Bad arguments and how to spot them

Please give this a quick read
ctr
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:23 am

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by ctr » Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:34 am

Ygern wrote:There are some things that cannot be rationally or logically decided by argument. An example of this would be whether the Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is better art than Michaelangelo’s David; or whether ice-cream is nicer than a cappuccino. One can advance preferences and values, and even advance good reasons for holding those views. But you probably cannot conclusively make a case that trumps the other case.

There are other issues that can be explored reasonably well by argument:
* is X true?
* does X exist?

When arguments get heated, there are tactics sometimes used that are not to the point and merely detract from the actual issue. They are bad arguments, either completely beside the point or off-topic; or illogical. Here are some of the often-seen bad types of argument or fallacies - pseudoscientific thinking.

Ad hominem attacks & ‘You too’

Example:
Isaac Newton discovered differential calculus
Isaac Newton believed in alchemy which is an entirely discredited form of primitive chemistry.
Therefore differential calculus must be suspect.


The fact that Newton may have had some strange ideas about chemistry does not have anything to do with his ability to create a brilliant new section of mathematics. Attacking the man’s character or flaws says nothing about his ability to create a new branch of mathematics. This type of arguing can also use the ‘Well, you’re just as bad as I am because…’ (Tu quoque) type of retort. As you can see, its completely off-topic; nothing to do with the issue being discussed. To cast doubt on calculus you would need to show that the mathematical proofs were wrong.


Argument from mass consensus
Example:
Thousands of people believe in ghosts. Therefore ghosts must exist.
There are so many stories about dragons. Therefore there must have been dragons once upon a time.


A thousand years ago you might have said:
Everyone knows the earth is flat
Therefore if you sail your boat too far out, you will go over the edge.

And you still would have been wrong, in both sentences.
Thousands, even millions of people can be wrong.

Anecdotes and rumours are not evidence
Much like the above, stories get around. However, they do not constitute proof of anything by themselves. The best you can claim for a plethora of anecdotes seeming to support an argument is that it might be grounds for genuine investigation of the facts.

Jargon does not equal fact
This is a favourite trick of quacks and more recently, Creationists. Couching language in obscure jargon that sounds vaguely scientific to the uninitiated is an extremely dishonest way of trying to obscure the real point of the argument. The reason for this is that the real argument is either obviously weak or flat out wrong. By hiding it behind language that the target audience might not understand this bad argument stands a better chance of being believed.
Example: Creationism is renamed Sudden emergence theory, to make it sound scientific.
An honest argument deserves to be understood. Clear, straightforward language is the way to get your message across. This doesn’t mean dumb it down, it just means (as Shakespeare advised) ‘Speak plainly’ .

Heresy does not equal correctness
Louis Armstrong sang They all laughed at Christopher Columbus/ When he said the world was round.
Leaving aside the fallacious nature of that line (it was widely accepted that the world was round in Columbus’ day), the message of this song is that sometimes genuine truth goes unaccepted for a long time. However, that does not mean that just because an idea is laughed at, the Discoverer is a martyr to his True Cause. Sometimes the Discoverer is just plain wrong; and that is why people are laughing (or angry). Examples of this are Flat Earth believers, most conspiracy theorists. The facts need to be collected and checked and proved or disproved before the ‘theory’ can be regarded as valid.

Burden of proof
The burden of proof is not always 50/50 in competing points of view.
I believe the earth is flat carries a far higher burden of proof than I believe the earth is a sphere. This becomes even more clear when you start to hear the ‘evidence’ for a flat earth involves government conspiracies (unproven), moon-landing hoaxes (unproven) and satellite and telescope hoaxes (unproven). A theory that is based on a collection of unsubstantiated hunches and guesses and beliefs does not deserve the same credibility and plausibility as one that has a mountain of evidence to support it; and absolutely nothing that disproves it or throws doubt on it.


Unexplained does not equal inexplicable
This fallacious line of reasoning is frequently employed in the God-of-the-Gaps arguments. Quantum theory isn’t completely understood? String theory has physicists puzzled? Haven’t quite worked out what caused the Big Bang? Right then. God did it.
This argument involves a leap of illogic and resolves itself by plonking Favourite Idea #1 into the gap without any evidence to support it whatsoever. Its also frequently employed by UFO enthusiasts along the lines of unexplained strange lights ‘must’ be an alien visitor.

After-the-fact reasoning
Another leap of illogic that doesn’t bother to eliminate other possible causes before announcing that X must have caused, or be proof of Y.
Example: I won the first two matches and I was wearing my red T-shirt. I lost the third match and I was wearing my white T-shirt. Therefore my red T-shirt must be lucky.
Or:
I went into hospital to have my appendix removed, and I put special healing crystals around my bed. Now I have recovered quickly from my surgery without any complications. Therefore, the crystals must have special healing powers.
In both examples other (more likely) contributing causes are completely discounted in favour of a pet theory.

Circular reasoning
This one is pretty easy to spot.
Y is true because X says so
And we know X is true because Y says so

This is used all the time to ‘prove’ dogma true. E.g. The Koran is the perfect word of Allah. It says so in the Koran.
This says nothing about the truth of X or Y. They both may in fact be true, but you haven’t proved it by this argument. You need to find better evidence.


Arguments from Ignorance / Beauty / Design / Fear etc
These are just truly dreadful non-sequiturs that get used all the time to justify beliefs.
I just can’t believe that there is no Heaven, without it life makes no sense. Therefore God exists.
Natural selection just couldn’t have made the butterfly so beautiful, therefore God must have made it.
I can’t imagine any reason to be good if there wasn’t any God, therefore God must exist.


Argument from authority
Trust me, trust me. I’m a doctor.
This gets used remarkably often to make a claim sound more plausible or believable. But even if someone really is an authority in a certain field, it does not make them an authority in all fields. Having a PhD in Literature does not in any way boost your authority or believability about UFOs; being a respected theologian makes you an expert on Scripture, not morality. It does not mean that you can’t express your opinion on these matters, and indeed your opinions might be excellent and lucid. But your argument does not get given extra gravitas simply because you have some expert knowledge on other subjects.

This type of argument also appears in the ‘Speaking as a’ format.
Speaking as a mother, I think vaccines are dangerous for children.
Sometimes this is used merely for clarification purposes (useful on an anonymous internet forum eg I’m a mother so I know what its like to go through 6 hours of labour); but beware of it being used to give the speaker an added claim to authority that they are not entitled to.

Straw-man
This involves pretending that your opponent’s argument is something different from what it really is.
You then disprove the pretend argument and claim to have destroyed the real argument.
This is not the same as distilling your opponent’s argument down to its simplest form to reveal its weakness, it involves shifting the argument to something else. Even worse than the straw-man argument is the straw-man defence; pretending that your opponent is attacking a straw-man to avoid confronting issues.
Example:
Atheist: Religion can incite hatred and intolerance because of its teachings.
Response: That’s not my religion you are criticising. You are talking about a fundamentalist point of view. I don’t believe in that.
But in fact: Pope publicly states Harry Potter books promote evil, Catholic cardinals tell congregations homosexuality is evil etc.


Lying for a good cause
A very dishonest approach to argument or debate; but often very difficult to deal with because anecdotes can be concocted to seemingly provide some sort of support for the claim. By its nature, it often tends to be hearsay or personal testimony; and so the best way to counter it is by asking for some sort of reference or supporting data to back up the ‘proof’.

References:
Why people believe weird things by Michael Shermer
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

There are plenty of other bad arguments, please add your own or expand on points I started.
Wow that is just the Dogs Boll£$%&s

Love this post.

Ygern would you mind if I copied it to another forum.

Its a game forum where we role play real life and nations. I run an Enlightenment club :lol: .

(The Game is "NationStates")

I will credit you and link back to here.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:28 pm

ctr, by all means.
I'm assuming it won't contravene your site's posting policy? - some of the gaming sites I know of don't allow discussion of religion / politics at all (too 'hot') and a few of the examples I make are explicitly critical of religion.
ctr
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:23 am

Post by ctr » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:31 am

Thanks Ygern

No it will be OK as I'll post on an Off Game forum run by players not the game.

I'll link it here so you can see.

Here you go Linky
Colin
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dublin

Post by Colin » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:10 am

ExtantDodo has an excellent video on a very similar subject

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
hackenslash
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:05 am

Post by hackenslash » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:48 am

It appears that ExtantDodo has once again been suspended, and that this vid has been removed due to terms of use violations. Which video was it? A few mirrors have been posted.
CelticAtheist
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:55 pm

Post by CelticAtheist » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:00 pm

Colin
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dublin

Post by Colin » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:55 pm

hackenslash wrote:It appears that ExtantDodo has once again been suspended, and that this vid has been removed due to terms of use violations. Which video was it? A few mirrors have been posted.
It was the 25 top creationist fallacies. It was great... hopefully YouTube can short it out again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW8uO2P-YNE is the same video, split into 3 parts
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:09 pm

One informal fallacy you are going to see a lot of in the civil partnership bill debate is the Slippery Slope fallacy.

The religious love this one. It allows them to extrapolate that gay civil partnerships will lead to complete destruction of our society. It's also often used in the abortion debate by the anti-woman side. It goes something like this... "today we can kill babies what next? Adults?".
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by FXR » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:17 pm

bipedalhumanoid wrote:One informal fallacy you are going to see a lot of in the civil partnership bill debate is the Slippery Slope fallacy.

The religious love this one. It allows them to extrapolate that gay civil partnerships will lead to complete destruction of our society. It's also often used in the abortion debate by the anti-woman side. It goes something like this... "today we can kill babies what next? Adults?".
I always think that when they come out with the Slippery Slope arguement they should be hit with the Reverse Slippery Slope arguement:
If the chruch gets it way on this it will then want alcohol banned and if they get that then they will want unmarried mothers locked up and if they get that next you know they'll be back to burning heretics at the stake..... :twisted:
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:42 pm

FXR wrote:... unmarried mothers locked up ... burning heretics at the stake...
You say that like its a bad thing. FXR, so judgemental this evening! :wink:

There's nothing like a bit of banning and burning to raise the Standards of Morality in a country.
Post Reply