One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
“The Dangerous World of Logical Fallacies”
Jun 24, 2017 11:22:37   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 

“The Dangerous World of Logical Fallacies”
by Mario Livio

“Thinkers in disciplines ranging from mathematics to economics, and from science to philosophy, attempt to construct theorems, theories, or scenarios, that have at least a fighting chance of being correct. Since in many cases one of the chief guides is logical reasoning, the ability to spot fallacies is an essential skill. In this piece I will briefly discuss a few such potential traps, and I hope to describe a few more in a future blog entry.

One fairly common fallacy is known as the "post-hoc" (Latin for "after this") fallacy. This is the notion that because one event happened to follow another, cause and effect are implied. This type of faulty reasoning has helped to make many "healers" and "psychics" very rich. The placebo effect notwithstanding, the fact that someone's health improved following a visit to such a healer does not imply any causal relation. Similarly, if you fell and broke your leg after a black cat had crossed your path, don't blame the cat. This is not to say, of course, that one should not investigate cases in which a certain sequence of events repeats itself multiple times.

Here is an example of a common logical fallacy known as the ad hominem argument, which is Latin for "argument against the person" or "argument toward the person". Basically, an ad hominem argument goes like this:

Person 1 makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about Person 1.
Therefore claim X is false.

Another known fallacy is that of the "false dilemma." For instance, the question: "Is mathematics an invention or a discovery?" leaves you with the impression that these are the only two options, and that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe that mathematics is an intricate combination of intertwined inventions and discoveries. Similarly, a statement such as: "The government should invest either in scientific research or in education" is false, since it could actually do both (clearly within budgetary constraints). The world isn't just black or white. In general, one should always carefully examine phrases that start with "the choice is clear," since those can potentially hide false dilemmas.

Studies show that one of the most frequently occurring fallacies involves logic flowing in the wrong direction. The argument goes like this: If P is true, then Q necessarily follows. Q is true, therefore P is true. For instance, if Earth is the only planet on which intelligent life exists, then clearly we will not find any signs of intelligent life on other planets. However, just because we have not found extraterrestrial intelligent life yet, we should not conclude that such ET life does not exist. To make things a bit closer to home, consider the following situation that probably many young (and not so young) people have experienced. A man thinks: "If she is not interested in seeing me again, she may say that she has another commitment tonight." This may be true, but if the woman in question has sent him a text message saying that she has another commitment, he should not automatically conclude that she is not interested.

Some fallacies are very seductive, and avoiding them requires a close examination of the logic involved. A famous one concerns the warning against stepping onto a "slippery slope." No one likes to embark on something that inevitably leads to disaster, but one should always investigate how likely such a slide truly is. The fact that something could happen doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or even that it is likely to happen- not every action opens the floodgates. In particular, we should never allow fear of fallacious slippery slopes to stifle our natural curiosity.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Reply
Jun 24, 2017 12:09:31   #
Singularity
 
pafret wrote:

“The Dangerous World of Logical Fallacies”
by Mario Livio

“Thinkers in disciplines ranging from mathematics to economics, and from science to philosophy, attempt to construct theorems, theories, or scenarios, that have at least a fighting chance of being correct. Since in many cases one of the chief guides is logical reasoning, the ability to spot fallacies is an essential skill. In this piece I will briefly discuss a few such potential traps, and I hope to describe a few more in a future blog entry.

One fairly common fallacy is known as the "post-hoc" (Latin for "after this") fallacy. This is the notion that because one event happened to follow another, cause and effect are implied. This type of faulty reasoning has helped to make many "healers" and "psychics" very rich. The placebo effect notwithstanding, the fact that someone's health improved following a visit to such a healer does not imply any causal relation. Similarly, if you fell and broke your leg after a black cat had crossed your path, don't blame the cat. This is not to say, of course, that one should not investigate cases in which a certain sequence of events repeats itself multiple times.

Here is an example of a common logical fallacy known as the ad hominem argument, which is Latin for "argument against the person" or "argument toward the person". Basically, an ad hominem argument goes like this:

Person 1 makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about Person 1.
Therefore claim X is false.

Another known fallacy is that of the "false dilemma." For instance, the question: "Is mathematics an invention or a discovery?" leaves you with the impression that these are the only two options, and that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe that mathematics is an intricate combination of intertwined inventions and discoveries. Similarly, a statement such as: "The government should invest either in scientific research or in education" is false, since it could actually do both (clearly within budgetary constraints). The world isn't just black or white. In general, one should always carefully examine phrases that start with "the choice is clear," since those can potentially hide false dilemmas.

Studies show that one of the most frequently occurring fallacies involves logic flowing in the wrong direction. The argument goes like this: If P is true, then Q necessarily follows. Q is true, therefore P is true. For instance, if Earth is the only planet on which intelligent life exists, then clearly we will not find any signs of intelligent life on other planets. However, just because we have not found extraterrestrial intelligent life yet, we should not conclude that such ET life does not exist. To make things a bit closer to home, consider the following situation that probably many young (and not so young) people have experienced. A man thinks: "If she is not interested in seeing me again, she may say that she has another commitment tonight." This may be true, but if the woman in question has sent him a text message saying that she has another commitment, he should not automatically conclude that she is not interested.

Some fallacies are very seductive, and avoiding them requires a close examination of the logic involved. A famous one concerns the warning against stepping onto a "slippery slope." No one likes to embark on something that inevitably leads to disaster, but one should always investigate how likely such a slide truly is. The fact that something could happen doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or even that it is likely to happen- not every action opens the floodgates. In particular, we should never allow fear of fallacious slippery slopes to stifle our natural curiosity.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
img https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DZt5zE8D0xc/WU1zjS... (show quote)


On OPP many of these logical fallacies are rampant. There are a number of reasons. Lack of sophisticated modes of thinking, lack of education, pack mentality to name a few.

It is frustrating when an intelligent, educated and logical post receives nothing but ad hominem objections, but I believe it is the strength and speed of the initial defensive emotional response coupled with a lack of alternative ability to think critically when a beloved notion, for example a religious tenet, is perceived to be under attack that elicits some of the more volatile responses.

Some are just inveterate trolls with no purpose other than delighting in another's discomfiture by either honest or dishonest responses which garner extreme emotional responses themselves.

Rather than disciplining the emotional response and examining the objectionable post critically and Illogically and producing a cogent rebuttal, some, having never encountered or developed these skills have little other choice than to proceed on the basis of emotional fight/flight/freeze responses.
They get correspondingly testy and insulting of the post and its author, they refuse to answer or ignore completely the objectionable post and/or its author, or simply stick to their talking point no matter how mach logical factual supporting evidence is supplied.

Some even have the purpose, conscious or not, to revel in the emotional satisfaction of verbal jousting, with a quest for thoughtful discourse, fact, logic and truth a distant second purpose.

Most present a mixed bag running through a spectrum of emotional to logical, honest to intellectually dishonest retorts, usually with one mode of response predominating while using other modes of argument/defense as secondaries.

Most are to recalcitrant to want to change their primary style, some are inadequately equipped to see a need for change, others are bound by loyalty and commitment to ideas and causes (often emotionally based on childhood indoctrination) which they seek to protect.

Some are clowns who simply want a laugh and pat on the back!

I enjoy a spectrum of these kinds of give and take, to the surprise or chagrin of some other posters, when their most solemn awful pronouncement of my impending doom or their most thoughtful and logical postings receive a mixed or unexpected choice of style. It would be a false dichotomy to insist that people are totally of one style or another. Most of us present a mixed bag of these and other styles of response.

Keeps us on our toes!

Reply
Jun 24, 2017 12:29:05   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Each of you, Pafret and Singularity, are examples of what is good about OPP: Those posters who speak/write of diverse topics with rational good sense, intelligence, articulation and almost always with civility and respect for others. Thank you, both

Reply
 
 
Jun 24, 2017 12:39:27   #
Singularity
 
slatten49 wrote:
Each of you, Pafret and Singularity, are examples of what is good about OPP: Those posters who speak/write of diverse topics with rational good sense, intelligence, articulation and almost always with civility and respect for others. Thank you, both


You are welcome and thanks for the kind words.

Reply
Jun 24, 2017 12:48:38   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
Singularity wrote:
You are welcome and thanks for the kind words.


Thank you Slatt, I was beginning to think you were my only audience.

Reply
Jun 25, 2017 08:45:05   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Singularity wrote:
On OPP many of these logical fallacies are rampant. There are a number of reasons. Lack of sophisticated modes of thinking, lack of education, pack mentality to name a few.

It is frustrating when an intelligent, educated and logical post receives nothing but ad hominem objections, but I believe it is the strength and speed of the initial defensive emotional response coupled with a lack of alternative ability to think critically when a beloved notion, for example a religious tenet, is perceived to be under attack that elicits some of the more volatile responses.

Some are just inveterate trolls with no purpose other than delighting in another's discomfiture by either honest or dishonest responses which garner extreme emotional responses themselves.

Rather than disciplining the emotional response and examining the objectionable post critically and Illogically and producing a cogent rebuttal, some, having never encountered or developed these skills have little other choice than to proceed on the basis of emotional fight/flight/freeze responses.
They get correspondingly testy and insulting of the post and its author, they refuse to answer or ignore completely the objectionable post and/or its author, or simply stick to their talking point no matter how mach logical factual supporting evidence is supplied.

Some even have the purpose, conscious or not, to revel in the emotional satisfaction of verbal jousting, with a quest for thoughtful discourse, fact, logic and truth a distant second purpose.

Most present a mixed bag running through a spectrum of emotional to logical, honest to intellectually dishonest retorts, usually with one mode of response predominating while using other modes of argument/defense as secondaries.

Most are to recalcitrant to want to change their primary style, some are inadequately equipped to see a need for change, others are bound by loyalty and commitment to ideas and causes (often emotionally based on childhood indoctrination) which they seek to protect.

Some are clowns who simply want a laugh and pat on the back!

I enjoy a spectrum of these kinds of give and take, to the surprise or chagrin of some other posters, when their most solemn awful pronouncement of my impending doom or their most thoughtful and logical postings receive a mixed or unexpected choice of style. It would be a false dichotomy to insist that people are totally of one style or another. Most of us present a mixed bag of these and other styles of response.

Keeps us on our toes!
On OPP many of these logical fallacies are rampant... (show quote)


I resemble some of those remarks. (For that matter, so do you).

Reply
Jun 25, 2017 19:33:27   #
Gener
 
pafret wrote:

“The Dangerous World of Logical Fallacies”
by Mario Livio

“Thinkers in disciplines ranging from mathematics to economics, and from science to philosophy, attempt to construct theorems, theories, or scenarios, that have at least a fighting chance of being correct. Since in many cases one of the chief guides is logical reasoning, the ability to spot fallacies is an essential skill. In this piece I will briefly discuss a few such potential traps, and I hope to describe a few more in a future blog entry.

One fairly common fallacy is known as the "post-hoc" (Latin for "after this") fallacy. This is the notion that because one event happened to follow another, cause and effect are implied. This type of faulty reasoning has helped to make many "healers" and "psychics" very rich. The placebo effect notwithstanding, the fact that someone's health improved following a visit to such a healer does not imply any causal relation. Similarly, if you fell and broke your leg after a black cat had crossed your path, don't blame the cat. This is not to say, of course, that one should not investigate cases in which a certain sequence of events repeats itself multiple times.

Here is an example of a common logical fallacy known as the ad hominem argument, which is Latin for "argument against the person" or "argument toward the person". Basically, an ad hominem argument goes like this:

Person 1 makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about Person 1.
Therefore claim X is false.

Another known fallacy is that of the "false dilemma." For instance, the question: "Is mathematics an invention or a discovery?" leaves you with the impression that these are the only two options, and that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe that mathematics is an intricate combination of intertwined inventions and discoveries. Similarly, a statement such as: "The government should invest either in scientific research or in education" is false, since it could actually do both (clearly within budgetary constraints). The world isn't just black or white. In general, one should always carefully examine phrases that start with "the choice is clear," since those can potentially hide false dilemmas.

Studies show that one of the most frequently occurring fallacies involves logic flowing in the wrong direction. The argument goes like this: If P is true, then Q necessarily follows. Q is true, therefore P is true. For instance, if Earth is the only planet on which intelligent life exists, then clearly we will not find any signs of intelligent life on other planets. However, just because we have not found extraterrestrial intelligent life yet, we should not conclude that such ET life does not exist. To make things a bit closer to home, consider the following situation that probably many young (and not so young) people have experienced. A man thinks: "If she is not interested in seeing me again, she may say that she has another commitment tonight." This may be true, but if the woman in question has sent him a text message saying that she has another commitment, he should not automatically conclude that she is not interested.

Some fallacies are very seductive, and avoiding them requires a close examination of the logic involved. A famous one concerns the warning against stepping onto a "slippery slope." No one likes to embark on something that inevitably leads to disaster, but one should always investigate how likely such a slide truly is. The fact that something could happen doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or even that it is likely to happen- not every action opens the floodgates. In particular, we should never allow fear of fallacious slippery slopes to stifle our natural curiosity.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
img https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DZt5zE8D0xc/WU1zjS... (show quote)



Most people think that illogical thinking is what the 'other' person does.

As for the woman, in today's world, with sexual harassment cases rampant, one would be darn wise to think she is NOT interested because a mistake could lead to very serious consequences.

Reply
 
 
Jul 3, 2017 05:39:37   #
okie don
 
Gener wrote:
Most people think that illogical thinking is what the 'other' person does.

As for the woman, in today's world, with sexual harassment cases rampant, one would be darn wise to think she is NOT interested because a mistake could lead to very serious consequences.

" Between a woman's ass and whiskey glass, many a man has lost his ass".
A quote from my father, years ago Gener and sooooo TRUE
HAPPY 4TH

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.