Logical Fallacy (was: The Scientific Method)
Laureen
It's not a class, but it's where I send people who try to engage me with
fallacious argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
I took classical logic classes in college, and frankly, I could have dumped
most of the rest of my education... but those classes were an invaluable (to
me) tool in how to think and how to analyze someone else's thinking. They
are priceless when you receive sample ballots for elections (last year
California had not one valid argument anywhere in the ballot). And they're
fabulous when someone is trying to make you uncomfortable, or try to
question what you're doing. So many times, especially in the press, I see
fallacy used in place of truth or real analysis, and it makes me crazy.
Ironically, logic and the study of fallacies works for me because it's
labeling. =) If I can hang a name on the form of mental gymnastics
someone's engaging in, it helps me retain my poise and not engage
needlessly. Sometimes, if I think the person is really trying to discuss, I
point it out. Sometimes if I think the person is trying to be hurtful, I
keep it to myself but the knowledge keeps me calm.
fallacious argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
I took classical logic classes in college, and frankly, I could have dumped
most of the rest of my education... but those classes were an invaluable (to
me) tool in how to think and how to analyze someone else's thinking. They
are priceless when you receive sample ballots for elections (last year
California had not one valid argument anywhere in the ballot). And they're
fabulous when someone is trying to make you uncomfortable, or try to
question what you're doing. So many times, especially in the press, I see
fallacy used in place of truth or real analysis, and it makes me crazy.
Ironically, logic and the study of fallacies works for me because it's
labeling. =) If I can hang a name on the form of mental gymnastics
someone's engaging in, it helps me retain my poise and not engage
needlessly. Sometimes, if I think the person is really trying to discuss, I
point it out. Sometimes if I think the person is trying to be hurtful, I
keep it to myself but the knowledge keeps me calm.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:40 PM, k <katherand@...> wrote:
> I bet there's a course in logic at Suite 101 or somewhere like that.
> Really. I would like to take it. The last thing I want to be doing is
> having fallacious argumentations. ;)
--
~~L!
~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
Writing here:
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
Evolving here:
http://www.consciouswoman.org/
~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
Well thanks for the link, Laureen! I'm sure I can't count the times your
posts and sound logic have helped me think things through.
~Katherine
posts and sound logic have helped me think things through.
~Katherine
On 9/2/08, Laureen <splashing@...> wrote:
>
> It's not a class, but it's where I send people who try to engage me with
> fallacious argument:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>
> I took classical logic classes in college, and frankly, I could have dumped
> most of the rest of my education... but those classes were an invaluable
> (to
> me) tool in how to think and how to analyze someone else's thinking. They
> are priceless when you receive sample ballots for elections (last year
> California had not one valid argument anywhere in the ballot). And they're
> fabulous when someone is trying to make you uncomfortable, or try to
> question what you're doing. So many times, especially in the press, I see
> fallacy used in place of truth or real analysis, and it makes me crazy.
>
> Ironically, logic and the study of fallacies works for me because it's
> labeling. =) If I can hang a name on the form of mental gymnastics
> someone's engaging in, it helps me retain my poise and not engage
> needlessly. Sometimes, if I think the person is really trying to discuss, I
> point it out. Sometimes if I think the person is trying to be hurtful, I
> keep it to myself but the knowledge keeps me calm.
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:40 PM, k <katherand@...<katherand%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > I bet there's a course in logic at Suite 101 or somewhere like that.
> > Really. I would like to take it. The last thing I want to be doing is
> > having fallacious argumentations. ;)
>
> --
> ~~L!
>
> ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
> Writing here:
> http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
>
> Evolving here:
> http://www.consciouswoman.org/
> ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
> I took classical logic classes in college, and frankly, I could havedumped most of the rest of my education... but those classes were an
invaluable (to me) tool in how to think and how to analyze someone
else's thinking. ~~
That's really cool! I've just learned so far by reading up on the
internet and I am amazed and awed that our public leaders don't even
learn it.
I'd love to take a course.
Labels are a useful form of communication and a way to categorize
information.:) I just think it's harmful to label people in regards to
behavior or traits making them "less than".
Ren
Sandra Dodd
-=-That's really cool! I've just learned so far by reading up on the
internet and I am amazed and awed that our public leaders don't even
learn it. -=-
Many of them do, and their speechwriters, too. Then it's rhetoric.
If you're using it for a purpose, it's rhetoric. If you're on the
other side, it might be fallacy. <g>
Debate teams were going out of style when I was a kid. They still
exist, but they used to be very common, debate competitions. There
are names for rhetorical devices that are called fallacies, but
they're not "fallacy."
When people are being persuasive, they're not being clinical. If
someone wants you to join a movement, or to treat your children
better, the rhetoric they use might be dissected by others who want
to stop them, but it's up to the listener to be persuaded by one of
those sides or the other.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
internet and I am amazed and awed that our public leaders don't even
learn it. -=-
Many of them do, and their speechwriters, too. Then it's rhetoric.
If you're using it for a purpose, it's rhetoric. If you're on the
other side, it might be fallacy. <g>
Debate teams were going out of style when I was a kid. They still
exist, but they used to be very common, debate competitions. There
are names for rhetorical devices that are called fallacies, but
they're not "fallacy."
When people are being persuasive, they're not being clinical. If
someone wants you to join a movement, or to treat your children
better, the rhetoric they use might be dissected by others who want
to stop them, but it's up to the listener to be persuaded by one of
those sides or the other.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
Yes. I think it's like labeling. It's fine in our own minds to organize
our thoughts and avoid making crummy conclusions. Debating doesn't create
relationships in itself but it is one thing that can be used to inform.
~Katherine
our thoughts and avoid making crummy conclusions. Debating doesn't create
relationships in itself but it is one thing that can be used to inform.
~Katherine
On 9/2/08, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> Debate teams were going out of style when I was a kid. They still
> exist, but they used to be very common, debate competitions. There
> are names for rhetorical devices that are called fallacies, but
> they're not "fallacy."
>
> When people are being persuasive, they're not being clinical. If
> someone wants you to join a movement, or to treat your children
> better, the rhetoric they use might be dissected by others who want
> to stop them, but it's up to the listener to be persuaded by one of
> those sides or the other.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
One thing I do pay for online is Knowledge News, because I like the
writing style and it's simple and fun.
Here's something about rhetoric. (Feel free to skip this, anyone
who's not interested, but it does add to the discussion of the good
side of what detractors sometimes call "fallacy" on.)
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/todaysknowledge/3-ways-to-persuade.shtml
(I quoted it in case the link is only available to subscribers.)
Aristotle (right) says, "Calm down, Plato.
Campaign rhetoric isn't that bad."
During the Democratic National Convention last week, KnowledgeNews
turned to a political commentator unlike any you'll find on TV. We
turned to famous Roman orator Cicero (106-43 BC). Yes, Cicero has
been dead for 2,000 years, but turns out, he can still give today's
politicians advice.
Now, during this week's Republican National Convention, we're turning
to another political commentator unlike any on TV. We're turning to
famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). He wrote the book on
rhetoric--called The Art of Rhetoric--way back in the 4th century BC.
We asked Aristotle, how should those politicians on the podium try to
persuade? He told us that, aside from "tortures, depositions, and the
like," there are only three ways: logos, pathos, and ethos. In
English, you might say logic, emotion, and character. Put it all
together, and you get a reasonable argument, passionately made, by a
person you trust.
1. Logos
Logic is an obvious one. After all, who isn't a sucker for
irrefutable facts, verifiable numbers, and the inexorable march of
reason across the course of a well-constructed speech? In fact, for
many thinkers, including Aristotle's mentor, Plato, logos is the only
legitimate way to win friends and influence people. The rest is
sophistry.
Logos was even more persuasive to ancient Greek philosophers, because
they had a pretty expansive notion of what logos was. It could be the
simple reason in the words of a speech, or it could mean the supreme
reason of the universe, which all rational appeals naturally plugged
into.
2. Pathos
Still, unlike old Plato, Aristotle was willing to look beyond
strictly rational appeals. He recognized that people "do not give
judgment in the same way when aggrieved as when pleased"--especially,
he snobbily wrote, "audiences of limited intellectual scope and
limited capacity to follow an extended chain of reasoning."
Enter pathos. Let's face it, said Aristotle. If you really want to
persuade people, sometimes you have to resort to emotional appeals.
It's why campaigns try to wrap themselves in the flag and make you
fear the other guy. It's why a winning smile and puppy-dog eyes work
magic in getting your way. It's why lawyers have the saying "If the
facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side,
pound the law. If neither is, pound the table."
Of course, emotional appeals can take more subtle forms, too.
Aristotle pointed out that eloquence itself is a kind of emotional
persuasion. "Style makes the matter more persuasive," he wrote, "for
the mind is tricked as though the speaker were telling the truth."
3. Ethos
For a reason-loving philosopher like Aristotle, admitting the power
of pathos had to be hard enough. But he goes even further with ethos.
"Character," he wrote, "contains almost the strongest proof of all."
Quite simply, it matters who's trying to persuade you. If the person
trying to sway you shows "common sense, virtue, and goodwill" (for
Aristotle, an ethical trifecta), then really, aren't you more likely
to believe what that person says? Aristotle thought so, and so
thought that persuasive attempts must work to "establish the speaker
himself as being of a certain type"--namely, the type of person
you'll believe.
Sometimes ethos is the only thing that matters. If, based on arcane
medical tests, one doctor says you need immediate surgery, and
another says you don't, how are you going to decide--except by
judging who seems more credible? Similarly, lawyers put dueling
experts on the stand, and politicians put dueling wonks on TV. Their
reasons are obscure and technical, and only ethos makes the sale.
That's why the old vaudeville philosophers used to say, "If you can
fake sincerity, you've got it made."
--Michael Himick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writing style and it's simple and fun.
Here's something about rhetoric. (Feel free to skip this, anyone
who's not interested, but it does add to the discussion of the good
side of what detractors sometimes call "fallacy" on.)
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/todaysknowledge/3-ways-to-persuade.shtml
(I quoted it in case the link is only available to subscribers.)
Aristotle (right) says, "Calm down, Plato.
Campaign rhetoric isn't that bad."
During the Democratic National Convention last week, KnowledgeNews
turned to a political commentator unlike any you'll find on TV. We
turned to famous Roman orator Cicero (106-43 BC). Yes, Cicero has
been dead for 2,000 years, but turns out, he can still give today's
politicians advice.
Now, during this week's Republican National Convention, we're turning
to another political commentator unlike any on TV. We're turning to
famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). He wrote the book on
rhetoric--called The Art of Rhetoric--way back in the 4th century BC.
We asked Aristotle, how should those politicians on the podium try to
persuade? He told us that, aside from "tortures, depositions, and the
like," there are only three ways: logos, pathos, and ethos. In
English, you might say logic, emotion, and character. Put it all
together, and you get a reasonable argument, passionately made, by a
person you trust.
1. Logos
Logic is an obvious one. After all, who isn't a sucker for
irrefutable facts, verifiable numbers, and the inexorable march of
reason across the course of a well-constructed speech? In fact, for
many thinkers, including Aristotle's mentor, Plato, logos is the only
legitimate way to win friends and influence people. The rest is
sophistry.
Logos was even more persuasive to ancient Greek philosophers, because
they had a pretty expansive notion of what logos was. It could be the
simple reason in the words of a speech, or it could mean the supreme
reason of the universe, which all rational appeals naturally plugged
into.
2. Pathos
Still, unlike old Plato, Aristotle was willing to look beyond
strictly rational appeals. He recognized that people "do not give
judgment in the same way when aggrieved as when pleased"--especially,
he snobbily wrote, "audiences of limited intellectual scope and
limited capacity to follow an extended chain of reasoning."
Enter pathos. Let's face it, said Aristotle. If you really want to
persuade people, sometimes you have to resort to emotional appeals.
It's why campaigns try to wrap themselves in the flag and make you
fear the other guy. It's why a winning smile and puppy-dog eyes work
magic in getting your way. It's why lawyers have the saying "If the
facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side,
pound the law. If neither is, pound the table."
Of course, emotional appeals can take more subtle forms, too.
Aristotle pointed out that eloquence itself is a kind of emotional
persuasion. "Style makes the matter more persuasive," he wrote, "for
the mind is tricked as though the speaker were telling the truth."
3. Ethos
For a reason-loving philosopher like Aristotle, admitting the power
of pathos had to be hard enough. But he goes even further with ethos.
"Character," he wrote, "contains almost the strongest proof of all."
Quite simply, it matters who's trying to persuade you. If the person
trying to sway you shows "common sense, virtue, and goodwill" (for
Aristotle, an ethical trifecta), then really, aren't you more likely
to believe what that person says? Aristotle thought so, and so
thought that persuasive attempts must work to "establish the speaker
himself as being of a certain type"--namely, the type of person
you'll believe.
Sometimes ethos is the only thing that matters. If, based on arcane
medical tests, one doctor says you need immediate surgery, and
another says you don't, how are you going to decide--except by
judging who seems more credible? Similarly, lawyers put dueling
experts on the stand, and politicians put dueling wonks on TV. Their
reasons are obscure and technical, and only ethos makes the sale.
That's why the old vaudeville philosophers used to say, "If you can
fake sincerity, you've got it made."
--Michael Himick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
Probably most parents can attest to the fact (logos) that children are
wonderful at pathos. It is their most persuasive tactic in a world that
doesn't consider them to be particularly logical or having an established
trustworthy character. One of the great things about unschooling is that it
encourages parents to see their children's logos and ethos just as viably as
their pathos.
~Katherine, whose favorite bible verse in childhood was "suffer the little
children to come unto me" and who can now add children to the verse "come
let us reason together"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wonderful at pathos. It is their most persuasive tactic in a world that
doesn't consider them to be particularly logical or having an established
trustworthy character. One of the great things about unschooling is that it
encourages parents to see their children's logos and ethos just as viably as
their pathos.
~Katherine, whose favorite bible verse in childhood was "suffer the little
children to come unto me" and who can now add children to the verse "come
let us reason together"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]