Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 13:43:39 GMT -5
I've been meaning to start a thread like this for a while -- a list of argument fallacies and general guidelines for productive, civil arguments.
What I post today will NOT be a final list or anything like it -- I simply don't have the time to draft one right now! Rather, this is a quick and dirty start to what will be a work in progress. I will be adding both fallacies and links to further information about the fallacies. Also, I'm hoping you all will contribute to the guidelines in this thread (WITHOUT any accusations of forum members, please). Citations that provide examples and descriptions of the fallacies you bring up would be useful and much appreciated. I may re-order and edit these as time goes on, too.
While Rob and I don't plan to go around blowing mod whistles every time someone commits one of these fallacies, we would like to encourage everyone to avoid them. You may also feel free to point them out when others use them in their arguments. Indeed, I encourage you to do so, if you can do it civilly, attacking the poor argument rather than the person.
So, a start (in no particular order):
Argument tactics/fallacies to avoid:
-- Strawman arguments: purporting to refute your opponent's argument, while in fact refuting an argument your opponent did not make.
-- Anecdotal fallacies: citing an isolated example or two, and extrapolating a conclusion from them without providing statistical evidence that there are enough such cases to form compelling evidence of the conclusion's validity.
-- Appeal to probability: a statement that takes something for granted because it might be the case.
-- Moving the goalposts: dismissing evidence presented to support a claim; instead some other argument is put forward and greater evidence demanded to support that new argument.
-- Assuming the conclusion: when an argument begins with the conclusion the argument is attempting to prove.
-- Argument from silence: where a conclusion is based on the absence rather than the existence of evidence.
-- Appeal to ignorance: assuming an argument must be true because it has not been or cannot be proven false.
-- Proof by assertion: a claim is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
-- Special pleading: citing something as an exception to a generally accepted principle without justifying the exemption
-- Cherry-picking: citing individual cases that might seem to support an assertion, while ignoring those that might contradict it.
-- no true Scotsman fallacy: an attempt to protect a generalization about a group by changing the definition to exclude counterexamples -- "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who would do such a thing are not part of that group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.
-- Argumentum ad hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid because of something about the person making it that argument, not because of anything about the argument itself.
-- Shifting the burden of proof: asserting that one need not support one's own argument; rather, others must disprove it.
-- Red herring: an irrelevant point in response to an argument, made to distract attention from the original argument.
-- Appeal to emotion: an argument made to manipulate emotions rather than appeal to reason.
What I post today will NOT be a final list or anything like it -- I simply don't have the time to draft one right now! Rather, this is a quick and dirty start to what will be a work in progress. I will be adding both fallacies and links to further information about the fallacies. Also, I'm hoping you all will contribute to the guidelines in this thread (WITHOUT any accusations of forum members, please). Citations that provide examples and descriptions of the fallacies you bring up would be useful and much appreciated. I may re-order and edit these as time goes on, too.
While Rob and I don't plan to go around blowing mod whistles every time someone commits one of these fallacies, we would like to encourage everyone to avoid them. You may also feel free to point them out when others use them in their arguments. Indeed, I encourage you to do so, if you can do it civilly, attacking the poor argument rather than the person.
So, a start (in no particular order):
Argument tactics/fallacies to avoid:
-- Strawman arguments: purporting to refute your opponent's argument, while in fact refuting an argument your opponent did not make.
-- Anecdotal fallacies: citing an isolated example or two, and extrapolating a conclusion from them without providing statistical evidence that there are enough such cases to form compelling evidence of the conclusion's validity.
-- Appeal to probability: a statement that takes something for granted because it might be the case.
-- Moving the goalposts: dismissing evidence presented to support a claim; instead some other argument is put forward and greater evidence demanded to support that new argument.
-- Assuming the conclusion: when an argument begins with the conclusion the argument is attempting to prove.
-- Argument from silence: where a conclusion is based on the absence rather than the existence of evidence.
-- Appeal to ignorance: assuming an argument must be true because it has not been or cannot be proven false.
-- Proof by assertion: a claim is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
-- Special pleading: citing something as an exception to a generally accepted principle without justifying the exemption
-- Cherry-picking: citing individual cases that might seem to support an assertion, while ignoring those that might contradict it.
-- no true Scotsman fallacy: an attempt to protect a generalization about a group by changing the definition to exclude counterexamples -- "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who would do such a thing are not part of that group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.
-- Argumentum ad hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid because of something about the person making it that argument, not because of anything about the argument itself.
-- Shifting the burden of proof: asserting that one need not support one's own argument; rather, others must disprove it.
-- Red herring: an irrelevant point in response to an argument, made to distract attention from the original argument.
-- Appeal to emotion: an argument made to manipulate emotions rather than appeal to reason.