Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition)
by Bo Bennett
See more at: http://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001533/Logically-Fallacious-The-Ultimate-Collection-of-Over-300-Logical-Fallacies.html#sthash.liKBl0ut.dpuf
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies
http://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001533/Logically-Fallacious-The-Ultimate-Collection-of-Over-300-Logical-Fallacies.html
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/2-accident-fallacy
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/16-affirming-the-consequent
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/75-denying-the-antecedent
[[["...
Accident Fallacy
a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid
(also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, dicto simpliciter, converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping generalization)
Description: When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and to ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law. People like simplicity and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.
Logical Form:
X is a common and accepted rule.
Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.
Example #1:
I believe one should never deliberately hurt another person, that’s why I can never be a surgeon.
Explanation: Classifying surgery under “hurting” someone, is to ignore the obvious benefits that go with surgery. These kinds of extreme views are rarely built on reason.
Example #2:
The Bible clearly says, “thou shall not bear false witness”, therefore, as a Christian, you better answer the door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun, that his wife, whom he is looking to kill, is hiding in our basement, otherwise you are defying God himself!
Explanation: To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.
Exception: Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.
The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.
..."]]]
[[["...
Affirming the Consequent
(also known as: converse error, fallacy of the consequent, asserting the consequent, affirmation of the consequent)
New Terminology:
Consequent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is conditional; or simply put, what comes after the “then” in an “if/then” statement.
Antecedent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is the condition for the truth of the consequent; or simply put, what comes after the “if” in an “if/then” statement.
Description: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.
Logical Form:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example #1:
If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.
Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.
Example #2:
If it’s brown, flush it down.
I flushed it down.
Therefore, it was brown.
Explanation: No! I did not have to follow the, “if it’s yellow, let it mellow” rule -- in fact if I did follow that rule I would probably still be single. The stated rule is simply, “if it’s brown” (the antecedent), then (implied), “flush it down” (the consequent). From this, we cannot imply that we can ONLY flush it down if it is brown. That is a mistake -- a logical fallacy.
Exception: None.
Tip: If it’s yellow, flush it down too.
..."]]]
[[["...
Denying the Antecedent
(also known as: inverse error, inverse fallacy)
Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true.
Logical Form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Example #1:
If it barks, it is a dog.
It doesn’t bark.
Therefore, it’s not a dog.
Explanation: It is not that clear that a fallacy is being committed, but because this is a formal argument following a strict form, even if the conclusion seems to be true, the argument is still invalid. This is why fallacies can be very tricky and deceptive. Since it doesn’t bark, we cannot conclude with certainty that it isn’t a dog -- it could be a dog who just can’t bark.
The arguer has committed a formal fallacy, and the argument is invalid because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Example #2:
If I have cable, then I have seen a naked lady.
I don’t have cable.
Therefore, I have never seen a naked lady.
Explanation: The fallacy is more obvious here than in the first example. Denying the antecedent (saying that I don’t have cable) does not mean we must deny the consequent (that I have seen a naked lady).
The arguer has committed a formal fallacy, and the argument is invalid because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Exception: None.
Tip: If you ever get confused with formal logic, replace the words with letters, like we do in the logical form, then replace the letters with different phrases and see if it makes sense or not.
..."]]]
________________________________________
...welcome all to pure logic, as good and better than the 300 listed fallacies in logic speech and analysis...!
SOME LEAD IDEAS FOR BOOK 2 FROM BOOK 1...!
Inverse logic, or only one loop back, concluding that hence Biology Evolution and Darwin Evolution is true and that humans evolved from APES and Apes from "Mather Nature", is a fallacious error in logic...!
THE Fallacy is: You assume only one loop back or sufficient reason from the antecedent/precedent...!
The Fallacy is: You show lack of imagination, sense of more logical reasons and analysis...!
The Fallacy is: You negate the lack of "knowledge", defined in the BOOK OF PURE LOGIC, as abysses of knowledge...!
The Fallacy is: you show your ignorance and capacity of establishing further "premises"...!
The fallacy is: NOT ALWAYS the inverse logic, is correct logic,and not FALLACIOUS reasoning and analysis...!
PLEASE DO NOT MISS MY BOOK 2...! And make it a collection with my BOOK 1...! It would be easier to understand my BOOK 2...!
SOMETIMES THE MOST OBVIOUS REASONING IS THE TRUE/CORRECT ONE !
SOMETIMES THE MOST NEGATIVE REASONING COULD BE THE TRUE/CORRECT ANSWER...!
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment