Ok, folks, it's becoming more frustrating trying to debate as people continue to make fallacious statements and arguments. We're all guilty at one point or another, so I think we should make it a point to quote logical fallacies made in threads and point out which fallacy is being made so that we can learn from our mistakes.

For instance, in the Saul of Tarsus thread (http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=362707), I keep being challenged to prove that Jesus didn't exist.

This is an example of the "Burden of Proof" fallacy(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html), in which burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Quote :

"n many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

The proof that Jesus didn't exist is that there's no firsthand evidence of his existence. None. My proving that would mean showing you every single document that COULD possibly provide that firsthand evidence, and allowing you to see that he isn't mentioned in it. Clearly, that's impossible, and it's also silly.

When trying to prove something exists, the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove it exists. Trying to prove something does not exist is, clearly, logically impossible.

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 10:46 AM. Reason : ,]

1/24/2006 10:45:06 AM

Two of the most popular fallacies in the soap box are Ad Hominem and Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

TWW Example
Person 1: I disagree
Person 2: Fuck you, you're just a lousy conservative christian anyway. You smell bad, and your mom's a whore, so why should anyone listen to you?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - "After this, therefore because of this." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html)

A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

1. A occurs before B.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

Soap Box Example

Quote :

"Simple math then, spending on military=secure way of life, no spending=barbarian hords making your country look like a bad pee at an interstate rest stop."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=381786

Fun Exampke
homer: not a bear in sight, the bear patrol must be working like a charm
lisa: thats optimistic thinking dad, thats like me saying this rock keeps away tigers
homer: how does it work?
lisa: it doesn't work, its just a stupid rock, but you dont see any tigers around here do you?
homer: [long pause]
homer: lisa, i'd like to buy your rock.

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2006 10:48:21 AM

salisburyboy is suspended, quasi-serious threads are making a reappearance, and teh L3ft is now creating threads on logical fallacies.

This isn't TWW, this is some alter-TWW...

1/24/2006 11:17:59 AM

shut it, tgd. you know that I point out logical fallacies every chance i get

1/24/2006 11:32:29 AM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: shut it, tgd."

and a pacifist getting testy to boot, wtf parallel world did I step into this morning?

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : nothin' but love for you DG, try to smile a little]

1/24/2006 1:39:43 PM

the smile was supposed to be in the first post

and pacifists can get testy all they want. they just don't hit

1/24/2006 1:43:19 PM

Quote :

"shut it, tgd. you know that I point out logical fallacies every chance i get"

You don't hesitate to use them either... ad hominem, post hoc, burden of proof, etc.

The funny thing is that you automatically declare yourself holder of the truth and place the burden on your oppponent. The majority of scholars actually do believe in a historical jesus and that there is significant acurracy or at least acceptable plausability to accept historical occurences of the gospels yet you claim that the burden of proof is in proving he existed and not where it should be, that he didn't.

1/24/2006 7:42:57 PM

^ad hominem

1/24/2006 7:47:00 PM

^^ why not just quote those scholars and their reasons for saying he existed? without knowing anything else the burden of proof IS on the person saying he existed b/c of the reasons stated.

1/24/2006 7:48:27 PM

the usage of ad hominem by me was meant to be ironic.

as for your other statement

Quote :

"The funny thing is that you automatically declare yourself holder of the truth and place the burden on your oppponent."

no, I place the burden of proof on the affirmitive side of the argument, since that's what is logically sensible.

Quote :

"As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

think about it. how can the burden of proof rest on the person who says something doesn't exist, when it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist? you can only prove something DOES exist. This is exactly why I posted this thread. You're just saying that the burden of proof should be on me because I"m challenging preconceived notions, namely that Jesus existed. However, that's not logical, and plenty of previous debates prove that.

also, you're still just SAYING things and not backing them up. "the majority of scholars?" If that's the case, might you like to prove that, as well? You can't - and you know why? It isn't true. It's just rhetoric.

Now, please take the jesus debates to the threads where it belongs.

also notice that I did say

Quote :

"We're all guilty at one point or another"

,and I do include myself in that statement. Feel free to post my own logical fallacies here.

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2006 8:06:41 PM

Quote :

"you can only prove something DOES exist."

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 8:33 PM. Reason : My owl says you can't even do that. Goddamn red x.]

1/24/2006 8:14:59 PM

dirty greek obviously hates religion. commies arent big fans of religion. DG is obviously a dirty commie who hates american values.

1/24/2006 8:15:42 PM

I always seem to remember hearing that "absence of proof is not proof of absence"

1/24/2006 9:58:33 PM

absence of proof isn't proof of absence. That doesn't change the fact that proof is necessary to prove existence

1/24/2006 10:03:14 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=165664626072265496

Evolution Fact or Belief

1/25/2006 1:33:55 AM

^false dichotomy

1/25/2006 1:35:12 AM

what's the term for someone making connections that are just retarded like investigating scientific theories and dichotomy?

[Edited on January 25, 2006 at 1:48 AM. Reason : .]

1/25/2006 1:38:16 AM

^ad hominem



[Edited on January 25, 2006 at 1:50 AM. Reason : it's ok to admit you don't know what words mean. it's also ok to look them up]

1/25/2006 1:49:11 AM

thanks.

Quote :

"^false dichotomy"

OMFG AD HOMINEM!!!

1/25/2006 8:34:18 AM

no, this is ad hominem

(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

1/25/2006 8:47:59 AM

DG didnt respond to me, thus i must be right. the burden of proof is on him to say my incorrectness exists.

1/25/2006 8:48:02 AM

no, the burden of proof is on you, because you're the one making the claim and you're on the affirmitive end.

Quote :

"in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team"

1/25/2006 8:49:34 AM

nope, im right till proven wrong. deal with it. im considered by most everyone to be relatively infallible.

1/25/2006 9:05:14 AM

1/25/2006 9:23:31 AM

the best way to fight a fallacious argument is to introduce another fallacy.

1/25/2006 9:28:07 AM

Misinterpretation of Analogy:

(they shouldn't have eliminated analogies from the SAT--you kids are just stupider now)

-------------------------------------------------------------

An initial statement Z exists.

Person A uses two ideas from statement Z, m and n, in an analogy:

m:n :: p:q

Person(s) B misinterprets, and rejects the analogy:

"n is not q" or "m is not p"

An analogy is used to compare the relationships between two pairs of ideas. IOW, m is not being compared to p or q, nor is n. m is compared only to n, while p is compared only to q--then the m:n comparison is compared to the p:q comparison. The misinterpretation of the analogy occurs when Person B acts as though m or n was compared to p or q, and rejects this comparison--which was never really made in the first place.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Example from TWW:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Initial statement Z:
GrumpyGOP

Quote :

"We, the loyal customers [of TWW, a private entity], demanded an action [that salisburyboy be suspended], and it was taken. It's the free market in action, baby."

Person A (hempster) makes an analogy using two ideas from statement Z: m and n. The analogy uses two other ideas p and q.
hempster

Quote :

"We, the loyal customers [of TWW, a private entity], demanded an action [that salisburyboy be suspended], and it was taken. It's the free market in action, baby."

......

Quote :

"We, the loyal customers, [of early 20th century schools] demanded an action [that all women and blacks not be admitted], and it was taken. It's the free market in action, baby."

m -> customers of TWW
n -> demanding that salisburyboy be banned

p -> customers of early 20th century schools
q -> demanding that blacks/women be banned

Persons B (Woodfoot and cyrion) misinterpret and reject the analogy, acting as though Person A was comparing n to q.
Woodfoot

Quote :

"i'm sorry you're gonna have to walk me through this one real slow DID YOU JUST FUCKING COMPARE SALISBURYBOY TO DESEGREGATION"

cyrion

Quote :

"i can see how oppressing more than half the population (women and blacks) is equivalent to making it so one nutjob cant post his theories in just about every thread."

You see, my point was that "customers of TWW" is to "demanding that salisburyboy be banned" as "customers of early 20th century schools" is to "demanding that blacks/women be banned" (IOW, refuting the ethical justification behind statement Z by showing that all instances of customers getting their demands through the free market don't necessarily result in an ethical end.) At no point do I compare the ban on salisburyboy to the ban on blacks/women.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Example from recent news:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Initial statement Z:
Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is overseeing the [corrupt] Senate Republicans' reform efforts.

Person A (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid) makes an analogy using two ideas from statement Z: m and n. The analogy uses two other ideas p and q.

Quote :

"Quite frankly, having [Senator Santorum oversee] Republicans trying to clean up the mess in Washington would be like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime. "

m -> Senator Rick Santorum
n -> overseeing the Senate Republicans' reform efforts

p -> John Gotti
q -> cleaning up organized crime

Person B (Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee) misinterprets and rejects the analogy, acting as though Person A was comparing m to p.

Quote :

"For the Senate minority leader to associate the highest ranking Italian-American in the Senate with a criminal like John Gotti is beyond any political issues that may exist between the two parties. It shows a profound lack of respect for a Senate colleague as well as the nation's estimated 26 million law-abiding Italian-Americans."

You see, Senator Reid's point was that "Senator Rick Santorum" is to "overseeing the Senate Republicans' reform efforts" as "John Gotti" is to "cleaning up organized crime" (IOW, refuting the ethical justification behind statement Z by showing that a corrupt organization cannot be reformed by a corrupt leader.) At no point does Senator Reid compare Senator Rick Santorum to John Gotti.

1/25/2006 11:10:14 AM

VERY good examples

1/25/2006 11:32:24 AM

I really like this thread. Makes me wish we could stickie threads to the top of the forum list for general reference. Amateurs of The Soap Box would do good to read through this.

1/25/2006 1:20:57 PM

no ones going to read through and digest sticky threads in hopes of acting appropriately...
they will either be non-posting readers who have been around a while so when they start actively posting they know what to expect, or they will learn through experience. again i just can't see any new tdubber reading through this thread in hopes of having proper tdub etiquette.

1/25/2006 1:26:09 PM

You misunderstand my intentions. I meant it simply as a reference, not as a user guide. It would be easier to check the Logical Fallacy Thread for fallacy info than it would be to google and find the info you need.

The underlying assumption being that there is stubstantial info in the thread and it's well organized.

1/25/2006 1:43:23 PM

Most likely, a new Soap Boxer will have his logical fallacies owned to death and be referred to this thread. A sticky would still be useful.

1/25/2006 4:00:40 PM

I see what you did there

coming over after work

1/25/2006 4:05:00 PM

the problem i have with hempster's analogy fallacy is that the usage and intent are often very different. if the analogy is not correct or you choose purposefully inflamatory it warrants a negative response.

for instance (similar to the senator quote): "letting george w. bush make decisions on tax cuts is like letting the running retard invest your money in the stock market." this obviously infers that each has little financial expertise on the subject they are to decide upon.

if it isnt true than you are just being a dumbass and deserve to be called out on it.

if it is true you, more likely than not, have purposely chosen an inflamatory 2nd subject to try and rile up the opposition. this is the case with the salisbury comment. you've chosen a very large, innocent, and oppressed group to compare to a looney who has violated quite a few rules and is not in sync with 99.9% of the site (as opposed to the 50% group of woman or 20-30% minority crowd).

had you simply said "free markets do not always make ethical decisions," that'd have been fine. instead you imply salisbury's innocence and thus oppression by the masses, which is not a fact.

1/25/2006 5:21:18 PM

found this beauty nestled in chit chat:

Quote :

"Hold up, Gaither doesn't have any balls? He's who ought to be killed by a drunk driver? What about all you fucking noodle-spines attacking him with complete anonymity? I swear, anytime a Technician columnist writes something that iritates one of you, all hell breaks loose. You pretend like nobody reads the paper, but damn near everyone has something about which to complain. How exactly does that work? The simple fact that Gaither consistently has something unique to write about proves he's miles beyond many of you (or "us," in all fairness). He puts out a column, and you guys laugh like fucking clowns ripping it to shreds. Believe me, it's a helluva lot easier to insult somebody or criticize something than to actually create something on your own and put your ass on the line. I've just been reminded why I so rarely post to TWW. Only about 1% of you realize how insignificant you are (and I'm including myself in that small percentage)."

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=379403&page=4

1/26/2006 2:36:05 AM

Quote :

"At no point do I compare the ban on salisburyboy to the ban on blacks/women. ""

What do you think an analogy does? It compares two things. You stated a similarity between the two situations.

1/26/2006 2:56:21 AM

This definitely schooled me!

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

1/18/2019 4:21:18 PM