Fallacies...

Lately I've heard too many people trying to avoid thinking. The purpose of debate/argument is not to destroy the other person, or to be right, but to discover what is right and to open our minds. You should recognize and acknowledge your feeling, but put them aside for the purpose of discussion. If you are able to discuss ideas you will learn, and the people you are talking to will also benefit even if their thought proves wrong. This is basic humility, don't take offense when you're wrong. In all fairness I must admit I was wrong once before to so I know where you're coming from. :)

As a way to foster discussion and to enable us to not be sidetracked I present a list of the logical fallacies. These are commonly used and most of them can be stopped just by pointing them out. When all parties see the fallacy it falls away. (Satan's lies look pathetic when you have the Holy Ghost with you.)

An incomplete list of logical fallacies:

ad antiquitatem (appealing to tradition). This is the familiar "it's always been done that way." That may be true, but that fact does not justify its continuance.

ad hominem (personal attacks). Calling Barack Obama a communist may be true, but it doesn't make his idea wrong. This fallacy is used to engender suspicion of the person and distract from the actual idea. This is also used to discount an idea due to personal bias for example white people arguing against affirmative action, rich people arguing for lower taxes, etc. Remember you're trying to figure out if the arguement or idea is valid not the person.

ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). Assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false. For example "chiropractic can cause stroke." Lately this claim has been made by a certain group who is against chiropractic. The reality is that the risk is so small that it is too small to study and disprove. Until chiropractors can get a double blind case study with tens of millions of people their enemies will continue to use this. They will simply say prove that it doesn't. The same thing goes for Obama's "save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs." No one will ever be able to prove that he didn't save those jobs. No one will ever know if this economy got better or worse because of his policies because we can't see how it would have been. He can go on claiming that it would have been much worse without him because it can't be proved. To combat these you simply point them out.

ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). We have to pass cap and trade or "Our children's children won't have a world to play in." You may have noticed that every single bill put forth has an emotional plea to save the poor, the elderly, the children, the helpless. It's a distraction. It might affect helpless people, that's good to know, but that doesn't make the bill good or the idea true. Fight the fallacy. Point it out.

ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). No matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. "But, I want a cookie" comes to mind. Even if it's true repeating it over and over doesn't make it a good argument. If you want a cookie tell me why you should get one.

ad populum (argument to the public). Everyone else is doing it!

ad verecundiam (to authority). This is used in the news all the time. They put someone on the screen for a few seconds who has a title of doctor or professor. They ignore the fact that he's a doctor of medicine and doesn't know anything about chiropractic. It's like quoting celebrities political views. They're famous so they must be right. It of course does not mean they are wrong. A celebrity may have a very well thought out political message, but your job is to measure the message not the messenger.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular arguments can be hard to spot especially with politicians as they speak a lot. They speak so much that by the time they get back to use their original argument as justification supporting that very same arguement you've already forgotten that they used it.

Complex question. "Why did Sarah Palin resign in the face of so many major allegations?" "Have you stopped beating your wife?" They are getting a dig in, in the form of a question. It forces you to answer more than one question and makes you look like you're avoiding the subject. You'll also see politicians and news people asking questions that have to be answered in stages. You have to address the false claim, by pointing it out. Then you don't even have to answer the question because you defeated the purpose of it.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). Correlation does not equal causation. The chiropractic stroke is an example of this. "People who go to a chiropractor have a stroke, so the chiropractor must have caused it" The reality is that people having a stroke go to a chiropractor because of their headache and neck pain he didn't give them the stroke, but treated the symptoms. Or if the economy comes roaring back during Obama's term he will be heralded as a great econimist even though he may have made things worse and the economy overcame them anyway.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). Stereotyping! When you're the one in a million, statistics don't matter in the slightest.

Appeal toNature. Poison Ivy is all natural, I still don't want it in my shampoo. People who use herbs for healthcare often argue that it's all natural. Everything on this earth exists in nature. The human animal has developed computers, they are natural then. Those who argue that we should save the baby seals are also the ones that we should teach survival of the fittest in school (see if you can find what falacy I'm using there). Now just because it happens in nature doesn't make it a good idea per se.

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." What?! You skipped at least one step and leaped to a conclusion with that. The wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support such as, affirmative action would reduce racism. Now we have a real debate.

Petitio principii (begging the question). Example: "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't be banned," Don't get me started.

Red herring. This is the most obvious distraction. Also called a wild goose chase.

Slippery slope. I used this one with the legalization of gay marriage. It's not always a fallacy. A slippery slope implies that you can't stop yourself from going that direction once you start. I said that gay marriage can open the way for human animal marriage, child adult marriage, and any other kind of union you'd like to make. That may be true it may open the way, but gay marriage consists of two consenting people of legal age to make contracts. A dog cannot make contracts. This is not entirely a fallacy, but can be used to distract and appeal to emotion.

The Straw man. I use this one often. It's not always false, and is a great way to step back and see the big picture. You can use it by drawing a picture of what the other person is saying in a way that allows them to see through your eyes. When it becomes false is when all you use are the worst parts of their argument and don't show an accurate picture, but instead a bloated negative view of their idea with your own fallacies slipped in. A straw man that we may all be familiar with is that, "Mormons are not Christians." They build up that argument using their beliefs and not ours and often times not even the audience. They do it because once they can get people to believe that then they can easily knock down the idea of mormonism.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is one I use too often with my wife. I try to use it only to bring perspective to the discussion, but sometimes end up using it for less honorable purposes. It's a distraction. No matter how many people choose poorly it doesn't make your choice good.

So... now you know. Don't be bullied by the press, politicians, talk radio hosts, or your friends like me. :)