[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