Philosophy: Logical Fallacies II
Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part two of my series on Minds. Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on...
https://media1.giphy.com/media/l4hLAnH7GC9XaQkAo/giphy.gifAlphabet Soup Fallacy
This is most modernly seen in partisan research, pharmaceutical commercials, lawyers, and really anyone who overuses acronyms, abbreviations, form numbers and inside information that only they and their in group would be aware of to confuse or impress others not in the know. It can also be used to create false identification with a group of patients suffering from certain conditions.
Alternative Truth Fallacy
I'm sure we all know this one. According to the reference I have included at the bottom this began in postmodernism and really what it suggests is presenting alternative facts of events and denying the truth. This is very loosely used however, because it ends up coming down to opinion. If used loosely this can be a false fallacy used to condemn any type of conspiracy theory. That's why this fallacy must be used very strictly and in the right circumstance. I feel like it's hard for me to give a good example without offending someone, so we can just assume it is for strictly ridiculous assertions, like gravity isn't real.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/Cz1it5S65QGuA/giphy.gifThe Appeal To's:
Closure, Heaven, Nature, Emotion, Tradition
These are the main appeal to fallacies that I will cover in sub-sections. The gist is that the argument is appealing to one of these things in false way.
Closure
An idea no matter how questionable that demands it be accepted or it would remain unsettled. "You owe me 5 bucks and even though I said I wouldn't charge interest, you owe me interest or our debt won't be truly settled." "You were sentenced to prison, but because the family demanded they would be unsettled until the criminal dies, they manage get them sentenced to death to provide "closure." There are many variations of this, it can be rarely used in debate.
Heaven a.ka. (Argumentum ad Coelum)
This is seen often in debates used not nearly as maliciously as it previously was, but essentially it's the fallacy of claiming to know the mind of God or a higher power, AND who has ordered or approved of anything you do and everything is justified and no one can challenge you. "God ordered me to kill everyone." That is the most extreme example, but I've seen the various minimalist versions of this.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/3kOfQ9UBk0bIc/giphy.gifNature
This is the fallacy that because something is natural is must be good, pure, or have some positive trait. This also applies to opposite that because something isn't natural is must be evil. These appeals to nature as an authority can contradict what is actually true. For example, "because this herb is freshly picked and dried natural Toxicodendron radicans leaves it is pure and beautiful. Some call it poison ivy, but they do not understand it is a natural ingredient and has no additives in it or GMOs alike."
Emotion
This is the fallacy where the speaker tries to manipulate an emotional response rather than providing a valid or compelling argument. So basically for example someone could tie their argument into a cause and thus force an emotional response from an audience rather than a rebuttal. So we see this often in court in front of a jury. A good example would be "Bill is accused of murder, but he is a firefighter part time and he was one of those who helped saved lives, he also has a puppy who he loves and is a patriot to this country so how could he possible commit a crime against what he worked to protect." They don't actually respond to the accusation or provide a valid response. They attempt to appeal to emotion of the audience typically. It could be used in a general debate and even potentially on the person 1 on 1, but typically it's for the audience appeal.
Pity
This is the fallacy of urging the audience to root for the underdog under the assumption that the underdog is more deserving of your support to even the odds even if they may not be the most deserving. The opposite of this is the appeal to rigor which is more like appealing to machismo. This needs no example, it's obvious that just because someone isn't winning doesn't mean their good and vice versa.
Tradition
This is a classic one we see a lot for religion or older conservatives. It is the argument that something is correct or right because it has always been done or thought that way and instills some sort of ancestral burden to uphold this view. Many of these traditionalist views have been being eradicated in the 21st century for example, women not being able to vote or equal pay, or same-sex marriage, etc.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/eLudircQfgGEU/giphy.gifCheck out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
There is a similar copy of this also written by me on Steemit, I'm just sharing it on both platforms:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@scottcbusiness/philosophy-logical-fallacies-ii
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
Check out the 1st post in the logical fallacies series!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Check out my previous article <
🙌 You can also follow me on:
Twitter - https://twitter.com/Scottcbusiness
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ScottCBusiness
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/scottcbusiness
LinkedIn - https://ca.linkedin.com/in//scottcbusiness
Steemit - https://steemit.com/@scottcbusiness
Minds - https://www.minds.com/scottcbusiness
Discord - ScottCBusiness#5242