Talk:List of fallacies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] altered wording(won to made)
i have altered the wording of some of the descriptions. saying that an arguement is "arguement won by", simply contradicts the concept of logical fallacies. changing them to say "arguement made by" seems a little more inline with the concepts of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.33.214 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "subtle" religious fallacies
In Aristotelian fallacies -> Material fallacies
This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation.
1. Here, "subtly" is a pejorative word, implying deliberate deceipt. I'm deleteing it.
2. Please give a referenced example of your case.
3. My own knowledge of ethical and religous arguments which use fear of punishment is that they use fear of punishment as one reason. among others, for the conclusion. However, I'm not arguing this in the article. Someone has made the contrary assertion in the article (ie. that ethical or religious arguments for moral obligation do substiture fear of punishment for abstract right), so please provide evidence.
202.20.20.129 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No answer? I've deleted it.
Javaman59 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Everyone's entitled to their opinion"?
This is a logical fallacy (nobody is entitled to an opinion which they're not competent to hold, e.g. how to proceed with delicate brain surgery (if they're not surgically qualified), and, by law in many countries, nobody is entitled to a false and damaging opinion, the expression of which is slander or libel according to how it is done); but what is the name and exact nature of this fallacy? 193.122.47.170 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Good question! (sorry, i don't know the answer) Javaman59 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like an Appeal to Emotion or maybe Wishful Thinking. The premise is assumed that everyone's opinion is equally-valid and therefore equal. To me, it sounds like something people _want_ to believe, even if it wasn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.209.144.224 (talk) 13:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Format
Would this not be better suited to being a category, rather than a list? 88.108.191.83 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cat Tail's Fallacy
I'm not sure what kind of fallacy this is:
A cat has a tail more than no cat No cat has two tails Therefore, a cat has three tails.
In this fallacy "no cat" is treated like a variable, maiking:
x=(x-x)+1
x=/=2
Into:
x=y+1
y=2
x=3
-
- Equivocation -- of "no cat." Gregbard 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Following the article, that appears to be a general example of a verbal fallacy. Specifically, one of equivocation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.209.144.224 (talk) 13:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History of specific fallacies
Would it be at all helpful to the topic of fallacies to mention a brief history of when specific fallacies were identified ? For instance Reductio ad Hitlerum would obviously have been identified after, say, Ignoratio elenchi, which were mentioned by Aristotle. Presumably what could be identified would be when the term itself was but into use, as well as how far back examples of certain fallacies were recognised as logically invalid, even if not identified by there modern name.74.67.115.198 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fallacies list is horrible.
Example 1: Material Fallacy James argues: Cheese is food. Food is delicious. Therefore, cheese is delicious.
This is NOT a fallacy. If cheese is X and X is Y then Cheese is Y. Let me restate this "fallacy" with the definition of the word "food" as a substitute.
Cheese is an edible substance which is used to provide organisms with energy. Edible substances which are used to provide organisms with energy are delicious. Therefore Cheese is delicious. Am I wrong? 86.62.250.3 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why use this example?
The military uniform is a symbol of national strength and honor.
You telling me that Wikipedia can't find a better example of a media/political fallacy?
How about, "I've never had sex with that woman."
So much for liberals supporting the troops. Make sure you wipe my edit before someone reads it.
[edit] Constructivist fallacy
I don't see the constructivist fallacy listed anywhere, either on your formal or informal lists. I don't know about the formal logic of fallacies, but if Wikipedia is an attempt to be encyclopedic, this fallacy definitely deserves a mention. F. A Hayek, who by any measure was a very significant social theorist in the 20th century, identified this fallacy explicitly. Perhaps the best and most direct approach to it is in vol. 1 of his Law, Legislation and Liberty : Rules and Order, published in 1973. Most of chapter one (Reason and Evolution) is his argument that rational constructivism is provably false. He mentions the term "constructivist fallacy" on pp 24-25, among others. I don't have time to fix the Wikipedia article, but did want to note it for any editor (of fallacy scholar) to add in when the time is right. It really is a fallacy that should be mentioned in a list of this type. N2e 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spring Winter cleaning
I've done my best to consolidate the two-and-a-half lists that were bunched together, and organize them in a meaningful fashion. It ended up being a lot harder than I expected (party due to my limited expertise), and I'm sure I made some mistakes in categorization. Please review the categorization, and don't hesitate to chance something you suspect is incorrect. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] note
This article Moving the goalpost should be linked somewhere into this article; I have no idea where :)
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it's already there as moving back the goalpost. I'll change the link the bypass the redirect. Cheers, — xDanielx T/C\R 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Think we should add a redirect also? JaakobouChalk Talk 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Closed world assumption
I have just found the article Closed world assumption, and this list seems not to have a link to it. Someone qualiified can add a statement with a link to it in the correct section. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be somewhat hesitant to classify it as a fallacy since, as a general presumption, it's not inherently fallacious. One could say that a closed world assumption is valid in such and such a context, if enough information is known (all nodes in a system are identified or what not) to justify that assumption.
- Perhaps we could include it but list it as "Closed world fallacy"? I know it's not a term of art, but I think it may be slightly more proper -- an implicit qualification of sorts.
- And perhaps it could go under argument from ignorance? I think it fits nicely as a child thereof. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ignoratio elenchi, formal or informal?
This article lists Ignoratio elenchi as a formal fallacy, but the atricle for Ignoratio elenchi states that it is a informal fallacy. TLAKABM (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Asteraz fallacy
I can't find a reference or a history of the Asteraz fallacy. Ever instance of it on Google is dated after it was added here. Asteraz is possibly a misspelling or worse a fabrication. If it is a fabrication, is it really a bad thing? New terms are coined all the time, and this one is useful. -- BlindWanderer (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
