Logical fallacies

[Loudmouth]

There are a few more dealing with probabilities that I would add:

Gambler's Fallacy: This is best seen at the roulette tables in Vegas. They often have a little sign that shows the last 10 results. If you happen to walk by and notice that red has hit the last 10 times in a row you might think that there is a much higher probability of green on the roll. YOU WOULD BE WRONG. These are independent events. Past results do not affect future results for independent events. You could get red one thousand times in a row and the chances of getting red the next time are the same as they were for the previous one thousand trials. Using another example, you could flip an coin and get heads one thousand times in a row. What are the odds of getting heads on the next flip of the coin? 50%.

Sharpshooter fallacy: This is where you paint the bull's eye around the bullet hole, also known as Texas Sharpshooting. You commit this fallacy when you lack a hypothesis before the data is gathered, and then form a hypothesis based on the data to ensure that they hypothesis passes. Michael Behe has committed this fallacy on quite a few occasions. He has argued that some adaptations require multiple mutations, and the odds of those mutations occuring are astronomical. What Behe does not consider is that other mutations could have occurred resulting in a different adaptation.

 

[Tiberius]

I;d say there's also what I have called "argument from techno-babble" where a person uses lots of scientific jargon to make them seem knowledgeable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I;d say there's also what I have called "argument from techno-babble" where a person uses lots of scientific jargon to make them seem knowledgeable.

Is that really a logical fallacy, though? It's terrible argumentation, sure, but it's not really a fallacy per se - it's just being ignorant at best, or deliberately dishonest at worst. The fallacy would simply be one of unsound premises, if anything.

 

[Tiberius]

Is that really a logical fallacy, though? It's terrible argumentation, sure, but it's not really a fallacy per se - it's just being ignorant at best, or deliberately dishonest at worst. The fallacy would simply be one of unsound premises, if anything.

He uses lots of big, important -sounding scientific words. He must know what he's talking about, therefore he is right.

 

[razeontherock]

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

What about all those times we've seen people insist that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence? (I would think anyone would be ashamed to admit such a thing, yet have seen it repeatedly)

 

[razeontherock]

Another one I almost forgot:

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Again why it cannot be applied within Christianity as fallacious

 

[Davian]

Welcome back, razeontherock. It's kinda like you have not been away.

What about all those times we've seen people insist that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence?

Only where posters have confused it with the *actual* fallacy, "absence of evidence is proof of absence".

(I would think anyone would be ashamed to admit such a thing, yet have seen it repeatedly)

Did you just do it again?

 

[razeontherock]

Did you just do it again?

The argumentum e silentio is your's

 

[Davian]

The argumentum e silentio is your's

You are not making sense.

However, that is not unexpected.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What about all those times we've seen people insist that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence? (I would think anyone would be ashamed to admit such a thing, yet have seen it repeatedly)

I would argue that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. The fallacies are when people say it always is evidence of absence, or, worse, that it's proof of absence.

So count me as one of those people who insist that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Modus Tollens
1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
C. Therefore, not P.

E.g.,
1. If the watch-dog detects an intruder, the dog will bark.
2. The dog did not bark
C. Therefore, no intruder was detected by the watch-dog.

Q is the evidence. Not Q is absence of evidence.