159

Because they expect arguments, not inflammatory noise No, I am calling them an idiot because that's ... just my bloody opinion. Exactly that: just your opinion. An opinion is not an argument; it is not a syllogism, it is not reasoning, it is not fact, it is not evidence, it is not anything other than just that: your [expletive] opinion. So why do ...


149

It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it. If a person asks "If you ...


127

It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy. If you don't like it, then move. Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting ...


77

If an opinion isn't intended as an argument, it is noise Frankly, nobody wants to hear your opinion unless you have some point to make about it. You can have the opinion that a person is an idiot, but if you're putting in the effort to type it in then you obviously have some point to it. I don't state every opinion I have on every post I make on the ...


72

Circular reasoning doesn't "discredit" any point of view --if anything, it demonstrates internal consistency. However, it also doesn't provide any external support for a point of view. It has no legitimate force against anyone not already convinced of the conclusion. This is a structural issue entirely independent of the question of whether we're ...


68

The issue here, as it often is, is that colloquial English is horribly ambiguous, which makes any sort of precise and rigorous discussion difficult. But with sufficient effort, it is possible to make claims precisely, and once you do that, the problem disappears. Alice states that the sky is blue. Bob states that we live in a simulation. Let's assume for ...


68

The argument you're trying to formulate (as a rebuttal to Yoda) is this: do successfully IMPLIES try fail to do IMPLIES try THEREFORE (do successfully OR fail to do) IMPLIES try However, this critically misses the point. Your argument is uncontroversial, it matches the way Luke (along with most of the rest of us) sees the world. But the entire purpose of ...


66

If you are so smart why aren't you rich? If this country is so bad why don't you leave? If it is so easy why aren't you doing it? These types of rhetorical barbs rely on what is called an enthymeme, and argument with implicit parts. If X then why not Y? relies on Y not being in evidence, and suggests that X must not be the case. Enthymemes can be valid, when ...


54

Geoffrey refers to feedback loops as a valid example of circular reasoning. This is not correct: they can be valid but they are not circular. Instead they are an example of reasoning by induction. It is not a implies b and b implies a. Instead it is an implies bn and bn implies an+1. That is valid so long as you can start it off with a0. For example, it is ...


51

There is no argument, therefore there can be no fallacy There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.


50

Marx, socialism and communism Neither Marx nor Engels provided a blueprint for the socialist state. There could in their view be no such thing as a communist state since under communism, with no class-rule or management needed, there would be no state because no classes. Even the Soviet Union described and understood itself as socialist, not communist : ...


50

A fallacy in an argument requires that there be an argument at all. What you're describing: Then someone counters, "What do you mean by 'bites'? Define 'biting people'. Define 'dog'." is not even an argument. There is no fallacy there, because it doesn't even make a claim. What it does – in the example you present – is bog down the discussion with ...


49

There are multiple good answers here, including references to modus tollens and the contrapositive (both of which are correct). What helps me understand this concept is a more intuitive/layman's perspective. Say that if it's raining, you ALWAYS bring an umbrella outside. (Assume that you have a perfect memory). Therefore we have: Raining -> Umbrella ...


48

There's a fallacy called Holmesian fallacy. A Holmesian fallacy (also Sherlock Holmes fallacy or process of elimination fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when some explanation is believed to be true on the basis that alternate explanations are impossible, yet not all alternate explanations have been ruled out.


42

It looks like you've hit upon the concept of almost surely in probability theory. Something occurs "almost surely" if it happens with probability 1, but there still exist situations where that thing does not occur. The infinite coin flips problem is a great example - with infinite coin flips, you will almost surely see at least one result of heads, that is, ...


39

Its a funny thing. Like David Blomstrom, I don't think this is actually a fallacy. The trick is that, in order to have a logical fallacy, one must have a logical argument. This consists of premises and conclusions. So what are the conclusions? Person 1 - Premise: "The US government engaged in a targeted and precise campaign to destroy Native American ...


38

First, my standard observation that the term 'fallacy' is often misused. A fallacy, properly put, is a mistake in the structure of an argument that makes a claim invalid without considering the sense or meaning of the argument. You're actually asking about a rhetorical tactic: an effort to persuade someone (reasonably or unreasonably) of the 'truth' of a ...


36

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. Rather, RAA is correct reasoning that exposes a fallacy. From the Logically Fallacious page for it: [RAA is a] mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.... The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced ...


36

Holmes' advice is correct if and only if you assume a complete search was done to list all possibilities before starting the elimination process. Note that Sherlock Holmes is both incredibly observant, and incredibly arrogant. I would consider it a matter of great writing for Sherlock to arrogantly assume that his superior observation skills somehow make him ...


35

One fallacy that might fit is proof by intimidation. Here is Bo Bennett's description: Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it, or accepting an argument without evidence or being intimidated to question the authority or a priori assumptions of the one making the argument. An arguer ...


35

Your example is not a valid case of Reductio ad Absurdum. It's just an example of an absurd argument. A real example would be: Miles: "Copying a DVD is stealing" Frank: "Why?" Miles: "If someone created a piece of art, they have full rights to allow or prohibit its reproduction" Frank: "Oh, so when I take a selfie in the city, I need to ...


34

This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.


33

All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information). But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what ...


33

When you say "the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural," what that means is, "the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is part of the set of natural phenomena." In other words, "is" here indicates belonging to a particular set, as it often does when there is only a predicate adjective. There is more than one element in this set (...


33

In general, if your opponent insists on claiming that her source provides substantiation in a way it clearly does not, that is false attribution, however, it should be noted that such a counterclaim is largely contextual. Now, since your opponent insists it is evidence, she has shifted the burden of proof to you. If you ask for where the proof is in the ...


32

EDITED 9/11/2020 What is the name of this fallacy: Is 101 binary or decimal? I prefer to call it the either-or fallacy, but it is also known as false dilemma among others. The idea is that a choice is given that constrains to two or perhaps a few options when a much broader reading of responses is both possible and warranted. In your example, 101 is a ...


31

Generally speaking, in philosophical discussions, it is often required to provide definitions for words that seem obvious otherwise, let me give you an example: When you say : The King of France is bold . Russell may ask you, what do you mean by The? (I will not talk about the theory of descriptions here). And Russell's question here would be legitimate, ...


29

This fallacy is generally called argument from incredulity, or argument from failure of imagination. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity It also is a subset of the argument from ignorance. Informal fallacies often overlap, and bleed into each other. This fallacy is a common one,even among respected philosophers, as it is a ...


29

Here is the argument: No N is not-N. No not-N is N. All C are N. No R are C. Thus: No R are N. The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy. Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible