Correcting Truthers on logical fallacies

[-hp-]

argumentum ad no-claimerum?

1. Person A implies position X.
2. Person B attacks position X.
3. Person A states he never claimed X
4. Therefore Person B has attacked a strawman
5: X++; Goto 1.

Isn't that kinda moving the goalposts?

 

[Travis]

Isn't that kinda moving the goalposts?

Sorta. Moving the goalposts is more about the addition of conditions to previously established evidence.

1. Person A asks for proof of X to disprove claim
2. Person B provides proof of X
3. Person A now asks instead for X+Y to disprove claim, often claiming, falsely, they asked for it originally
4. Person B provides proof of X+Y
5. Person A now asks for proof of X+Y¹⁴ to disprove claim

....and so on.

 

[cludgie]

'False Flag' could also use clarifying. I've heard alot of CT nutters describe the USS Liberty incident as a 'False Flag' despite the fact there was never any attempt made to pass off the attacking forces as any other nationality than Israeli.

 

[RedIbis]

nuh uh I succeeded on my Will save. Possession attempt failed.

Now I cast Magic Missile at you.

Please keep your magic missile to yourself.

 

[Tweeter]

No, my mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
I know changes arent permanent,
But change is.

 

[DGM]

No, my mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
I know changes arent permanent,
But change is.

"Tom Sawyer" Rush, 1981. Do I win?

 

[Tweeter]

Wrong, those are my own words.
Must of been a coincidence.

 

[Good Lt]

No, my mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
I know changes arent permanent,
But change is.

I think that was an attempt at irony, but it could more appropriately be classified as a prophetic vision of the end of the Troof movement.

Any day now, that 9-11 Kangaroo court / star chamber you've been screeching for will begin. The changes are coming, and it will be permanent.

 

[DGM]

Wrong, those are my own words.
Must of been a coincidence.

Advise; Don't try to publish them.

 

[nicepants]

A few more to take note of

To add to your list

Circular reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments and conclusions (a proof or series of proofs), one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion

What it is NOT (Take note, Craig):

Applying the same logic to all evidence equally, for example:
CIT claim: eyewitnesses corroborate NOC, therefore they must be correct
Applying this logic to all evidence: The eyewitnesses also corroborate impact, therefore they must be correct

Confirmation Bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.

What it is NOT (Take note, CIT):

Concluding that the flyover theory is absolute nonsense based on the available evidence.

Craig is probably the worst offender I've seen. Prior to my ban I pointed out his frequently-used confirmation bias, and he began using that as part of his vocabulary in nearly every other subsequent post, albeit incorrectly.

 

[Cuddles]

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Now of course, "irrelevant." So the following are not ad hominems:

Several if not most of the Twoofers are mentally ill, as such their theories are worthless.

CIT has absolutely no experience whatsoever, and in fact appear to be dumber than a sack full of hammers, therefore their theory is worthless.

and so on. . . .

Actually, those are pretty much classic examples of ad hominems. The fact that someone is mentally ill does not necessarily mean their theories are worthless. From a logical perspective, a person's mental state is utterly irrelevant, all that matters is the validity of the arguments.

Of course, logic can't cover everything. If someone has been wrong many times before and appears mentally ill, you could be justified in assuming that any argument they make will be flawed, but from a logical standpoint it would still be a fallacy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

This is a good start. You could add affirming the consequent, Texas Sharpshooter, No True Scotsman, argumentum ad populum, tu quoque... the list goes on and on.

I'll try - I just took logic 101 and I'm trying to keep in pratice

Affirming the Consequent

A more formal flaw in logic, it takes the form of
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

This is false simply because P can be false and Q true. A good example is:

If someone threw up then the cafeteria floor is wet.
The cafeteria floor is wet.
Therefore someone threw up.

Now what if the had a wet floor as part of their cleaning? You'd conclude, erroneously, it's because someone threw up.

Texas Sharpshooter

This is a fallacy that presumes a cluster of some result B from a data set has a cause. However, it can have many different causes, and jumping to the cause you want without investigating it if actually has a cause.

Or, as from the source:

1. The cluster may well be the result of chance, in which case it was not caused by anything.
2. Even if the cluster is not the result of chance, there are other possible reasons for the clustering, other than the cause chosen. For instance, in the Example, if disease D is contagious, it may be clustering around some person who carried it into the city

(source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html )

No True Scotsman

A simpler one. This takes the form of "No True X does Y."

It's an generalization fallacy, because it both begs the question. "You do Y?" and redefines the word "X"

Tu Quoque

It's a fallacy that attempts to shift the burden of defense by saying "Well you do it too!" It's fallacious because it doesn't answer the issue or problem you have.

Argument to the Populace

The populace can be wrong. Seriosuly. Most of the time, saying that 95% of X thinks Y is true means nothing if Y isn't true.

There are other variations on this, but this is the major use of it.

 

[The Doc]

Nice thread idea

As one of the above posters said, I think they use these terms because they are rightfully called out for being guilty of them and simply throw the term back at you without knowing what it means properly.

I guess they think calling an insult an "ad hominem" makes them sound smart or something.

 

[Travis]

'False Flag' could also use clarifying. I've heard alot of CT nutters describe the USS Liberty incident as a 'False Flag' despite the fact there was never any attempt made to pass off the attacking forces as any other nationality than Israeli.

The overuse of the term "false flag" isn't really a logical fallacy in and of itself except as a weak form of argumentum ad nauseam. Declaring things that aren't "false flags" as "false flags" just shows their prejudice and ignorance of history. Thinking that the non-use of a false flag plan in the past--Operation Northwoods--proves the actual use of one in the present is a fallacy, on several levels.

 

[Minadin]

No, my mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
I know changes arent permanent,
But change is.

"Tom Sawyer" Rush, 1981. Do I win?

Wrong, those are my own words.
Must of been a coincidence.

Advise; Don't try to publish them.

Indeed, Tweeter is a liar.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rush/tom+sawyer_20120001.html

Welcome to ignore, Tweeter. Apparently you do not have anything to contribute to the discussion but mindless and unoriginal trolling and contrariness. I'll tolerate people who I disagree with and all manners of woo, but I won't abide people who knowingly make false statements for kicks. At least you belong in the Truth Movement.

 

[Travis]

Indeed, Tweeter is a liar.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rush/tom+sawyer_20120001.html

Welcome to ignore, Tweeter. Apparently you do not have anything to contribute to the discussion but mindless and unoriginal trolling and contrariness. I'll tolerate people who I disagree with and all manners of woo, but I won't abide people who knowingly make false statements for kicks. At least you belong in the Truth Movement.

That is rather pathetic......by Truther standards even. Guess he was counting on us "intellectual nerdy folk" not knowing anything about Rush.

 

[Hokulele]

All hail Geddy Lee, new prophet of the Truth Movement.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Another of which conspiracists are particularly fond:

Begging the question^WP:

Fowler's Modern English Usage . . . states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself."

Here's a good example from a debate a couple of years ago on BAUTforum between turbonium and Jay Windley. turbonium's comments are in bold; Jay's responses are in plain text. I've included the beginning of Jay's post for context.

We know for a fact that all the outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated within minutes after the hit.

Securing evidence promptly pending a criminal investigation is normal. You simply insist without evidence that it must be for some other purpose. Affirmed consequent.

Over 5 years later, none of them have been released.

This has already been discussed ad nauseam. Another affirmed consequent.

And how many video cameras would have been in normal day-to-day operation, in and around the Pentagon itself on 9/11?

Begging the question.

They are obviously claiming that only one caught anything on tape...

Begging the question that there should be more.

...the few frames they have released that essentially show nothing.

Begging the question that the video should have shown more.

And let's not forget the ever-popular red herring, a special case of ignoratio elenchi^WP:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may [or may not] in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. . . .

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. [emphasis orginal]

Here's an example from a debate I had with turbonium around the same time over the Warren Report. Again, turbonium's comments are in bold, and my responses are in plain text.

The location of the back wound is completely unfounded - the evidence places the wound several inches below the location Specter is citing in his scenario.

<snip>

WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back

Uh, turbonium, exactly how does a member's making revisions to a draft of a commission's final report constitute a crime?? I can't wait to hear this one.

That fact makes the subsequent details of the scenario more than just unfounded assumptions - they have no basis in fact and are simply false.

That "fact" was invented by you, in order to attempt to handwave away the doctors' testimony, and to attempt to muddy the waters.

Even disregarding Ford's admission of altering the evidence...

Sigh--evidently more deliberate obtuseness. Ford did not alter the evidence--he altered the wording of the report.

...the bullet trajectory would have a downward, right to left trajectory, that could not traverse through the body and exit at the throat as described.

What is your evidence for this??

Let me stop at this point of the debate in order for you to address the evidence that Ford illegally altered the back wound location for the WC report so it would support the SBT. This evidence exists in the National Archives.

No. You are merely throwing out a red herring to attempt to change the subject because you can't answer my questions or provide any real evidence for a conspiracy. And in any case, the wording Ford used agrees with the autopsy report. [emphasis original]

 

[Good Lt]

That is rather pathetic......by Truther standards even. Guess he was counting on us "intellectual nerdy folk" not knowing anything about Rush.

Oh, Tweeter was seriously trying to pass off Neal Peart lyrics (perhaps from Rush's most well known, internationally loved song) as his own prose?

I thought it was sarcasm / attempted but failed irony, but if he was indeed serious...SHEESH.

It's worse than I thought.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That is rather pathetic......by Truther standards even. Guess he was counting on us "intellectual nerdy folk" not knowing anything about Rush.

Nah, I think he's just a .