Fun in R&S? Identifying logical fallacies in responses.?

Question

I think Ad Hominem would get the most points.

Drizzt, in my opinion, logic is the best course you will ever take in college or high school. Being able to identify logical fallacies will help you identify when you're being lied to and when you're being verbally manipulated. Here's more information about logical fallacies:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

ivote4, I was thinking more in line with identifying them as a game in different answers but I think it'd be impractical to do so. I need to think more about this.

lol

Preys, you get a red herring!

there are so many bright people in R&S.

I don't see how anyone's getting a thumbs down. lol.

troll. lol. I hear you. wonder where I came up with this question, huh?

thank all of you for your comments. such good information!

Answer 1

Oh, I'd have to say Straw Man (as in "So soup in the oceans formed itself into us....") is pretty popular.

Identifying fallacies can be tricky.

Is it circular reason, or begging the question to say "There's a god, because the Bible says so.... The Bible is the word of god...."?

As it turns out, the trick is to determine whether or not a line of reasoning is strong, not whether it commits this or that fallacy.

For every fallacy, there's a legitimate form of reasoning that the fallacy abuses.

Teaching people to identify fallacies does NOT make them less prone to commit them or buy into them.

Notice the "tips" section of the handout you linked to. Basically, it's telling students to reason carefully; if they were doing that, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Teaching how to reason well is much more worthwhile than teaching people to spot this or that fallacy.

Answer 2

There's another fancy word (apart from ad hominem) for this old trick. It's 'teleoanalysis'. Once you understand how subtly it works, you see it all over the place, especially here. (Oh, and shouldn't you have said, 'illogical fallacies...?' Sorry. I'm nit picking. That's what happens once you get wise to teleoanalysis.) Here's an example from correspondence in a newspaper:

'from Mr X - 'Why Ian Paisley is a Catholic - ... The central Roman Catholic dogma [the Reformers] questioned was the absolute, unassailable apostolic authority of the Pope to interpret scripture and be its final arbiter. The Reformers deemed the Bible, not the Church or Pope, to be the final authority. The Reformers believed they remained the true Catholics, hoping that one day the Pope would see the error of his ways and heal the rift. That is why to claim to be a Protestant is actually to claim to be a Protestant Catholic... a true Protestant is a disaffected former member of the Roman Catholic faith. Anyone who was not brought up a Roman Catholic is merely a non-Roman Catholic who may follow the precepts of Protestantism, making them Protestantist. By definition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and even Ian Paisley are all Catholics.'

'from Mrs S - Mr X's sense of humor is fantastic. His reasoning was the best bit of teleoanalysis I've ever come across. It can be summarised thus:
* Protestants were originally Catholics.
* The Pope regarded them as aberrant Catholics.
* These aberrant Catholics deemed the Bible and not the Pope to be their final authority and split from Rome for this reason.
* Catholics continue to consider the Pope their final authority.
* This means Ian Paisley is a Catholic.'

Note - teleoanalysists never lie. They just ensure that the truth lies sleeping atop a very high tower, guarded by fierce beasties with awfully sharp teeth. It's a lot easier to create ad-hoc hypotheses, and pluck conjectures from the sky, than it is to disprove them. Usually, by the time you have done this everyone's eyes have glazed over - including your own. Just try telling anti-Trinitarians how wrong their grasp of the doctrine is, and what silly straw men they have set up, and you'll see what I mean.

Answer 3

I'm guessing that you're asking for examples of these fallacies (I think?)? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Off the top of my head, the first ad hominem logical fallacy I think of is when an atheist attempts to invalidate a Christian's claim to faith by stating that it is an emotional crutch. Likewise, I've heard Christians attempt to invalidate atheists by saying that they don't believe in God because then they won't feel guilty about sinning.

Naturally, neither argument is a case against either belief. Am I on the right track here?

Edit:
Pedi C, that does sound fun. :) I think you're right about the "ad hominem" getting the most points, being that it's one of the more stupid mistakes to make. But how would you implement the game? If you can think of a solution, I'd definitely be interested. :)

Answer 4

Another college course I found to be very important and enlightening was Methodology. It really showed how things can be taken out of context in any study and how statistics can be skewed to make them say anything you want, if you don't provide information on all aspects of the test (ie number of test subjects, demographics, other influencing factors, etc.)

Imagine my amazement at how handy this knowledge would turn out to be when analyzing the arguments provided in certain "religious" periodical published by certain organizations for the propagation of cultic theology. :D

Now, we all know the real reason that certain "cults" prohibit higher, secular learning. The first thing they teach you is "critical thinking" as foundational to all subsequent information you will be assailed with in your adult life.

Answer 5

Is that what you call fun: identifying logical fallacies in responses?
This is a trick question, right?
and: Fun in R & S? When?

There are only fallacies in religious responses from the religious believers. Why identify and count them?

Answer 6

Love it. Particularly when attention hot states one thing and the the exact opposite in somewhat smooth words within the next few lines.

For Example: Here is my answer to your question.

In "pay attention" comes this statement about a situation where in the parents have declined giving blood to their child; "On rare occasions a situation requires a 24-hour watch."

Parents staying right next to their child, as the baby's life ebbs, to prevent a doctor or nurse ""sneaking"" in a transfusion, keeping from them a simple transfusion that may save the little one's life!


Now that was a real response!!






.

Answer 7

Begging the question is a big hitter.
Not so much Ad Hominem
Quite a bit of Appeal to Authority, Popular Belief, and Consequence of belief.

Answer 8

I think you're applying logic to the WRONG section of Yahoo Answers! Religion + Logic = Null Value!

Be blessed!

Answer 9

The only logical fallacy is not following Jesus. Following Satan's Logic will lead you to hell.

Answer 10

There tend to be more logical fallacies in the questions than the answers.