Category talk:Logical 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. | ||||||||
| Category | This article has been rated as Cat-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Fan death
Hi,
I suggest that "fan death" be removed from this list, as it is not a type of logical fallacy, but rather an instance (and a stretch at that).
Whoever compiled this list, its awesome and ive never seen anything like it! Is this all in some book somewhere or am I going to have to print each of these out on my own?? anyways, thanks for the compilations!
[edit] Doublethink
Doublethink is a type of logical fallacy if anyone complains remove it--Acebrock 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- alright how do i add it?--Acebrock 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subcategories
As this category has grown so very large, I recommend creating a number of subcategories and moving many of the entries into them. For example:
I think this would help the organization a great deal, and would also make the meaning and relationship of many of the fallacies clearer to people who are just learning about them. The names on their own can be very ambiguous, and a categorization scheme is the ideal way to resolve this, as it makes it possible to cross-reference fallacies in multiple categories (for example, we could put converse accident into Category:Deductive fallacies, Category:Faulty generalizations, Category:Informal fallacies, and Category:Syllogistic fallacies). -Silence 14:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, you've done nice work and I'm not going to undo anything, but I wonder if things are now over-categorized? In particular for somebody who may just want to browse through a simple list of logical fallacies? Perhaps a new article, List of logical fallacies is in order (the existing article is a redirect to Fallacy) ? -- MisterHand 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that's exactly what I was going to suggest as the next step in improving Wikipedia's coverage of fallacies. :) Listing them all in a single category is inefficient, anyway, for two reasons. First, it makes it impossible to list common spelling variants, so a user who only knows of the fallacy "bandwagon fallacy" will not be able to find out, from the category listing alone, that we have an article on this fallacy at all. A list can fix that pretty easily, directing users (as a text search would) to argumentum ad populum. Second, a simple category listing can't include any details about the fallacy except its name, making it pretty useless to anyone who isn't already familiar with all the fallacies present. A list, on the other hand (as shown by pages like List of Latin phrases and Etruscan mythology), can provide a brief description of the fallacy (and perhaps even a simple example, since I think examples can be hugely helpful in grounding the meaning of fallacies), all while remaining very simple and easy to navigate. This would also allow us to provide information on fallacies which aren't complex enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, but are noteworthy enough to merit mentioning: we can simply include them on the list without a link to a daughter article for more information.
- Anyway, yeah, I agree on the list. But don't think that I've already finished with creating daughter articles. :) I plan to create many more, the ones above are just an example. -Silence 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
