Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Let me teach you Logical Thinking and Fallacies, to debunk False Arguments

views
     
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 02:37 PM, updated 2 months ago

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

First, quote me an actual example of this forum's statement that you find ridiculous or disagree totally, i'll cross reference it to the book of fallacies and invalidate their illogical arguments.

Let me start with the famous one you already know so i spare you the #1 example, this forum is full of name callings, i.e.

1. Ad Hominem.

2. (more added in the thread, read on)

There are at least 30 Fallacies, let's see if we can cover it all here.

So start paste the actual quote here, i'll reply and we can learn together.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 17 2021, 08:55 AM
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 09:44 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(internaldisputes @ Jun 14 2021, 04:45 PM)
Interesting...
What do you think of this argument? (Context: The Rohingya issue) sweat.gif
*
"i dun see u inviting them living in ur house but tokok here n there on twitter"

is a Straw Man Argument (Concocting a false or made up scenario and then attacking that scenario in order to make an opponent look bad.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 09:48 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(blueq01 @ Jun 14 2021, 05:34 PM)
I don't know this one falls under which psychology term but those with strong ideology just can't assess facts objectively when it comes to race, politics and religion. For example, genuine macai, us/cn licker and religious nut.
*
Good example, that is Appeal To Authority Argument.

Debating with them is usually a waste of time.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 09:51 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(erizdagreat @ Jun 14 2021, 05:35 PM)
I'm not sure if this is one of the fallacies you mentioned, but an argument logic that I like to use is reductio ad absurdum.

This is when you take a claim and show that by extending that claim to its conclusion would result in an absurd outcome, thus proving the claim false.

Please do share more. =)
*
Paste the actual argument here, we shall cross examine it later.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 09:55 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(Imp Bron @ Jun 14 2021, 06:53 PM)
Binary thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, happens when even complex concepts, ideas, and problems are overly simplified into being one side or another. The gray area in the middle is ignored or goes unnoticed.

These people think in black and white, if you not support X then you must support Y. No somewhere in between
*
and they often present False Dilemma Fallacy as their argument.

Example: You can either get married or forever be alone.

Classic person of reference is puchongite who cannot tolerate gray area, they think of the world as Black or White.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 09:57 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(ericangtzeann @ Jun 14 2021, 06:59 PM)
Afraid of ad hominem please don't get online, thats something this forum has taught me.
*
to me it's more like afraid of wasting time with people that don't matter, or little people.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 10:00 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(Ruris @ Jun 14 2021, 07:45 PM)
Very fast tips /filter to see if the person replying to you is a troll/psycho.
You describe a situation in very precise manner.

The opposing person reply with "so, you're saying" or straight away use an analogy despite having no reason to do so as you're not describing quantum mechanics.
*
If "so, you're saying" is followed by exaggerated consequential event, the it's a Slippery Slope Argument/Fallacy e.g. without vaccination we will all be in trouble.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 10:10 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(lazer19 @ Jun 14 2021, 09:51 PM)
How about red herring TS? I often confused it with strawman
*
Red Herring is diverting attention by arguing on different subject by avoiding head on discussion.

Strawman is made up an (defend-less) strawman scenario and attack the straw-man (instead attack the real man/issue)

There is also a 3rd scenario i.e. Missing The Point, in which the opponent has comprehension failure, quite often here.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 10:13 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(brkli @ Jun 14 2021, 09:54 PM)
hrm.... how about this??
*
"there are no dumb politicians, there are only dumb voters."

is simply a logical cause and effect thinking, majority do no know how to vote is a fact, hence we kept repeating the same political mistake over and over again.

Other than voting, there is no much you can do about it, there is no option 2 to correct the system.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 10:32 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(mmusang @ Jun 14 2021, 10:21 PM)
burden of proof
example:
people who make a claim need to give proof.
usually atheist claim god not exist => they also need to provide proof
believer said god exist => also need to provide proof.

usually when u communicate with atheist, they will said we/believer need to provide proof,
actually both need to provide base on their claims, watever it is.
*
In court, those who say it exist need to proof simple as that.

Say the defendant claimed did not commit crime, the prosecutor require to present the evidence, not the other way round.

The judge will dismiss the case in the event of insufficient evidence.

The hypothesis of the existence of god will be dismissed too with the claimer's lack of evidence.

Related: Hypothesis (no data) vs Theory (proven with data)
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 11:24 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(mmusang @ Jun 14 2021, 10:49 PM)
lets go to court..

The Prosecutor Accused(claim) the defendant A commit crime at time X at location Y. it is not the other way around.
depends on prosecutor, if they present enough evidence, the defendant will need to give their evidence(argument) as well.
when the first hearing, the defendant will hear Accusation but never about his claim/saying.
*
basically the prosecutor (say police) has the evidence (of drug) need to first present the evidence (drug) to prosecute the accused. So the claimer (who said the accused has drug) need to to do proof first. However, it's another topic later on for the accused to counter the claim, but we are now talking about the person who are liable to FIRST prove it's existence of proof is the claimer.

In religion term, the believer must have FIRST present the evidence of god instead of asking nons to do it. AFTER believer proved it, the the nons can argue later otherwise. However if believe can't even prove first, what is there to argue about?

anyway, let's stop it right here, and give other people to chance to ask without derailing. You can continue this on other court/religion thread.

Faith is using other part of our brain, definitely no critical thinking part.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 14 2021, 11:29 PM
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 11:39 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(brkli @ Jun 14 2021, 11:28 PM)
which bring us to Confusing Cause and Effect aka Correlation does not imply causation.

example are. majority do no know how to vote, majority vote a politician A. politician A did dumb things, voter are dumb.
*
politicians do not create voters, but voters elect their politicians. We can be certain on which is cause which is effect in this scenario.

you are right on Correlation does not imply Causation for the given example, however it was used to provoke the norm to blame the cause instead of the effect.

E.g. of Cause is Poor Immune system which has the effect of Sickness's Symptoms, most people don't see it this way, they end up treating the symptoms but continue to live with the cause, a typical way to use non-solutions as solution which leads to chronically unresolved issues.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 14 2021, 11:48 PM
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 11:46 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(mmusang @ Jun 14 2021, 11:29 PM)
it is nothing to do with exist or not, it is about who making the claim

exist or not is the content of the claim, and burden of proof is about who making the claim.
*
already mentioned hypothesis do not require evidence, whereas theory required data aka evidence often scientifically.

you can be right hypothetically (from your perspective), but wrong when tested with scientifically data aka evidence.

btw, everyone is absolutely right in their own opinion from their perspective, not going to argue with that.
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 11:54 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(mmusang @ Jun 14 2021, 11:50 PM)
we are talking about logical thinking and fallacies here, u are indeed derail too much.
*
exactly on the Burden of Proof, right on the dot of evidence topic.

by mentioning so many example of evidences, you should know i'm talking about the Proof part.

Please don't stir it further unless u have a point to make, else...
SUSlowya
post Jun 14 2021, 11:56 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(ken_hidaibuki @ Jun 14 2021, 11:47 PM)
Weird. I do study this thought in islamic school. The subject was Mantiq. Very similar to what i studied before
*
how did it go for you using logic to explain faith or vice versa?
SUSlowya
post Jun 15 2021, 08:05 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(brkli @ Jun 15 2021, 12:34 AM)
here we have again, the effects is which politician did dumb things/policy. and the cause given is politician is voted in by the voters. but this does not imply the voters are dumb and the cause of dumb policies/things done.

example a mother give birth to a son. the son murder a person. therefore the mother causes the murder to happen?
*
logic aside, you have to learn the intend and the context (which we could go another thread about it but not here please), the intend was as mentioned to shaken the norm (or comfort zone) in order for you to think deeper, but if u take it literally, there is not end to argue, this thread is not intend to argue who is right or wrong, but to teach you to see the fallacy (or flaw) AND THEN avoid engaging it, hence example if u think what i said is not suitable for consumption, you know i gave u a false argument, so u can walk away too.

The best way to handle arguments is not to argue, but to walk away. This thread intend for us to identify an false argument (if u think it's false), NOT TO ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO ARGUE HERE.
SUSlowya
post Jun 15 2021, 08:06 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(mmusang @ Jun 15 2021, 12:19 AM)
I'm not talking about the Proof part,
I'm talking about Burden of Proof logical thinking and fallacies,
people who making claim shall provide proof. as simple as that!

so people who making claim usually avoid responsibilities by:

    Denying they need to offer any evidence to support their claim
    Pretending they already offered evidence (when they haven’t)
    Shifting the burden to someone else by demanding they disprove the claim
    Shifting the burden to someone else by demanding they prove the validity of their opposing claim
furthermore, if we are not establishing this, anybody can make any claim just like that, watever it is.
*
and i already agreed on that, not sure what you are still keep going at. Move on to next pls.
SUSlowya
post Jun 15 2021, 08:21 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

We don't need another narcissistic hothead here to vent his compulsive behavior like in the (not serious) kopitiam, if i spot another one, you know who you are, i will report and remove.

This is not your usual debate playground, this is for education purpose, for those who appreciate it only.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 15 2021, 08:29 AM
SUSlowya
post Jun 15 2021, 08:39 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

next,

Confusion of Correlation and Causation: Making claims about the cause of something simply because there exist a correlation between two things e.g. high number of Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) vaccine efficacy.

this one is too common, even professionals fell for it.

If you are clear which is correlation and which is cause, only then you can solve the real problem. When you see people use Correlation as Causation, you walk away, don't argue further.
SUSlowya
post Jun 15 2021, 08:41 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(Endeavour @ Jun 15 2021, 08:37 AM)
Watch any video with Trump in it.. especially the ones when he first started campaigning - chances are there's one or more types of fallacies with the stuff that he says
*
True, couple with appeal to authority (as a president) it works wonder, but let's not ad hominem him, most politicians fall under same category.

Perhaps one of the best way to use Critical Thinking is for educate voters (with this topic), for them to choose, hopefully, the most probable solution provider aka politician.

Nevertheless, good example u gave.

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0270sec    0.20    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 23rd September 2021 - 08:23 PM