If you could put a stop to one defect in reasoning, what would it be?

[laconicsax]

I'm leaning towards the idea that anecdotal evidence is just as valuable as experimental evidence.

Imagine what a world where "my aunt Dottie swears by homeopathy, so it must work" wouldn't be considered a valid argument!

[realisticphish]

1. the post hoc fallacy would be one

so would "correlation does not imply causation." (well, obviously this is something to ADD, not subtract, just to be clear)

[Warpy]

2. I can't point to just one member of the fallacy zoo

but one I find most irritating is argumentum ad populum, AKA the bandwagon fallacy.

People pull that one out just before they poke their fingers in their ears and wander off going "LALALALALALALALA I can't hear you!"

[cleanhippie]

5. Thats the one I was thinking too!

Burns me up when someone tells me "How can it not be true of so many believe it?" :puke:

[Silent3]

3. Anyone being foolish enough to disagree with me

So much could be solved if only people would follow that one simple rule. :evilgrin:

OK, OK... a real suggestion...

Perhaps how horrible people are at risk assessment. For example, cowering in fear over terrorism, expecting government to commit so much of our resources to fighting it (often with very questionable efficacy), when the same expenditures could save many more lives by improving health care or highway safety.

Or, near and dear to many in this forum... the stupidity of fearing side effects of vaccines that, even if the imagined side effects were real, are feared out of proportion to the risks of susceptibility to the diseases the vaccines are meant to protect against.

Or the inability to realize that even risks that are small (at least in the short terms), like asteroid impact or a geomagnetic storm, but have HUGE downside cost, are worth far more attention for prevention and/or preparedness than they receive.

[HuckleB]

4. I don't know where to start.

What is the defect in reasoning where a poster, whose profile says he lives in Atlanta early in the morning, claims that a doctor in LA is his or her kid's pediatrician, and suddenly a change to the profile indicates no home town, and, well, the logical fallacies of said poster go on and on from there?

Yeah, I am mad at myself for wasting my own precious time.

[Orrex]

6. Why do you hate commuters?

:rofl:

[charlie]

7. I don't hate commuters

I'm just jealous of their rocket ships.

[HuckleB]

12. Where else should I place my hate?

:)

[TZ]

8. That reading an article on teh internetz makes one more of an expert than the experts

There is one particular idiot around here that is always blathering on about experimental design when they clearly have little actual knowledge of this extremely complex skill. I worked for a brilliant scientist who wanted me to learn how to do it..its really really hard. No way can any Dr. Googles have a clue.

[charlie]

9. Not a fallacy, but an annoying tactic

Ad hoc rejiggering of the God concept to avoid ceding a point. Start with the standard issue American God and bit by bit he changes into a rarified abstraction, so the Baptist guy you're arguing with sounds more and more like a Taoist. Eventually you're advised your notion of God is as unsophisticated as a Fundie's.

Of course, afterward his God reverts back into a comic book superhero. A sophisticated comic book superhero.

[realisticphish]

14. oh man

tack this up with every idiot who gives some asinine "proof" of God as some vague, non-involved creator force, then goes on to say "therefore, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and those who don't believe in Him will burn forever in a lake of fire"

[LeftishBrit]

10. I would say the argument from authority..

Whether the authority of a particular individual; of a news source ('it must be true, I read it in the Sun!') or of a real or supposed consensus of opinion.

E.g. from a student's essay, referring to Rochel Gelman's theory of innate number concepts (a theory about which genuine problems could be raised): "Gelman's theory is unlikely to be true, because it is similar to Chomsky's theory of an innate language acquistion device, which has been swept away in a tide of connectionism".

This actually contains two logical fallacies: the argument from the authority of a supposed consensus, and the 'guilt-by-association' argument 'X looks somewhat similar to Y; Y is wrong; so X must be wrong'.

What is worrying is not so much that the student wrote it in an essay, as that I am sure that he was influenced by similar arguments by the more 'evangelical connectionists' (For those outside related fields, connectionism is a form of computer modelling, often used to model certain cognitive and learning processes; and used by some to provide evidence that some processes that are often regarded as controlled by innate specific modules in the brain can really be explained by general learning processes).

A related fallacy is the tendency to equate opinion with proof. On several occasions people on DU have linked to an opinion piece that shares their viewpoint as 'proof' that their view is correct.

[TZ]

11. Equating "opinion with proof"

You just described the entirety of GDP....:rofl:

[Odin2005]

13. Get people to quit thinking that "data" is the plural of "anecdote".

Dog, that pisses me off.

[urgk]

15. Oh man, this is easy for me - Relying on Opinion Polls to Prove Anything.

Especially when the pollster hasn't released (or the news article doesn't report) the exact question asked.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. I would stop the moronic notion that science is a religion.

Not long ago, I posted a thread in this forum:

Behind the Aegis (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-03-10 03:01 PM
Original message
There is rock bottom, then another level of crazy beneath it!
I have seen a number of stupid things on this site. It is huge and has hundreds of thousands of posters, so there is always going to be stupid remarks. However, today, I think I have seen the #1 contender (until another level of crazy is drilled): those who use science and demand proof be scientifically sound before being called "a fact" are now akin to religious fundamentalists! Scientific fundamentalists! Who ever thought the day would come?

I understand people being passionate about things, even to the point of not employing clear logic, but good grief, claiming the use of the scientific method to religious craziness is just a step too far.

The other day I see someone claiming:

"Scientists are some of the greatest gatekeepers in society in all kinds of knowledge. Generally they are more interested in reinforcing what's known, and making sure any theory they've contributed to is never upended. Not really a surprise one would suggest to you, essentially putting your head in the sand."

I find comments like this troubling.

[laconicsax]

17. I see claims such as that as more indicative of a general ignorance.

Educate people about what science is, and crap like that evaporates.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. How do you educate people who think science is some sort of "fundamentalism?"

I have actually seen posters use the term "fundy scientists" and they aren't talking about creationists.

[laconicsax]

20. At the tip of a sword.

Just kidding...or am I?












I am, but you raise a good point. I'd suggest forcing them to live for a month without access to anything brought to them by science, but it's dangerous to force psychopaths to stop taking their meds.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. "...but it's dangerous to force psychopaths to stop taking their meds. "

Or force them to stop using the internet to spread their nonsense. :evilgrin:

[laconicsax]

22. I think you don't understand the purpose of the Internet.

"Or force them to stop using the internet to spread their nonsense."

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I guess not.

Seems they have a great tool in the internet and spreading falsehoods, half-truths, and just out and out stupidity. Of course, it has also been used to recruit others into bigotry. But, the internet, thanks Al Gore (:P), has also been an incredible tool for good and truth.

[greyl]

18. Hasty conclusions.

They're exceedingly prevalent, and can be difficult to battle because people don't always easily let go of the comfort of "knowing".

Jumping to Conclusions

It is not always a mistake to make a quick decision, but when we draw a conclusion without taking the trouble to acquire enough of the relevant evidence, we commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions, provided there was sufficient time to acquire and assess that extra evidence, and provided that the extra effort it takes to get the evidence isn’t prohibitive.

Example:

This car is really cheap. I’ll buy it.

Hold on. Before concluding that you should buy it, you ought to have someone check its operating condition, or else you should make sure you get a guarantee about the car’s being in working order. And, if you stop to think about it, there may be other factors you should consider before making the purchase, such as size, appearance, and gas usage.

www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Jumping%20to%20Conclusions

[onager]

24. !...

[The Green Manalishi]

25. Sterilization of anyone who uses the phrase

"The exception proves the rule"

No, dumbshit, it is *TESTS* the rule; the fact that 'test' and proof' are somewhat synonymous in geometry does not change the fact that by uttering such a phrase you have forever disqualified yourself from intellectual intercourse amongst adults.

Although getting rid of the post hoc fallacy would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.