So, since I've been reading Logically Fallacious, the book I just reviewed, I decided to feature some of the related information on this site. Naturally, I can't copy from this book or any other source, but I thought I would cite it because that's where I've learned a lot of these concepts, not to mention the author kind of, uh, defined a few of them for the first time ever.
So one big logic-related mistake is appealing. It isn't necessarily bad in persuasive situations in which you are trying to get some very emotion-based, easily-impressed-by-flashy-lights-and-faulty-metaphors sort of person to buy your latest product from the Home Shopping Channel, but when being logical, it really is.
Here are my sources before we start, in case you'd like to learn more:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Logically...Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies by Bo Bennett
The Appeals:
(All examples I give involve myself, because I don't want to bring up any controversial topics or blame anybody else. Also, the rainbow colors are irrelevant and are merely there to make the whole thing a bit more readable.)
Appeal to Accomplishment
An accomplished person says that people should believe something they say because of their accomplishments, whether or not said accomplishments are relevant.
Example: Because I have experience writing a deduction blog, I can tell you that operating a particle accelerator is quite an easy thing to do, as is understanding all of quantum physics.
Clearly, the fact that I write a blog has nothing to do with whether or not I know anything about a particle accelerator or quantum physics. If my blog were actually about quantum physics, this may be a slightly different matter, but questionable nonetheless.
Appeal to Anger
People assume that because the person making a claim is outraged, or they themselves are outraged by someone's claim, that the claim is somehow true or false because of the outrage.
Example: Aren't you angry that there are so few blogs about frogs? Look at my blog today!
Unless my blog is actually about frogs, us both being angry about the lack of high-quality amphibious online content isn't a good reason for you to look at my blog.
Appeal to Authority
Referencing somebody who is supposedly an authority on a topic, as a credible source when talking about a different topic.
Example: Sherlie Moriarty says that volcanoes are a completely useless topic, and she's an expert on something or another, so I guess that means the entire subject of vulcanology is meaningless to the field of earth science as a whole and nobody else realized it before.
I, an amateur deductionist, have no place deciding anything about volcanoes, because I find earth science to be one of the most boring and overdone topics on, well, Earth. Me stating that they are completely useless is, at best, a somewhat facetious statement and/or an attempt at humor.
Appeal to Celebrity
A celebrity says that a product is the best there is, and we want to be like them somehow so we buy it.
Example: Sherlie Moriarty said that red velvet cake-scented shampoo is the best shampoo ever made. She has an online blog that has over 100 views so therefore she's probably right.
I may personally like red velvet cake-scented shampoo, and/or I may be being paid lots of money to endorse it, but neither of these are relevant to whether the actual ingredients of the shampoo are good for cleaning your hair, nourishing your body, waking you up in the morning, or any other things that shampoos are supposed to do these days.
Appeal to Coincidence
Stating that strong evidence of something was just a string of random events.
Example: I'm not actually interested in deduction, I just read those ten books on the subject because they happened to be there on my bookcase.
Completely ignoring, of course, in true irrational style, that there's a reason they're on my bookcase: I bought them because I'm interested in the subject.
Appeal to Common Belief
Because a lot of people believe something, it is considered to be true.
Example: According to most people on the Internet, Sherlie Moriarty knows more about deduction than anybody else, so I guess she must.
Even if people did believe this, which they don't, the fact that a lot of people think something doesn't make it more likely to be true. Now, if they could somehow offer empirical evidence of my knowledge, such as some weird security camera tapes of me making deductions and being proven right, maybe this argument would hold up a little better, if one could overlook the blatant abuse of the purpose of CCTV's.
Appeal to Common Folk
Connecting to the audience by trying to seem like just another "regular person" like them.
Example: Citizens of the Internet, I am just a normal person like you, because despite the fact that I live in a mansion full of dragons and cake and wear the Crown Jewels to work every day, I like videos of cute kittens and dancing babies. Believe me when I say that the average Internet citizen needs at least one cute hamster with advanced deduction abilities in their life.
If I related to them by saying that I like videos of cute hamsters, this may be almost valid.
But alas, no. I am far from an ordinary Internet citizen, so therefore my opinion on what sort of genetically-engineered pet is best for them is merely hypothetical.
Appeal to Consequences
Getting people to believe things with the promise of a consequence of their belief.
Example: If you believe that my pet dragon Sebastian Watson is the supreme ruler of the universe, he will be very happy, so therefore he is actually a god.
If you don't believe that Sebastian is the supreme ruler of the universe, then he will be really unhappy, and he'd only be unhappy about it if he actually was the ruler of the universe, so therefore he is actually a god.
Although Sebby would certainly be delighted to be worshiped, preferably through the liberal offering of dragon treats, whether or not he would be happy if you believed in that has little to no bearing on whether that's true. If he was a god, he would be unhappy if not worshiped, but that's an effect, not a cause.
Appeal to Definition
Assuming that the dictionary definition of something encompasses all aspects of that thing, however complex, controversial, or changing.
Example: According to the dictionary definition of "dragon," a dragon is "a fire-breathing lizard creature." Since Sherlie Moriarty's so-called "dragon" John Moran does not breathe fire, he is therefore not a dragon.
A dictionary definition takes into account general circumstances and commonly accepted ideas of what something is, not considering the possibilities of genetic engineering in order to protect one's designer dresses from a blazing inferno.
I hope this was a fairly informative and entertaining journey through the world of bad logic so far! Stay tuned for Part II, coming soon.
Signing off,
SM
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Book Review: Logically...Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies by Bo Bennett
I'm back with another book review, of something significantly more controversial than I Spy. Please note that I am not advocating any particular political, social, or religious agenda with this blog, unless you count "Treat other people with respect," as a super-controversial agenda, in which case I really don't know what to say. This book is interesting and informative, but also, well...prone to causing arguments.
Here are the facts:
Title: Logically...Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies by Bo Bennett
Genre: Adult nonfiction, rational thinking, philosophy
Content Rating: 5, for many politically and religiously controversial topics discussed, as well as some references to sexual topics that may be considered tasteless
For an academic book about formal logic, complete with Latin phrases, Logically Fallacious is oddly humorous. Commonly known fallacies, such as Ad Hominem, the Strawman Fallacy, and Appealing to Emotion are thoroughly defined and discussed, as are other common logical slip-ups that few before Bennett even identified as fallacies. These include such errors as Appeal to Definition, the God Wildcard Fallacy, and the Just Because Fallacy. All of the explanations are fairly self-sufficient and entertaining.
Now, to the somewhat controversial bits.
Personally, I appreciated that Bennett avoided the common pitfall of trying to defend social injustice, as many so-called experts in logic and reason do. He defines things such as Stereotyping and Tokenism as fallacies. There are some arguments referenced as illogical regarding extreme religious sensitivity (such as defending violent practices) as a form of so-called "political correctness" but Bennett doesn't otherwise label any sort of sensitivity as wholly irrational. He also mentions that different arguments can be made for sensitivity being rational or irrational.
The only true element of controversy involves religion, generally Christianity. I am not sure of Bennett's religious affiliation or lack thereof, as he does criticize athiests from time to time.
He doesn't have a problem with pointing fingers and naming names, often citing examples related to
-religion as a whole
-Scientology
-Mormonism
-believing in ghosts
-athiests
The list also includes totally non-religious things, such as:
-wealthy people
-Americans
-anyone against same-gender marriage
-hippies
-racists
-Windows Vista, for some reason
And the list goes on.
To his credit, Bennett never explicitly says that any of these things are outright bad, he simply points out common irrational arguments used to defend them. Except maybe Windows Vista, which apparently a lot of people didn't like.
The bottom line here is, if you dislike anything you say possibly being proven illogical, if not outright wrong, don't read this book. If you want to improve your logical argument skills, I think this is an interesting book. I don't appreciate some of the more potentially offensive bits, but other than that the reasoning is pretty solid.
Last notes: Although the author recommends that the book be read cover to cover, it doesn't have to be. That's not how I've read it; I have used it as more of an encyclopedia, since that is how it is written.
I will also be referencing this book in later blog posts about logical fallacies, as it's kind of sparked an interest.
Signing off,
SM
Here are the facts:
Title: Logically...Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies by Bo Bennett
Genre: Adult nonfiction, rational thinking, philosophy
Content Rating: 5, for many politically and religiously controversial topics discussed, as well as some references to sexual topics that may be considered tasteless
For an academic book about formal logic, complete with Latin phrases, Logically Fallacious is oddly humorous. Commonly known fallacies, such as Ad Hominem, the Strawman Fallacy, and Appealing to Emotion are thoroughly defined and discussed, as are other common logical slip-ups that few before Bennett even identified as fallacies. These include such errors as Appeal to Definition, the God Wildcard Fallacy, and the Just Because Fallacy. All of the explanations are fairly self-sufficient and entertaining.
Now, to the somewhat controversial bits.
Personally, I appreciated that Bennett avoided the common pitfall of trying to defend social injustice, as many so-called experts in logic and reason do. He defines things such as Stereotyping and Tokenism as fallacies. There are some arguments referenced as illogical regarding extreme religious sensitivity (such as defending violent practices) as a form of so-called "political correctness" but Bennett doesn't otherwise label any sort of sensitivity as wholly irrational. He also mentions that different arguments can be made for sensitivity being rational or irrational.
The only true element of controversy involves religion, generally Christianity. I am not sure of Bennett's religious affiliation or lack thereof, as he does criticize athiests from time to time.
He doesn't have a problem with pointing fingers and naming names, often citing examples related to
-religion as a whole
-Scientology
-Mormonism
-believing in ghosts
-athiests
The list also includes totally non-religious things, such as:
-wealthy people
-Americans
-anyone against same-gender marriage
-hippies
-racists
-Windows Vista, for some reason
And the list goes on.
To his credit, Bennett never explicitly says that any of these things are outright bad, he simply points out common irrational arguments used to defend them. Except maybe Windows Vista, which apparently a lot of people didn't like.
The bottom line here is, if you dislike anything you say possibly being proven illogical, if not outright wrong, don't read this book. If you want to improve your logical argument skills, I think this is an interesting book. I don't appreciate some of the more potentially offensive bits, but other than that the reasoning is pretty solid.
Last notes: Although the author recommends that the book be read cover to cover, it doesn't have to be. That's not how I've read it; I have used it as more of an encyclopedia, since that is how it is written.
I will also be referencing this book in later blog posts about logical fallacies, as it's kind of sparked an interest.
Signing off,
SM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)