[eeeeaaii]

I have to say this.

I was getting annoyed at the oversimplified, vague, and/or unclear explanations on the poster. It's great to have a poster cataloging logical fallacies, but it's not so great if it doesn't actually explain them very well.

So I go to the home page of the site, where the first sentence reads:

"A logical fallacy is usually what has happened when someone is wrong about something."

FACEPALM.

The validity of a logical argument has NOTHING to do with the actual veracity (rightness or wrongness) of the propositions. This is basic stuff. Logic is the process of figure out what other things we know based on what we already know. If what we think we know is wrong, then we can make all the logically correct arguments we want and we'll still be drawing wrong conclusions.

[bunderbunder]

And, on the other side of the coin, I fear it encourages folks to fall victim to the 'fallacy fallacy': Thinking that the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument implies that its thesis is incorrect.

On a completely different coin, nobody ever won an argument by treating it as a game of Spot the Logical Fallacy. All you'll win playing that game is a reputation for being insufferable.

[repsilat]

> the 'fallacy fallacy': Thinking that the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument implies that its thesis is incorrect.

It's worse than that. Paying too much attention to rigour and the mathematical validity of arguments unduly privileges strict logical argumentation over "traditional" informal argumentation.

Outside of technical areas there are almost no arguments amenable to pure logical argumentation. Think about it - why would you be arguing over something that can be mechanically deduced with certainty? In most circumstances logical syllogisms and the like are used only as "glue" to hold the real argument together.

We should recognise that arguments using these "fallacies" don't have absolute persuasive power, but we shouldn't go so far as to say that they can have no persuasive power at all.

[jiggy2011]

I think pointing out a fallacy can sometimes be a good defense against somebody who is insisting that something is a mechanical certainty when it is not.

[bunderbunder]

Yes. But more often's the case that the fearless fallacy hunter fallaciously finds fallibility by fantasizing formality or finality.

Thereby committing a fallacy himself in the form of a straw man.

[jiggy2011]

I see what you did there , I think I'm going to use that.

[jiggy2011]

That is true, but I think it is good to educate people to spot common mistakes that are made during arguments.

For example I often see people winning casual arguments by overusing emotive language , belittling the opinion of their opponent or by misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what they are saying.

[JesseR]

Hello, I created this site. The qualifier of 'usually' means that there's not actually a fallacy being committed, rather a very generic statement about how fallacious reasoning is usually at play when people are wrong (which is certainly true).

You're right that the logical coherence of an argument doesn't have any intrinsic bearing upon the proposition that it supports being either true or false, but this does not invalidate the point that when people are wrong, they're more often than not guilty of committing fallacies in both their reasoning and their defence of their point.

Also, the idea of the site is to be very simple rather than comprehensive. Preaching to the choir is all good and well, but I'm more interested in spreading knowledge to children and people who haven't been exposed to or understood these concepts previously (however many uber nerds have emailed me saying that they've enjoyed it and hung the poster up).

From the FAQ section: The point of the site is to make common logical fallacies easily understood, so listing every single one isn't really what it's about. If you want to learn more about logical fallacies check out this comprehensive interactive list of all the formal and informal fallacies.

[Domenic_S]

> when people are wrong, they're more often than not guilty of committing fallacies in both their reasoning and their defence of their point.

Hasty generalization :)

I have found that when people are wrong, it's usually because they are incorrect about the facts that they're basing their argument on.

[eeeeaaii]

Sorry to harsh on the site, I realize it's your creation that you've put time and effort into, and I'm just some random guy killing time on the internet.

That said, I will say that the poster explanations were frustrating for me. I've studied formal logic via computer science, but not enough argumentation or philosophical logic -- so some of these fallacies were new to me. For example "no true scotsman" -- but the explanation did nothing to help me understand it. I'm type of person who learns by example, but your examples are so cutesy and weird that I can't actually relate them back to anything useful. Something about sugar in porridge? What I want is to be able to recognize these when I see them, but I'm just not getting it from your explanation. Real-world examples would be MUCH better.

Part of why I'm frustrated is I've been wishing for a resource like this for a long time -- someone who really understands argumentation, clearly and simply explaining logical fallacies, with real-world examples. I've read about "straw man" repeatedly, over and over -- definition after definition -- and I still am not confident that I could identify it if I saw it. Very frustrating. Feels like a lost opportunity. Maybe it's working for others, not me though. sorry

[JesseR]

No stress - my personal philosophy is about being receptive to being wrong, so I more than welcome constructive criticism. If you could email me via the site with which examples or explanations weren't working for you I'll certainly consider your feedback during the next round of changes.

[jonah]

Maybe you could help improve the site by proposing some new examples to Jesse. :)

[Drbble]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[rprospero]

The unclear explanation also disturbing considering that the abuse of logical fallacies has almost become an internet meme. The No True Scotsman fallacy seems particularly popular in this regard.

I've noticed a common trend in arguments of the following sort:

A: No Communist dictatorship has ever had long term economic prosperity. B: What about the United States? It's had incredible economic growth for over a hundred years. A: The United Sates isn't an communist dictatorship. B: That's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[jiggy2011]

I think it's impossible to have a rational argument with many Americans if you use the word "communism" anywhere.

[repsilat]

You have to be doubly careful with communism - McCarthyism and the "Red Scare" were clearly a little much, but the trendy counter-reaction tends to be at odds with history. The US government was infiltrated by actual communist spies (to the extent that they practically ran the State Department in the '50s), and it's hard to argue with the hundred million or so it killed in the 20th century. It's easy to say that there have been no properly realised communist societies/states, but an honest account has to hold the idea responsible for the ubiquitous oppression and murder committed by regimes attempting to create them.

I won't argue that the Americans you talked to can give a reasoned condemnation of communism, but with its historical baggage the burden tends to swing the other way. It's hard to have a rational argument with a lot of people about Nazism, but it's hard to criticise people for trusting that it's not for them.

[mccoyst]

"The validity of a logical argument has NOTHING to do with the actual veracity (rightness or wrongness) of the propositions."

This is on the poster.

[Domenic_S]

Agree. It's like 40,000 freshmen took Intro to Logic classes lately on the internet. If I hear one more person throw out No True Scotsman...

On a more constructive note, it seems to me that discussions of fallacies are nearly useless without first talking about deductive/inductive logic, validity & soundness, strong/weak and cogency.