• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Correcting Truthers on logical fallacies

1337m4n

Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
1337m4n
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
3,510
I'd like to take a moment to correct Truthers on the meanings of some logical fallacies that they just don't seem to understand.

Ad Hominem

WHAT IT IS:
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. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
Click to expand...

WHAT IT ISN'T: An insult. I can call you "stupid"; that's not an ad-hominem. It's just a barb. I can even say "You are wrong, therefore you are stupid", which isn't necessarily a true statement per se, but it still isn't an ad-hominem. If, however, I were to switch it around and say "You are stupid, therefore you are wrong", THAT is an ad-hominem.

Bottom line, an insult is an ad-hominem IF AND ONLY IF the insult is being used to dismiss a legitimate argument. If I call you stupid, but otherwise refute your argument normally, I am not making an ad-hominem. I'm just refuting your argument while jabbing you at the same time.



Strawman

WHAT IT IS:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Click to expand...

WHAT IT ISN'T: Anything else. Truthers are all over the map on this one, dismissing pretty much any argument they dislike as a "strawman". They aren't even making an error of common misconception, but rather seem to have no idea whatsoever what "strawman" means. C.I.T., this means you.

A more understandable misuse occurs when Truthers fail to extend their theories to their logical conclusions. For instance, a debunker might say that Controlled Demolition is impossible due to the sheer quantity of explosives that would be needed. The Truther calls this a strawman, because he says there would only need to be explosives in a few key places. He WOULD be right, except for the fact that this same Truther uses as "evidence" things like squibs, basement explosions, freefall speed, pulverized concrete, and molten steel. When it is assumed that progressive collapse alone is unable to explain these phenomena, the logical conclusion is that a massive quantity of explosives would be needed. The debunker is not making a strawman, but merely extending the Truther's ideas to their logical conclusions.



False Dichotomy

WHAT IT IS:
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
Click to expand...

WHAT IT ISN'T: RedIbis, take note:
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.
Click to expand...
...unless, of course, you believe in the Undead. Or you play as the Necrons in Warhammer 40K. But either way, I think you get my drift. You either believe the FDNY fire chief is lying or you don't.


If anyone has any other examples of fallacies that Truthers regularly misunderstand, I'd love your input.
 
Last edited:
You are stupid, and therefore wrong...

now that's what I call an Ad Hominem.

TAM:)
 
My own opinion is that it is because truthers get (rightly) accused of using things like ad hominem and strawman arguments all the time while many of them had never come across the terms beforehand. I suspect some of the ones using those terms out of context are trying to somehow turn the tables or simply sound clever.

A parallel from physics is the whole 'conservation of momentum' thing. This was the three-word reason why the original 'faster than freefall' claim was so easy to debunk. Now they have tried to adopt it as the hand-waving basis for the notion that the not-quite-freefall speed was still too fast.
 
9/11 pretend debunking fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
 
But LC if you can't successfully defend your position among rational people then you have neither position X nor position Y; you have position W for WRONG. Part of your rationalization to support your fantasy is to characterize everybody who disagrees with it as 'exaggerating' your position.

Good luck with that.
 
Willy Rea is obsessed with the Ad Hom, yet I don't think he has once provided evidence someone has used that against him.
 
LastChild said:
9/11 pretend debunking fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Click to expand...

Actually, a more accurate depiction is as follows:

1. Person A makes statements implying Position X
2. Person B demonstrates Position X to be untenable
3. Person A claims that they never actually assumed Position X
4. Person B requests that Person A clarify their position
5. Person A runs away, possibly to assault someone in a wheelchair
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
A scarlet wading bird has taken up residence between your ears.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. What's the name of the logical fallacy that applies to this kind of silliness: i.e., "if you mention someone in a post as an example of someone who engages in the type of behaviour that you are describing, it means that you are obsessed with the person you mentioned" ?
 
LashL said:
Hmmm. What's the name of the logical fallacy that applies to this kind of silliness: i.e., "if you mention someone in a post as an example of someone who engages in the type of behaviour that you are describing, it means that you are obsessed with the person you mentioned" ?
Click to expand...

Inflated ego? Delusions of signifigance?
 
"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. . . .
 
Last edited:
Argument from Incredulity:

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Click to expand...

For example: "OMG I can't believe how quickly the buildings fell!!11! It must have been an inside jorb! Woooooo!" - Twoofer.

Another example:
(Re: WTC7)
Twoofer: “I can’t believe that a WTC building not hit by a plane collapsed!”
Rationalist: So WTC1 & 2 collapsed?
Twoofer: “Er, no, they had to be demolished too.”



In a similar vein (and from the same link):

Argument from Ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.
Click to expand...

For example: "NIST can't make a computer model of the failures involved after the collapse of the towers began, therefore NIST is wrong in their explanation of how the collapse began." - Twoofer.
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
9/11 pretend debunking fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you'd been paying attention, that's basically what a strawman is...but then, you haven't been paying attention.
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
Actually, if you'd been paying attention, that's basically what a strawman is...but then, you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom