Re: Logical Fallacies

[Gost]

Ambiguity Fallacy

(also known as: amphiboly, semantical ambiguity, type-token ambiguity [form of], vagueness)

Description: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion. Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation.

Logical Form:

Claim X is made.

Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.

Example #1:

It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when.

Explanation: The ambiguity here is what exactly “good understanding” means. The conclusion assumes a much better understanding than is suggested in the premise; therefore, we have the ambiguity fallacy.

Example #2:

All living beings come from other living beings. Therefore, the first forms of life must have come from a living being. That living being is God.

Explanation: This argument is guilty of two cases of ambiguity. First, the first use of the phrase, “come from”, refers to reproduction, whereas the second use refers to origin. The fact that we know quite a bit about reproduction is irrelevant when considering origin. Second, the first use of, “living being”, refers to an empirically verifiable, biological, living organism. The second use of, “living being”, refers to a belief of an immaterial god. As you can see, when a term such as, “living being”, describes a Dodo bird as well as the all-powerful master of the universe, it has very little meaning and certainly is not specific enough to draw logical or reasonable conclusions.

Exception: Ambiguous phrases are extremely common in the English language and are a necessary part of informal logic and reasoning. As long as these ambiguous phrases mean exactly the same thing in all uses of phrase in the argument, this fallacy is not committed.

Variation: The type-token fallacy is committed when a word can refer to either a type (cars) or token (Prius, RAV4, Camry) is used in a way that makes it unclear which it refers to, the statement is ambiguous.

Toyota manufactures dozens of cars.

This obviously refers to the different types of cars, not how many instances (or tokens) of each car were manufactured.

[Gost]

sve ima ovdje

Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition)

by Bo Bennett

Description: This book is a crash course in effective reasoning, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions, perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to be improve his or her reasoning skills.

"Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime."

http://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001533/Logically-Fallacious-The-Ultimate-Collection-of-Over-300-Logical-Fallacies.html

[Gost]

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies

ne da mi se vise copy pejstat.

[Gost]

An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[Gost]

The Internet has introduced a golden age of ill-informed arguments. You can't post a video of an adorable kitten without a raging debate about pet issues spawning in the comment section. These days, everyone is a pundit.

But with all those different perspectives on important issues flying around, you'd think we'd be getting smarter and more informed. Unfortunately, the very wiring of our brains ensures that all these lively debates only make us dumber and more narrow-minded.

1. Činjenice nam ne mijenjaju mišljenje

The scary part? The same logical fallacy that prevents that crazy guy who keeps predicting the end of the world over and over from admitting maybe he was full of shit is the same fallacy that drives partisan politics and, therefore, government policy. Sleep tight, voters! Evolution is working against us.

2. Biološki imamo ugrađene dvostruke standarde

It’s called the fundamental attribution error.
It’s a universal thought process that says when other people screw up, it’s because they’re stupid or evil. But when we screw up, it’s totally circumstantial.

3. Uvjereni smo da nas svi žele dograbiti

We start assuming people have ulterior motives and hidden agendas as early as age 7 and from that point on, we never have to lose another argument for the rest of our lives. After all, if we assume the person we’re arguing with is lying, the only thing they can prove to us is that they’re a really good liar. This is how racism, sexism and any other sort of discrimination work. Once someone’s made-up their mind that color is the culprit, convincing them otherwise is going to be close to impossible, no matter how ridiculous the scenario.

4. Mozgovi nam ne razumiju vjerojatnost

It’s called neglect of probability. Our brains are great for doing a lot of things. Calculating probability is not one of them.

5. Nismo programirani tražiti ’istinu’, programirani smo ‘pobijediti’
Za priznanje da nam argumenti ne drže vodu:

It’s going to be harder than you think. Back when evolution was still sculpting your ancestor’s brains, admitting you were wrong to the person you were debating got you bred out of existence. These days, being able to admit you’re wrong is the greatest skill you can develop if you want to stay married.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

[Gost]

Behavioralni ekonomist Dan Ariely proučava zašto ponekad mislimo da uredu varati i lagati.

[Sponsored content]