I was lucky enough to study this particular topic at the undergraduate level and then again in Law School. If you've not yet had the chance to study this topic, I would commend it to you as something worthy of your time.
I propose Jason's rather interesting post in response to my warning as an excellent example one can use to compare and contrast against a plethera of fallacy examples.
His post is here:
http://www.blacksmagicgroup.com/foru...?p=487#post487
We've left it as a perfect example of multiple violations of our Rules at this forum.
If you'd like to learn more about fallacies, I'd suggest checking out this URL:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
The basics, which I've copied here from that site as an example are:
Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
I'll start out the thread by addressing a single point of interest in Jason's post; you are encouraged to look through it and find our own examples for discussion. If you participate, you should only address the text that has been posted. And I'll be the first to admitt that I also make fallacy arguments on occasion, nobody is perfect. But his post has excellent examples, so let's limit your discussions to that and not head off in other directions or inflate this excercise. My point is, this should not turn into a bash session, but rather an opportunity to learn and share.
My example:
Jason posted, "[Y]ou strike me as a bully; and Bullies are usually cowards. Are you a coward Mr Clark? Are you able to acknowledge that your reaction to my question was, perhaps, a trifle excessive?
At a min, this is (along with much of the post) a Red Herring.
You can read it here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html
In terms of debate though, nither is true in response to the specific question as it is designed to construct an "if then" argument, which doesn't apply to my motivation or direction. Look up the law of detatchment. Or you may want to examine modus ponens and/or the modus tollens premise. Personally, I'd qualify this as a non sequitur.
But if we're going to address the question of cowardice, let's look at the definitions:
Bully: blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.
Coward: a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
Firstly, since I own this URL and the forum, I am the de facto authority here. While that authority is also given to MODs, ultimately the responsiblity lands on my shoulders and I will act within the best interests of our company's strategic goals. But saying something like that is much like a child calling his father a bully simply because he doesn't agree with a decision made. By enforcing rules or calling a post to account does not qualify the antecedental premise anymore than it would if I pointed out that gravity exists.
Further, if indeed I badgered, then that is what it would be. But given that there was but one reference and therefore no continuation (ie., multiple accounts of this event), it disqualifies the habitual reference in the defintion. The argument or point of reference therefore fails.
As to cowardice, given that the antecedente appears to have failed, it is moot to me. Frankly, I see no reason to labor a point or attempt to prove a negative. Arguing against something I know to be salacious in nature is a waste of my time.
Logical Fallacies
Linear Mode
