person just isn't getting it, and so you move on, after having said all that you can say on the topic?

Of course, I may be wrong about any and all of my judgments on the topics I dismiss, but they are my particular judgments, and I can do no better than to follow my judgments. If people think I've dismissed an important issue, then they need to make their case a bit more strongly that I have in fact dismissed it. And if they do not make their case in my judgment, what am I suppose to do but follow my judgment? That's all I can do.

There are just some arguments you don't want to waste your time on. Some things just aren't worth either your time or my time. So, why exactly is dismissing an argument something that is invalid? That too, is something that needs to be shown, and not just asserted in any specific case.

[Validity and Invalidity, by the way, only applies to deductive arguments.]

Originally posted by Doubting John

Have you ever dismissed an argument? Would you spend much time discussing a side issue that you thought had no relevance to the topic at hand?

Yes, I have. I normally try to give at least a brief explanation of why--if the argument I'm dismissing is core to their thesis, the explanation may not be all that brief.

[Validity and Invalidity, by the way, only applies to deductive arguments.]

Hey, do you get paid to get technical about logic?

Oh. You do. Boy, do I feel sheepish. :sheep:

EDITED TO ADD: And of course, they don't have a sheep smiley!

Looks to me like DJ committed a fallacy of equivocation with respect to "invalid" as used by Cup O Mystery.

Want support, DJ?
Pick out the most likely meaning intended by aCoM from the choices at the following URL:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid

Now revisit the URL and see if the one you picked was the same as the logical application that you used to upbraid aCoM.

Now tell me again how nobody has made stick the suggestion that you committed a fallacy.

Hat tip to JPH for alerting me (through a Tekton update) to the existence of this thread.

Hello, Doubting John -

If out of frustration I call someone "stupid" then I'm accused of some form of Ad Hominem, attacking the person. But I am permitted to vent, without it being an argument at all, much less being an informal fallacy. I could formulate that into an argument though, and argue that the person cannot think through a mildly complex argument, and argue that such a claim is true, without an Ad Hominem informal fallacy.

We get into real difficulty with this ad hom business.

On the one hand, it never catagorically refutes and argument when you discredit the one making the argument. On the other hand, some people make such a habit of claiming silly things that it is not generally profitable to entertain their arguments any more. So where is the line - when is attacking the man a fallacy and when isn't it?

Here are two candidates for ad hominem fallacy. My inclination is to say the first is an ad hom fallacy, and the second is not:

"Of course Senator Hatch opposes environmental legislation and a higher minimum wage. He's an attack dog for the corporate robber-barons, and we can only expect him to hold such views."

"Surely you can't believe that article about space aliens inside of president Bush's head. The National Enquirer puts out patently absurd stories like this just to profit from the gullibility of the weak-minded."

The problem is, I cannot quite put my finger on the principle that makes one an ad hom, but not the other. I am tempted to say that the characterization of Orin Hatch is an ad hom because it is in great danger of being false, and that the attack on the Enquirer is not an ad hom because it is very likely true. But I am not satisfied with this explaination, because it is possible that Senator Hatch is an attack dog of the robber-barons, and it is conceivable that aliens really are controlling the president, even if the journal reporting it is disreputable.

You seem to have given some thought to the informal fallacies - what do you think? When is an attack on the man an ad hom fallacy?

____________________

Edit to add:

Nice OP, by the way. Take some of these pearls off my hands, will ya?

Originally posted by Duder

Hello, Doubting John -
We get into real difficulty with this ad hom business.

On the one hand, it never catagorically refutes and argument when you discredit the one making the argument. On the other hand, some people make such a habit of claiming silly things that it is not generally profitable to entertain their arguments any more. So where is the line - when is attacking the man a fallacy and when isn't it?

Here are two candidates for ad hominem fallacy. My inclination is to say the first is an ad hom fallacy, and the second is not:

"Of course Senator Hatch opposes environmental legislation and a higher minimum wage. He's an attack dog for the corporate robber-barons, and we can only expect him to hold such views."

"Surely you can't believe that article about space aliens inside of president Bush's head. The National Enquirer puts out patently absurd stories like this just to profit from the gullibility of the weak-minded."

The problem is, I cannot quite put my finger on the principle that makes one an ad hom, but not the other. I am tempted to say that the characterization of Orin Hatch is an ad hom because it is in great danger of being false, and that the attack on the Enquirer is not an ad hom because it is very likely true. But I am not satisfied with this explaination, because it is possible that Senator Hatch is an attack dog of the robber-barons, and it is conceivable that aliens really are controlling the president, even if the journal reporting it is disreputable.

You seem to have given some thought to the informal fallacies - what do you think? When is an attack on the man an ad hom fallacy?

____________________

Edit to add:

Nice OP, by the way. Take some of these pearls off my hands, will ya?

Thanks a lot. I guess if you cast some pearls at me I'm not a swine.

There is a distinction between an explanation and an argument, and sometimes in the course of a conversation they are not easily to distinguish. If we try to settle whether or not some claim is true, we give an argument. If, instead, we try to explain what makes it true, then we propose an explanation. Remember this, you are offering an argument if and only if you are trying to establish that such-and-such is true. Sometimes explanations are used in arguments, but when they are used as arguments they commit informal fallacies. And whether or not some statement would be better to call an argument or an explanation depends on the context.

The statement about Hatch is an explanation, pure and simple, for what he opposes.

The aliens in Bush's head statement is probably an explanation used as an argument. The explanation offers a likely reason why one shouldn't believe the story, but it doesn't offer any specific reasons against the story except the explanation. The explanation may be all that is required, and it is some kind of evidence, but no specific reason is offered why that specific story is unbelieveable. After all, they might actually be right, even if by chance. So this would be a case in which an ad hominem argument is used that carries some evidential weight. Think about this. An informal fallacy can carry some weight! But it is ad hominem because it doesn't address that specific claim.

This only serves to highlight how difficult it is to pin down what an informal fallacy is, and what evidential weight to give it. And my point is that labelling statements as fallacies isn't enough. We must do the additional work of showing that they are fallacies, that they aren't explanations, venting, and they aren't anomalies from the other person's perspective.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Think about this. An informal fallacy can carry some weight! But it is ad hominem because it doesn't address that specific claim.

Fallacies do not carry logical weight. They may have some efficacy in persuasion, however.
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html

An attack on a person may be part of an strong inductive argument without being a fallacy. Such an argument remains an attack on the person (ad hominem) but is not fallacious.

This only serves to highlight how difficult it is to pin down what an informal fallacy is, and what evidential weight to give it. And my point is that labelling statements as fallacies isn't enough. We must do the additional work of showing that they are fallacies, that they aren't explanations, venting, and they aren't anomalies from the other person's perspective.

Most of the time it should be quite enough to identify the fallacy in play according to one of its common names. The reader may be expected to know the fallacy and note that that argument fits the pattern so identified. If the person accused of the fallacy (or some other person) protests the identification of the fallacy, then the person who identified the fallacy may wish to assume a burden of proof in providing support for his own reasoning.

It is an unreasonable distribution of the burden of proof, IMO, to expect all identifications of fallacy to be rigorously supported.
Most of the time it's pretty obvious.

Originally posted by Captain Ochre

Such an argument remains an attack on the person (ad hominem) but is not fallacious.

Well put, Ochre.

Originally posted by Captain Ochre

Fallacies do not carry logical weight. They may have some efficacy in persuasion, however.
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html

An attack on a person may be part of an strong inductive argument without being a fallacy. Such an argument remains an attack on the person (ad hominem) but is not fallacious.

I didn't say they had logical weight. Read it again.

Most of the time it should be quite enough to identify the fallacy in play according to one of its common names.

Not here on TWEB where everyone thinks they are experts in informal fallacies. But if challenged about it then one must be prepared to defend it, yes.

Originally posted by Doubting John

I didn't say they had logical weight. Read it again.

I didn't say that you said that they had logical weight. Read it again.

Your statement was ambiguous.
I provided clarification. If you agree with me, then agree with me. If you don't agree me me, then disagree with me.

Not here on TWEB where everyone thinks they are experts in informal fallacies.

Fallacy of hasty generalization?


When I point out a fallacy, I commonly provide a link to the fallacy description, enabling the reader who doesn't know the topic to reference a solid source and compare the alleged transgression to the description of the fallacy.
OTOH, my responses are typically directed primarily toward the person who wrote the post to which I am responding. I do not initially assume that my opposite is an idiot. He must provide me evidence that he requires remedial instruction.

But if challenged about it then one must be prepared to defend it, yes.

Indeed, depending on the nature of the challenge.
Some challenges might be designed primarily to sandbag the conversation by manufacturing gratuitous burdens of proof. Such challenges are best handled by placing the burden of proof back where it belongs.

DJ:

Not here on TWEB where everyone thinks they are experts in informal fallacies.

CaptainOrchre

Fallacy of hasty generalization?

Listen, this proves to me you only have a little knowledge of critical thinking, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. In the first place, you along with a lot of other people here on TWEB (vs everyone, okay?), do not exercise the principle of charity when approaching your opponent. That principle means offering the benefit of the doubt to what your opponent says. If you don't put the best possible interpretation on what they said and instead attribute to them the worst possible interpretation, you could be creating a straw man, and your opponent could simply point this out, leaving you look like a fool. You have done that with me time and time again, but I dare say you will never do that with the Bible. When it comes to the Bible you will always place on any Biblical statement the best possible interpretation so that there are no conflicts in what it says. And this, is a double standard, and an unfair critical thinking practice.

When the Bible says the word "all", as in "all the people agreed," or as in "all the people worshipped the golden calf" or some such thing as that, you will no doubt say it means many or most of them did. But when I say "everyone" when typing on the fly and not arguing on the Harvard yard, you are quick to denounce it. That's not fair, and I'll have no more to say about this.

Beyond that, in critical thinking there are things called "slanters" which are part of what is called "nonargumentative persuasion." These slanters carry emotional weight, and while they offer no reason to accept a position on an issue it slants toward that position with emotional force. And using them is what we do in the course of normal conversations. To get rid of them would be to require everyone to speak in logical, argumentative discourses.

"Slanted, or misleading language is compatible with perfectly good reasoning." Critical Thinking, Brooke Noel Moore (Mayfield, 1992). There are euphemisms, dysphemisms, persuasive comparisons, persuasive definitions, persuasive explanations, innuendos, weaslers, loaded questions, downplayers, proof surrogates, hyperboles, and exaggerations.

But the real joke is that people like you use these things yourselves and yet won't allow anyone else to do so with whom you disagree with.

Besides, a critical thinker like you should recognize the use of these things, and realize that's all they are, and this goes for the accusation of equivication earlier, too.

Again, labelling things does not usually work. You could be mislabelling them as things they were never intended to be, or you could be wrong, or they could merely be anomalies from the other person's perspective. In any case, any labelling of an argument demands that you first show that it was meant as an argument and not an explanation. Then you must use the principle of charity in understanding the context and the forum where and when it was said. Then you should be able to recognize slanters, which are for persuasion only. And after this is all done you must argue your case. But if you argue your case, then why bother labelling it as anything, since the case is in the argument, not the labelling.

That's why it's only those people who have just a little information about the informal fallacies who keep throwing those labels out. The rest of us know that labelling an argument means very little. Labelling things is for the beginner, like you and JP Holding. It only reveals how little you actually know about informal fallacies.

Originally posted by Doubting John

DJ:


CaptainOrchre


Listen, this proves to me you only have a little knowledge of critical thinking, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. In the first place, you along with a lot of other people here on TWEB (vs everyone, okay?), do not exercise the principle of charity when approaching your opponent.

Funny you should say that after ignoring the winking smiley.
What made you think I was serious other than a failure to exercise the principle of charity in reading what I wrote?

That principle means offering the benefit of the doubt to what your opponent says. If you don't put the best possible interpretation on what they said and instead attribute to them the worst possible interpretation, you could be creating a straw man, and your opponent could simply point this out, leaving you look like a fool. You have done that with me time and time again, but I dare say you will never do that with the Bible.

I daresay you can't give us an example of me failing even one time to give you the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to the Bible you will always place on any Biblical statement the best possible interpretation so that there are no conflicts in what it says. And this, is a double standard, and an unfair critical thinking practice.

I might not always know the best possible interpretation, but overall, you're correct. You're just wrong in supposing that I fail to operate consistently in that manner.

I might add that DJ's choice to respond merely to the quotation he pulled serves as a nice distraction from the portion of the post that highlights his tendency to jump to conclusions.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=13

When the Bible says the word "all", as in "all the people agreed," or as in "all the people worshipped the golden calf" or some such thing as that, you will no doubt say it means many or most of them did. But when I say "everyone" when typing on the fly and not arguing on the Harvard yard, you are quick to denounce it. That's not fair, and I'll have no more to say about this.

Not even to apologize for not reading my comment in its best possible light (taking the time to appreciate the winking smiley)?

Beyond that, in critical thinking there are things called "slanters" which are part of what is called "nonargumentative persuasion." These slanters carry emotional weight, and while they offer no reason to accept a position on an issue it slants toward that position with emotional force. And using them is what we do in the course of normal conversations. To get rid of them would be to require everyone to speak in logical, argumentative discourses.

"Slanted, or misleading language is compatible with perfectly good reasoning." Critical Thinking, Brooke Noel Moore (Mayfield, 1992). There are euphemisms, dysphemisms, persuasive comparisons, persuasive definitions, persuasive explanations, innuendos, weaslers, loaded questions, downplayers, proof surrogates, hyperboles, and exaggerations.

Any language that misleads is itself guilty of promoting fallacious thinking.
I'd like to see the quotation in context.

But the real joke is that people like you use these things yourselves and yet won't allow anyone else to do so with whom you disagree with.

For example?

Or is that burden of proof way too heavy for you to bear?

Besides, a critical thinker like you should recognize the use of these things, and realize that's all they are, and this goes for the accusation of equivication earlier, too.

Uh, you're downplaying your fallacy of equivocation by suggesting that it was a legitimate exaggeration or something along those lines?
That tack seems to be nothing more than a poor rationalization, IMO. Your comment was irrelevant to what aCoM wrote.

No one has ever pointed out a logical inconsistency with what I've argued and made it stick.

--DJ

Okay, so maybe DJ is trying to use hyperbole to make himself look good. Maybe it's not an outright lie.

aCoM:Though I am ... a bit disconcerted by some of your discussion tactics. From time to time you seem to dismiss the opposite argument without addressing it: to my mind, that seems as invalid as calling an informal fallacy without prooving the fallacy

DJ: ... Validity and Invalidity, by the way, only applies to deductive arguments.

Here, aCoM used the term "invalid" properly and unambiguously. DJ responds with the patented condescending correction that doesn't have anything to do with what aCoM was talking about, seeming to suppose that aCoM improperly used the term "invalid".
You're an idiot, DJ. You should just admit that you were a bit goofy for bringing up the supposed proper way to use valid/invalid in that context. You're puffing yourself up while trying to discredit those who reply to you, IMO--as is typical of you.

There's no reason to mention the use of "valid" in logic unless DJ himself failed to give aCoM a charitable reading, AFAICT.

Again, labelling things does not usually work. You could be mislabelling them as things they were never intended to be, or you could be wrong, or they could merely be anomalies from the other person's perspective. In any case, any labelling of an argument demands that you first show that it was meant as an argument and not an explanation.

Baloney. And you can take that as a label of your argument, if you like.
Why should your claim exempt you from the burden of proof while placing it on me?
Why isn't it, for example, the burden of the person whose argument may have been mislabeled to provide reason why the label isn't appropriate?

Then you must use the principle of charity in understanding the context and the forum where and when it was said. Then you should be able to recognize slanters, which are for persuasion only. And after this is all done you must argue your case. But if you argue your case, then why bother labelling it as anything, since the case is in the argument, not the labelling.

One may criticize the argument of another without committing to a contrary argument of one's own, AFAICT. An atheist may, if he chooses, criticize the argument of a fellow atheist who purports to demonstrate the nonexistence of god.
If the one tells the other that he has insinuated the conclusion in his premise, should the one who first advanced the argument first demand proof, or should he first consider whether or not the criticism is valid (don't give me any more baloney about "valid" and "invalid" only applying to particular types of arguments)?

That's why it's only those people who have just a little information about the informal fallacies who keep throwing those labels out. The rest of us know that labelling an argument means very little. Labelling things is for the beginner, like you and JP Holding. It only reveals how little you actually know about informal fallacies.

Non sequitur (if X responds to an argument by simply labeling it according to the fallacy it exhibits, then X understands little about informal fallacies).
http://members.aol.com/wutsamada2/crithink/accident.htm

More of the same from DJ.

It seems to me that commission of (informal) logical fallacies would be a more reliable indicator of whether or not a person has a good understanding of the informal fallacies.