Paul Rosenberg – As we did last time, we’ll combine several formal fallacies in this installment. I’m doing this because I think the application of these fallacies has more practical importance than their logical derivations. That is, all fallacies are applied by real humans, against real humans; and so I want to make that the primary focus, not their formal (almost mathematic) explanations.
I have nothing against the formal renderings of these things, in fact I find them necessary, but for application in actual human affairs, usage is more central than analytics.
And so I’m calling today’s fallacy the appeal to diversions. We could include many formal fallacies under this description, but here are the primary types: Continue reading
Paul Rosenberg – Our fallacy #4 was the appeal to authority, the claim that being authorized makes things right. We noted a similar fallacy in our #8, the naturalist fallacy, a claim that time creates authority and truth. For today’s fallacy, however, I want to turn these around: Not third parties referring to authority, but authority itself telling us what’s right. And so I’m calling this fallacy, the argument from authority.
Paul Rosenberg – The thought-terminating cliché (also called thought-stopper or bumper sticker logic) is more purely a verbal weapon than the rest of the fallacies we’ve covered. But it is very common.
Paul Rosenberg – The ad hominem fallacy is a tool for winning an argument, based not upon the facts, but by attacking the person arguing against you. In other words, personal attacks are used to distract everyone from the actual facts.