The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.org/

For your reference
https://gladerebooted.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9748
Page 1 of 1

Author:  DFK! [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  For your reference

Mod/Admin, feel free to sticky.


Whenever you feel like a poster, the media, or anybody else is failing to use their logic, critical thinking, and rhetorical skills properly, come use this handy guide.

Spoilered for size.

Spoiler:
Image

Author:  Lenas [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For your reference

Also,

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Author:  Corolinth [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

And now, with that handy chart, you can disprove every argument in the history of mankind by pointing to a logical fallacy.

Author:  darksiege [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Corolinth wrote:
And now, with that handy chart, you can disprove every argument in the history of mankind by pointing to a logical fallacy.



That will at least be better than looking at a thread and going "Nu-uh!"

Author:  DFK! [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Corolinth wrote:
And now, with that handy chart, you can disprove every argument in the history of mankind by pointing to a logical fallacy.


Often true. Sadly we don't use logic well.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Including the makers of that chart. While their definitions are correct, some of their examples are horrendously bad.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

I figured that was on purpose, DE.

Author:  Kindralas [ Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Not to mention, putting such information in a giant image that no one can effectively read.

Author:  Talya [ Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Logical Fallacies are useful to know, but not all are meant for every situation.

If we're discussing physics, and I decide an actual physicist is likely to be correct while Lenas the web-designer is likely to be wrong, solely because of credentials, while this is an appeal to authority, it is simply playing the odds. Subject matter experts arguments count for more than those in other fields. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is there for when academic types who actually have the understanding of the subject matter argue things, to prevent them from falling back on those who have gone before, and examine an issue anew.

Similarly, "Appeal to probability."
If something is 99.999999% likely to have happened, lacking any other specific evidence to the contrary, it is best to assume it has happened, while still recognizing the slim possibility that it has not. The odds actually do matter.

There are a bunch of fallacies on that chart that are similarly problematic for a regular discussion.

Author:  Corolinth [ Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For your reference

The logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy. It is important to recognize that logical fallacies do not exist for the uneducated, unwashed masses discussing stuff they don't know much about. For instance, the appeal to authority does not exist so that Talya can cite Richard Feynman, and Diamondeye can say, "Nuh uh! That's an appeal to authority." Rather, it exists for when Richard Owen attempted to cite his own authority as a member of the Royal Society Council to argue against his opponents.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Talya wrote:
Logical Fallacies are useful to know, but not all are meant for every situation.

If we're discussing physics, and I decide an actual physicist is likely to be correct while Lenas the web-designer is likely to be wrong, solely because of credentials, while this is an appeal to authority, it is simply playing the odds. Subject matter experts arguments count for more than those in other fields. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is there for when academic types who actually have the understanding of the subject matter argue things, to prevent them from falling back on those who have gone before, and examine an issue anew.

An Appeal to Authority is only a logical fallacy when the person in question isn't really an authority, or when the insistence that the "authority's" conclusion must be true based solely on the credentials of said person.

Talya wrote:
Similarly, "Appeal to probability."
If something is 99.999999% likely to have happened, lacking any other specific evidence to the contrary, it is best to assume it has happened, while still recognizing the slim possibility that it has not. The odds actually do matter.

There are a bunch of fallacies on that chart that are similarly problematic for a regular discussion.


Similarly, an appeal to probability is only a logical fallacy when there is insistence that the probable event will, or must, occur based on the probability alone.

Author:  Amanar [ Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

Some of these are a little weird.

Lying is not really a logical fallacy, but I guess I can see why it was included.

Their description of "appeal to ridicule" describes a logical argument.

And "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right?" How the hell is that a logical fallacy? That logical fallacy sounds to me like an appeal to popular belief. =P

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/