Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?
The most common logical fallacy is the "rush to disqualify", which often takes the form of a direct or indirect ad hominem attack (name calling, insult).
The second most common logical fallacy is the "appeal to ignorance", which includes the "appeal to complexity".
Common examples include, "go look it up" and or "it's too complicated for me to explain at the moment" and or "it's obvious" which is an appeal to common sense (appeal to ignorance, appeal to vagueness and an indirect ad hominem attack) and it's also a bald assertion.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles. copyleft wiki - UPDATE all LOGICZOMBIE original content is hereby declared CC0 (Creative Commons ZERO). Use freely with or without attribution.
Use the tag #LOGICZOMBIE if you'd like to participate in a civil debate or have your post critiqued for logical coherence.
Essential sites for (new) steemit users
Protesting without dialogue (with the sole intent to silence opposition) is harassment, not free speech.
I'm not a fan of ad hominem attacks, but I'm even less of a fan of censorship and retaliation.
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue and civil debate).
By voting for my "payout declined" comments and posts, you are supporting the highest-quality-community-approved-content of the top-earners!!!
When you vote for something that's "payout declined" your contribution goes directly into the "reward pool" which gets distributed to all the posts that make more than $20 steem, with the highest percentage of the pool getting distributed to the top-earners who are providing the highest-quality-community-approved-content!!!
So you're not contributing your steem to me, you're contributing your steem to whoever the whales decide "deserves" your steem (but I still get a small rep boost).
Why am I declining rewards?
Imagine a "democratic" system, where you could vote for your elected officials, but your vote only "counted" as much as you "invested" in the election system itself (election tokens)... Now that by itself sounds reasonably "fair".
bUT, now imagine that anyone with a larger "investment" in the election system could ERASE your vote?
Would you continue voting? Or would you just give directly to the candidate of your choosing?
Also, imagine steem without voting. Imagine they just Hard-Forked voting right out of the whole thing altogether.
What's left?
A lot of really awesome stuff, that's what!!
The delegation system is amazing (way better than pa.treon). The steem-token transfer system is amazing (way better than v.enmo or credit-cards or banks). The blogging system is amazing (way better than tw.itter or fa.cebuk). It's all super-awesome!!
Perhaps anarchy already exists and government is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – @thoughts-in-time
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Yes i tend to get stuck in adhominem mode from time to time. Another that I adopted quickly and over used was the appeal to authority.
What do you make of the unfolding events?
We have an interesting balance of power going on. I withdrew the votes for the sake of expediency following the example of @freedompoint74 who was becoming quite outspoken. I heard a conversation between some of the Witnesses and one actually recounted some not so veiled threats that were made freedompoit who has now deleted some of his previous posts.
Not an unwise move at this point in time is my best guess. I am very interested to learn how you are seeing things
DECENTRALIZED LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM = FASCISM
Well, the first step is admitting you have a "problem"...
More detail please. What kind of stuff was deleted?
what i dont get, is when people get pissed off when I make a course correction due to new information coming to light.
Dino = Decentralized in name only.
We have an opportunity right now to change the Witness selection process and create a truly decentralized platform. The only way I can see to do that creates a problem for a lot of people as it destroys the anonymity of the voters. I dont care so much about that and our votes would not necessarily need to be linked to our accounts.
Nothing outrageous or abusive.
Explanation of why he was voting the Sun Witnesses.
The kind of thing that I resonate with, and I imagine that you would agree with at least in part.
More detail please. What kind of stuff was deleted?
That's encouraging (that it was not abusive) and disappointing (that it was removed) at the same time.
That sounds like the very definition of "reasonable".
Sure, people SHOULDN'T BE BRIBED OR BULLIED INTO VOTING FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR ACCOUNT.
Even the steem-oligarchs say they believe this (at least until there's a "crisis").
We should consider civil debate the highest arbiter of conviction.
People tend to "rush-to-disqualify" anyone who isn't their personal favorite brand of sheeple.
I don't believe that making voter's identities part of the public record would help "solve" the "decentralization" "problem".
Increasing the number of "top witnesses" to 200, instead of 20 would "fix" the "problem" reasonably well. That change would make it much more difficult to implement "changes" and "fixes", but I see that as incidental (or even "a bonus feature"). A stable blockchain is paramount. There can be any number of "changes" and "fixes" implemented on the "front-ends" (https://busy.org/@hone.heke/q75hf2 for example).
That would mean that everything known is a fact and that everyone knows all the facts. That'd be a kill joy for teachable moments.
This is incorrect. Knowledge =/= Fact (it is possible to have non-factual knowledge).
This is partially correct. Facts must be empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (Facts must be "knowable").
This does not mean that "everyone" is necessarily aware of every Fact.
I disagree. There appears to be a virtually unlimited supply of commonly held misconceptions.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
This is incorrect. Knowledge =/= Fact (it is possible to have non-factual knowledge).
You said the same thing I did you only worded it differently.
Awesome, thanks for clearing that up!
'rush to disqualify'
Yes indeed. Comes usually from a tactic of using the strawman and ad hominem, but a more clever fallacious one will combine them all into a nice Fallacy Fallacy.
Also, in the example provided, "Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." - falls prey to the "black and white" fallacy also known as the "false dichotomy" or "false choice" fallacy, which is another common and perverse tactic that presumes that "if one side of the argument has a flaw of any kind, that instantly and automatically "proves" the "opposite" side of the argument is "true".
For example, "Since you can't prove my personally preferred god DOESN'T exist, therefore my personally preferred god DOES exist!!!"
And of course, "Since you can't prove your personally preferred god DOES exist, therefore your personally preferred god DOESN'T exist!!!"
Both of these claims are logically incoherent (burden-of-proof fallacy and false-dichotomy and the ever-present appeal-to-ignorance by not rigorously defining key terms such as "god" and "exist").
A better claim would be a conditional statement, such as,
(IFF) an omnipotent, omniscient, creator of all things = exist (THEN) exist = all things (AND) god = all things (AND) all things = god (credit to Baruch Spinoza).
Correct. The 'false dichotomy' is used purposefully by the "media" to get folks to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", by strategically inserting an obvious lie, to obfuscate the truth that is also in plain site. "if one side of the argument has a 'lie' of any kind, all of the information is invalid".
Shock jocks like Alex Jones and such have perfected hiding the truth from the public, by telling them the truth with some obvious lies.....
Logical Fallacies are Sorcery. They might even have more force than the mighty metaphor.
Mixing truth with lies is a great way to brainwash people.
It's a classic con-artist technique, let the mark win (tell the truth) while they're cautious on the first three (small) "bets" and then SOAK THEM FOR ALL THEY'RE WORTH ON THE FOURTH,
...then tell them "that was a fluke, I'm 100% sure about the next one!!" (or, better yet, "let me make it up to you with this next premium super-exclusive stock-tip") and they'll borrow money from all their friends and then THEY GET SOAKED AGAIN ON THE FIFTH GAME.
Any idiots that stick around after that are perfect flunkies. Put them to work, you've got your own personal zealot.
I agree. They're a cheap trick that (inexplicably) keeps the sheeple from breaking out of their rather flimsy pen.
And now they're whipping the entire planet into a flipping frenzy over THE COMMON COLD.
When is their credibility going to drop below zero?
Here's an idea, JUST WAIT 20 YEARS AND THEN TELL THE EXACT SAME LIES ALL OVER AGAIN.
Here's a good one,
The formal fallacy of the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that occurs in modal logic. It is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,[1] most commonly confusing the scope of what is necessarily true. A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true statement must be true in all possible worlds. WIKI
I'm always impressed when someone mentions the fallacyfallacy.
The important thing to remember about the fallacyfallacy is that, YES, although it is "possible" to produce a cogent, logically-coherent appeal to LOGOS, that tacks on a few fallacious statements (therefore "proving" that the fallacies themselves do not "disqualify" any SOUND LOGIC that may have been presented) it is important to remember that the fallacies THEMSELVES do-not and can-not validate any claim ON THEIR OWN.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy.
Indeed!
The FallacyFallacy is the one that I find myself most likely to commit, and have to check myself quite often to not disqualify the argument (nor the arguer) completely, simply because a fallacy was used.
I agree, (it's important not to rush-to-disqualify) however, in the absence of explicit logic, no claim can be considered sound (without explicit logic, the claim is a naked appeal-to-ignorance).
That's why I always try to STEELMAN my opponent's claims.
Yes I noticed that you do that. Very nice.
@bewarecenterbase - moderator of #hive-171744
@hone.heke - moderator of #hive-171744
@joe.public - moderator of #hive-171744
@joeyarnoldvn - moderator of #hive-171744
@ura-soul - moderator of #hive-171744
@vieira - moderator of #hive-171744
@penderis - moderator of #hive-171744
@sweecee - moderator of #hive-171744
@smokingfit - moderator of #hive-171744
@lucylin - moderator of #hive-171744
@freedompoint - moderator of #hive-171744
So weird only esteem picks up this mention. I will have a look after work hehe but mod sounds fancy. Please note smokingfit is my alt.
:)
Um what is this? Ah OK GOT it lol brilliant
@bewarecenterbase - moderator of #hive-171744
@hone.heke - moderator of #hive-171744
@joe.public - moderator of #hive-171744
@joeyarnoldvn - moderator of #hive-171744
@ura-soul - moderator of #hive-171744
@vieira - moderator of #hive-171744
@penderis - moderator of #hive-171744
@sweecee - moderator of #hive-171744
@smokingfit - moderator of #hive-171744
@lucylin - moderator of #hive-171744
@freedompoint - moderator of #hive-171744
@sunlit7 - moderator of #hive-171744
@starworld - moderator of #hive-171744
@sarez - moderator of #hive-171744
@randr10 - moderator of #hive-171744
@practicalthought - moderator of #hive-171744
@oldoneeye - moderator of #hive-171744
@ankapolo - moderator of #hive-171744
@andrepol - moderator of #hive-171744
hmmm... if i had to guess, id say argument from incredulity is the most common one... what else can it possibly be? :)
oops, my bad, i actually meant to say appeal to ignorance... i confused which fallacy is which...
I agree 100% because, you know, "reasons"...
My apologies, but not sure what the hive is. I haven't had time to understand communities (I assume this is one of those from clicking the link), and while still commenting sometimes, resigned myself to the idea of not posting anymore. What exactly would one moderating the hive entail (if it's not obvious from the explanation on what a hive is).
I appreciate the high thoughts, thank you.
The "hive/community" is exactly like a tag, like #informationwar, but with some features, like the option to "pin" certain posts and "mute" certain posts. All members are moderators. This is an experiment to see if blacklisted and low rep accounts can be given a chance to have their voices heard without having to "change the rules" that are already in effect. My primary focus is on promoting and encouraging civil debate.
To post to "the hive", just include #hive-171744 as one of your tags.
Lets Do this and keep our minds open
I look forward to exploring your contributions.
@asimpleman - moderator of #hive-171744
@artopium - moderator of #hive-171744
@wishmaiden - moderator of #hive-171744
@erh.germany - moderator of #hive-171744
@dr-frankenstein - moderator of #hive-171744
@cryptogee - moderator of #hive-171744