You must log in or register to comment.
I think #4 is stated incorrectly. Premises are the parts of an argument assumed to be true. Begging the question happens when the conclusion you are trying to argue for is included, hidden or not, in the premises.
Agree with all of them of course but damn if it isn’t easier said than done
It’s also difficult to point it out when someone is doing it. Pointing out that they are participating in a fallacy never turns out how we want hahaha
It’s also difficult to point it out when someone is doing it. Pointing out that they are participating in a fallacy never turns out how we want hahaha
This graphic would be more effective if it didn’t include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments. It’s not the concepts that get laughed at, it’s the keywords they’ve been trained to jump on and make fun of. They don’t understand the concepts behind the keywords at all.
Dumbass culture has done excellent marketing/propaganda work in making the word “fallacy” a joke. Fortunately, there’s an easy workaround: you just don’t use the word or any of its terminology. They can’t tell you’re accusing them of a logical fallacy if you don’t actually use the handful of words they’ve learned to meet with thought-terminating cliches.
Examples (from “more polite” to “less polite”):
Incorrect - “That’s a false dichotomy!”
Correct - “What makes you think those are the only two possibilities?”
Incorrect - “I won’t fall for your straw man argument.”
Correct - “Nobody but you actually believes that. That’s not even what we’re talking about.”
Incorrect - “That’s not an argument, it’s just an appeal to popularity.”
Correct - “Most of us grew out of the ‘but moooom, everyone else is doing it!’ at about 14.” or “So if everyone in this thread thinks it’s cool to just punch you in the nutsack, we should go ahead and do it because that makes it right? I’ll go first.”
They won’t recognize your rebuttal if it doesn’t include one or more of those keywords right up front. Like an AI chat bot, they don’t understand the meaning of words they’re criticizing (or, often, even the words they’re saying). They just know that [X]% of the time, saying [Y] when someone else says [Q] ends the argument and gets them upvotes.
It’s a lot like how a song can’t be included in the Christian Music genre if it doesn’t drop the word “Jesus” every second line, no matter how Christian the lyrics are otherwise.
This graphic would be more effective if it didn’t include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments
I think it should have the names of the fallacy listed. It gives someone a way to look up more information to understand it better or look up examples. I know that most people are resistant to learning and won’t do a damn thing, but I think it’s important to have for those who are open to learning.
It’s almost a way to cite the commandments. Otherwise it’s just a list of statements without anything to back them up.
The keyword doesn’t make the statements credible. This is exactly what I’m talking about. The description of the fallacy is just as credible as the name of the fallacy. You’re doing the same thing I’m criticizing in other people; thinking that the latin words are the important part, rather than the concept of what makes a fallacy.
The definition of a word isn’t in doubt if the word itself isn’t listed on the same line.
Can you write a little book of more examples? I would buy that
Can someone please give me a ‘real’ or formal example of #4/begging the question? I think it’s commonly used to mean ‘raises the question’, which isn’t the same thing.
God is all good because he wants for nothing. Paraphrasing Descartes.
Assumes that there is a God, assumes that it is all powerful, assumes that all evil comes from the desire for more stuff. You are asked to accept a whole mess of stuff is true that isn’t supported.
Having to accept certain premises isn’t exactly the issue with begging the question.
Begging the question is when a person accidentally or intentionally assumes their conclusion, i.e. the thing they’re trying to prove/argue for.
For example, if your friend is trying to prove the pythagorean theorem from math to you, and after a long list of geometric and algebraic work they sneak in a usage of the pythagorean theorem to reach the conclusion without either of you noticing, then your friend has begged the question. Their usage of the pythagorean theorem assumes the thing they wanted to prove in the first place was true.
To go further, you can have a conditional claim like “A implies B”, that doesn’t beg the question, but in your reasoning for showing why A really does imply B, you can still beg the question (which is what happens in my pythagorean example).
Certain arguments can have premises that do essentially beg the question too though. If I make a conditional claim like “A and B are true therefore B is true”, then my conditional claim assumes B is true in the first place. You can’t really tell anything about whether or not B is actually true from my claim because my claim assumes B is true from the start.
Just having to assume certain premises isn’t inherently logically fallacious. All true conditional claims depend on their premises to guarantee the truth of their conclusion. The issues that can arise with conditional claims are usually that their premises are false or that their premises don’t actually imply their conclusion.
“We should raise the voting age because people under 18 shouldn’t vote”
The conclusion is rephrased to support itself. In this case it begs the question why shouldn’t people under 18 vote?
I think “raising the question” can also be used in this instance, while “begs the question” exclusively references the fallacy.
Listen to any “discussion” Ben Shapiro is part of
Relevant XKCD for number 7: https://xkcd.com/2592/
That’s a good one.
Wikipedia on 7, because I didn’t understand it right away:
[…] argumentum ad ignorantiam […] asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false [… or vice versa].
NEW ATHEIST TESTAMENT TEASER DROPPED #6 Thou shalt copy 2010 reddit memes and copy them to lemmy in 2023
These commandments need some work still lol.
Tldr: Strive for true objective reality.
It’s rarely neutral or unbiased.
Cat: I would like to note that this still permits the Appeal To Force. My favorite logical fallacy.
What version of english is this?
Holy fucking shit this is some faces of atheism-tier cringe lmfao
Wouldn’t call it cringe. I believe these 10 ‘commandments’ should apply to all people, not just atheists. I can safely post this on a religious community without getting shitted on.
And yet most of these were identified by deeply religious Polytheistic people. Logic has value as a tool to navigate arguments. God is basically unprovable with logic so if you don’t have evidence and want God you produce long arguments that contain basic logical fallacies. I suggest to apologetic types that they try to gather evidence and see where it leads.
Atheists do like to be more logical as opposed to the common alternate.
Responding to a list of logical guidelines for how to think and support your conclusions with “cringe lmfao” says a lot about you and your ability to reason.
i don’t see how this reflects on their ability to reason. they’re not trying to make a logical argument but instead saying the post itself is cringe.
Listing logical fallacies is absolutely fine, but I agree the format and the wording are pretty cringe.
If you learn any of these by heart you deserve a Hiroshima sized wedgy.
Um, it’s called being polite on the internet, even if you don’t know all the definitions.
It’s the people who ignore those rules will be dealt with by the mods.
