Define a Logical Fallacy?

[Robittybob1]

Examples of logical fallacies and how they fit the definition please.

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[TheDivineFool]

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. The inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak.

 

There are two kinds of fallacies...

 

1. Formal fallacies which are errors due to explicit use of a known invalid form e.g. denying the antecedent, illicit major, etc

 

2. Informal fallacies which are errors in reasoning due to reasons other than using a known invalid form e.g. ad hominem, petitio principii, etc.

[Robittybob1]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

So that is a list of fallacies. Are they all logical fallacies? For there was no fallacy called "Logical fallacy".

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. The inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak.

 

There are two kinds of fallacies...

 

1. Formal fallacies which are errors due to explicit use of a known invalid form e.g. denying the antecedent, illicit major, etc

 

2. Informal fallacies which are errors in reasoning due to reasons other than using a known invalid form e.g. ad hominem, petitio principii, etc.

I'm not educated in terms that you've used sorry.

[pavelcherepan]

So that is a list of fallacies. Are they all logical fallacies? For there was no fallacy called "Logical fallacy".

I'm not educated in terms that you've used sorry.

 

Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on list of logical fallacies. I've linked it straight to Informal fallacies because they're the ones that you encounter more often.

[iNow]

This cognitive bias codex is pretty amazing. Don't want to render the image here because it's so massive, but is worth clicking the link:

 

Amazing image >> http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1-71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg

 

it breaks down cognitive errors into four quadrants of memory, meaning, information overload, and need for speed[

Source: https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18#.kbk9d4tto

 

On another note:

 

[StringJunky]

Source: https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18#.kbk9d4tto

 

On another note:

 

This is very true. If you already believe something, you won't consider any alternative. Everybody is guilty of this that has committed themselves to a particular answer, to one degree or another. Nice chart.

[iNow]

Yeah, the codex was badass and a half

[Reg Prescott]

Then one has to question if logic will make us happy on Sundays

[AshBox]

As per my knowledge,

 

A logical fallacy is a specific type of flaw in reasoning. It is not an incorrect fact or a wrong conclusion. Even if you commit no logical fallacies, you might still reach a wrong conclusion if your premises are flawed or you have bad data.

[paragaster]

Is there a logical fallacy in this statement : A person 'A' objects to presence of an object with a person 'B' but uses that object to further an argument against 'B'.

[Phi for All]

Is there a logical fallacy in this statement : A person 'A' objects to presence of an object with a person 'B' but uses that object to further an argument against 'B'.

 

Can you give us a real life example? If I understand, it would be like Jack's mother objecting to the handful of magic beans he sold the cow for, but she wants to keep them as a reminder of what an idiot Jack can be. Is that an example of what you mean?

[paragaster]

For example : A person 'A' objects to a tattoo of symbol of Venus on 'B''s shoulder, but uses it against 'B' by saying 'B' killed his own mother though he had Venus tattoo on his shoulder.

[Phi for All]

For example : A person 'A' objects to a tattoo of symbol of Venus on 'B''s shoulder, but uses it against 'B' by saying 'B' killed his own mother though he had Venus tattoo on his shoulder.

 

I don't understand the connection between a Venus tattoo and killing one's mother. If you revere Venus, you'd never kill your mother? Is that it?

 

I don't understand why it would be fallacious to object to both the tattoo and killing one's mother (while having the tattoo).

[Raider5678]

 

I don't understand the connection between a Venus tattoo and killing one's mother. If you revere Venus, you'd never kill your mother? Is that it?

 

I don't understand why it would be fallacious to object to both the tattoo and killing one's mother (while having the tattoo).

I completely lost you on that point. My logic doesn't go far enough beyond the basic, It makes sense to me fallacy.

 

Which brings up a point.

 

To better understand logical fallacies, you must understand what logic is. Very little is logical, contrary to popular belief. Most of it is the, "It makes sense to me" logic. This type of logic is a logical fallacy on its own accord. Anyways, A good way to think of logic is to split it into groups:

 

Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning.

 

We often use Inductive Reasoning, even though its often flawed. Deductive Reasoning, as long as you have all the correct information and don't make mistakes using it, will always be true. Lets say for example, Jack is locked in his room for the next 3 years for selling a cow for a couple of beans. Deductive reasoning would be assuming that since you see him in the room, he is not anywhere else, like in the kitchen for example. Inductive reasoning would be not seeing him anywhere in the house, so he must be in his room. Other wise, you can assume where he CAN'T be, but you can't assume where he IS.

 

With this is mind, you can now try and understand logical fallacies, which I'm sure other members here can help you with more then I.

 

But don't worry about using Inductive Reasoning. Often when we use it, it is accurate, but don't bet your life on it. We use it FAR more often then any other logic. And when we use it inside of science, that's a place it will surely go wrong. Every. Single. Time.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Raider5678

[MonDie]

From my perspective, logical fallacies seem like commonly used arguments that are assumed to have more validity than they really do. They have hidden premises that may be completely invalid (e.g. involving circular reasoning), or otherwise have less probabilistic weight than commonly assumed (e.g. ad populum fallacy: appealing to an idea's popularity as evidence of its veracity even though popular positions are frequently wrong).