Fallacies

 

I have a brief barrage of fallacies spoken at me today. I thought I would list the ones I can remember. It was sort of amusing, and I did not say too much as the person ranted. With some people, the relationship is important, you know saying anything of substance is not really going to get you anywhere, and it's best to just let everything go without comment. Until writing about it later on a blog of course.

Now for the fallacies committed, at least the ones I can remember:

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. For example: God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous. Or: the defendant in a murder trial must be found guilty, because otherwise husbands will be encouraged to murder their wives.
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.
Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"
Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it.
Argument By Vehemence:
being loud. Trial lawyers are taught this rule:
If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you don't have either, pound on the table.
The above rule paints vehemence as an act of desperation. But it can also be a way to seize control of the agenda, use up the opponent's time, or just intimidate the easily cowed. And it's not necessarily aimed at winning the day. A tantrum or a fit is also a way to get a reputation, so that in the future, no one will mess with you. Depending on what you're loud about, this may also be an Appeal To Force, Argument By Emotive Language, Needling, or Changing The Subject.
Complex Question (Tying):
unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits. For example, "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?"
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.
Non Sequitur:
something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"
Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true. Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
Argument By Fast Talking:
 if you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won't have time to think. This is connected to Changing The Subject and (to some audiences) Argument By Personal Charm. However, some psychologists say that to understand what you hear, you must for a brief moment believe it. If this is true, then rapid delivery does not leave people time to reject what they hear.

All those and more can be found at this site. There were probably a few more committed, but those are the ones that stand out. Several were done at the same time. I obviously commit some of them myself, but I think the slower a discussion is, and more thought out, that tends to keep fallacies to a minimum.
Cheers,
Scott