We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, July 17. 2020
Some years ago I posted a series here about logical fallacies.
Those posts are probably lost in time, but here's a decent summary of informal fallacies: 15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
It is a fun topic but, as Scott preaches and as every attorney knows, logic+facts, and persuasion, are entirely different subjects. An emotional image or an anecdote beats logic often when it comes to persuasion.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
OK! You can argue this if you want to but: A statement/argument/point can be qualified as a logical fallacy and be 100% correct. Do not make the mistake, that many learned people do, that just because someone states something in a way that is technically (by definition) a fallacy logical or otherwise that it is proof that they are wrong.
Some years ago I posted a series here about logical fallacies. Those posts are probably lost in time....
Here's one. A repost: Fallacies of the Week: A few fun Data Fallacies. Not as lost in time as you feared.
I'm thinking that the beginning of the series you mention is at the bottom of this page:
[url] http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/categories/37-Fallacies-and-Logic/P7.html [/url]
. . .and that one of the last posts specifically 'of the series' is here, about halfway down the page, with the title "Fallacy and Logic Post of the Week - Fairy Tales: Confirmation Bias and Selection Bias":
Logic, we don't need no stinkin' logic.
Debate winners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
The most common logical fallacy, and the one that is least discussed, is the fallacy of assumed importance. And that's kind of funny, because it isn't even listed as a fallacy. Imagine that I wanted to promote the purchase of Chinese eggs. To do so, I would first have to get the subject before the public. So I might say that Chinese eggs are better than American eggs. Then people would start talking about Chinese eggs. I have completely by-passed the subject of American eggs.
If you look at the logical fallacies given in the link, you'll notice that there is a black woman in the picture. That's a fallacy of assumed importance. The image is asking the viewer to assume that naturally a black woman would be concerned with logical fallacies. Now before you call me a "racist" please continue to read: Blacks use the fallacy of assumed importance to claim the "right" to do anything they want. They believe themselves to be very important. But when they do so, they are drawing incorrect assumptions. Nobody is important enough to insult or threaten other people. But the fallacy of assumed importance tells them that they can. The fallacy of assumed importance has given black people delusions of grandeur.
I don't know if there's a well-known fallacy category for slipping in largely irrelevant bugbears, but glaring preoccupations do cast doubt on an argument. There may really be toxins in the water supply, but someone who can barely discuss what color the corporate logo should be without drifting into an argument about toxins makes us suspect his position is more a compulsion than an argument.
Another good link on the subject ... fundamental reasoning lessons: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Would it be this one?
Love this post! Last Sunday I commented to my wife that something I said was poorly thought out and was, in fact, an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. She had no idea what I was talking about, so I went searching for an explanation online. I found the link that The Barrister identifies in the post above, which is fairly recent - June 9. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is explained under #10 - Causal Fallacy. There is a hilarious 42-second video clip there from The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon Cooper identifies that fallacy in something his mother says. Here is a shortcut to the clip.
Each of the 15 fallacies in the linked article has a short video clip to illustrate that fallacy. That article is very well done.
OK, A possible post hoc ergo propter hoc statement:
John Lewis, who passed away today, "saved" Selma Alabama from something or other back in the 60's. That is what he is known for, well that and being a friend of MLK. He saved Selma from itself. I'm about as old as John Lewis and I remember this all quite well. Selma was a nice little town back then. Today it might have been a nice community to live in. But John Lewis saved Selma from all that. Today you could buy a house in Selma for $1000, maybe for free. John Lewis did that. But no one buys houses in Selma because it is worse than a slum it is a ghost town slum. John Lewis did that. Some people do live there! Go to Selma on a Friday or Saturday evening sometime and walk the streets and enjoy the Southern culture; you will be mugged, maybe shot, left for dead, no police or ambulance will come to get you... John Lewis did that for Selma. THIS is what the left wants to do for the U.S. too.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc statement"
The governors of some states mandate masks and social distancing when the covid-19 numbers rise. Why? If the masks and social distancing actually work implement them until covid-19 is gone even if it takes 10 years or 100 years, right? But if it does not work why implement these mandates at all?
The simple answer is that by mandating these severe restrictions the governor "appears" to be doing something. Never mind that it is bankrupting businesses and harming people it makes the politicians "look good".
So back to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" statement, does masks and social distancing reduce/prevent/cure covid-19? Or conversely does lack of masks and social distancing cause covid-19? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is the proof and why don't we demand proof? I simply do not understand how a educated and intelligent nation could roll over this easily.
For what it's worth; While cloth masks do very little to protect you eye protection does help. The virus floating around in the air enters your eyes and is immediately treated to a warm most environment and permeable membranes for easy access to your inner workings. So we should be mandating eye protection, not just shields but scuba level googles to protect your eyes. As uncomfortable as that might sound it would actually help. Just saying.
Anon, I'd agree with the theory of eye infection, but then shouldn't we be seeing pictures of all the people getting eye infection? (that is, it may get in that way, but it should not just move deeper without causing some victims to display?)
Or is that just another part of patient confidentiality? Society is expected to accept public payment demand outright, but not allowed to see the recipients of that support?
As I understand it getting the virus through your eye is little different from getting it thru your nose. Either by touch or inhaling a virus gets to your nose and any of it's connected organs and passages which includes your eyes and make's it's way to the rest of your body. If the virus enters through your eye your eye doesn't become infected per se it is merely the breach in your defense and the virus makes it's way to greener pastures like your lungs.
One fallacy that may not be a "logical" one is the "if it saves one life" fallacy. By this fallacy, one should indeed keep the world shut down until there are no deaths from covid-19, but this cure would be worse than the disease. This fallacy is used to justify police-state type surveillance in the UK, draconian sex laws for a 16 year-old dating a 15 year old, etc. It also is why people are terrified of toxins and shop at Whole Foods--any contamination (which is impossible to prevent) and we might die. It contaminates any debate about the environment, climate change, school funding, endangered species, etc.