Help with some fallacies

[mr friendly guy]

1. The first one is the one Xuenay is using.

Essentially it a problem with cause and effect, where you assume something only has one cause as opposed to multiple causes.

To break it down if A is known to cause C, therefore B can't have caused C.

Or, Your claims about religion causing racism and bigotry are unfounded because if religion didn't do it, something else would.

To show how ridiculous it is, we can use a medical argument.

Since high blood pressure is shown to cause heart disease, I can continue to smoke (arbitarily assuming that smoking can't also cause heart disease because you assume it can only have one cause)/

2. The second fallacy is similar to a complex question, except its not phrased as a question.

Basically it tries to link 2 unrelated statements together. Its not quite a false cause fallacy, as the it doesn't always imply that one causes the other.

It takes the form if A is true, therefore B is true.

It most probably is one of those fallacies which come under the heading of non-sequitar (although I am wondering if there is a specific name for it), or perhaps a fallacy of suppress premise, where the suppressed premise is that there is a link (unspoken) between A and B.

For example

a) it takes 2 to tango
b) therefore you must shoulder half / some of the blame (for incident A)

This is actually a retarded argument my mum likes to use. The problem isnt' with the premise, as it does take 2 to tango. The problem lies in that the first statement refers to dancing, and not to some thing else.

Another example, more commonly used is the God in the gaps argument

a) lots of things are unexplained
b) therefore God exists

While statement a) is correct, there is no linkage between a) and b).

And to show how ridiculous it gets

a) if bark grows on trees
b) my position (what ever I am arguing) is correct

What you disagree. Are you saying bark doesn't grow on trees.

3) This next one I think is a stolen concept. However usually the stolen concept involves a statement which is self contradictory to even say it (even if not obvious), eg like "how do I know I even exist".

The example I am thinking of is a design argument which involves several sentences. To break down their rhetoric it goes like this

a) I can observe the nature (presumably he means pattern) of man made items.
b)from this difference to natural objects I can tell it was designed
c) I can likewise observe from the pattern of natural objects that it was designed (by God no doubt)

If he tells an object is designed by the difference to natural objects, he can't suddenly apply that logic to natural objects themselves.

[Feil]

1. The first one is the one Xuenay is using.

Essentially it a problem with cause and effect, where you assume something only has one cause as opposed to multiple causes.

To break it down if A is known to cause C, therefore B can't have caused C.

Or, Your claims about religion causing racism and bigotry are unfounded because if religion didn't do it, something else would.

To show how ridiculous it is, we can use a medical argument.

Since high blood pressure is shown to cause heart disease, I can continue to smoke (arbitarily assuming that smoking can't also cause heart disease because you assume it can only have one cause)/

2. The second fallacy is similar to a complex question, except its not phrased as a question.

Basically it tries to link 2 unrelated statements together. Its not quite a false cause fallacy, as the it doesn't always imply that one causes the other.

It takes the form if A is true, therefore B is true.

It most probably is one of those fallacies which come under the heading of non-sequitar (although I am wondering if there is a specific name for it), or perhaps a fallacy of suppress premise, where the suppressed premise is that there is a link (unspoken) between A and B.

For example

a) it takes 2 to tango
b) therefore you must shoulder half / some of the blame (for incident A)

This is actually a retarded argument my mum likes to use. The problem isnt' with the premise, as it does take 2 to tango. The problem lies in that the first statement refers to dancing, and not to some thing else.

Another example, more commonly used is the God in the gaps argument

a) lots of things are unexplained
b) therefore God exists

While statement a) is correct, there is no linkage between a) and b).

And to show how ridiculous it gets

a) if bark grows on trees
b) my position (what ever I am arguing) is correct

What you disagree. Are you saying bark doesn't grow on trees.

3) This next one I think is a stolen concept. However usually the stolen concept involves a statement which is self contradictory to even say it (even if not obvious), eg like "how do I know I even exist".

The example I am thinking of is a design argument which involves several sentences. To break down their rhetoric it goes like this

a) I can observe the nature (presumably he means pattern) of man made items.
b)from this difference to natural objects I can tell it was designed
c) I can likewise observe from the pattern of natural objects that it was designed (by God no doubt)

If he tells an object is designed by the difference to natural objects, he can't suddenly apply that logic to natural objects themselves.

For all your fallacy needs!
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/ar ... lacies.htm

1 reveals that the premise of the speaker is not the premise he has stated. The speaker's argument is as follows:

1: A is the unique cause of C.
2: Therefore B is not a cause of C (definition of unique cuase).
QED.

Which obviously would fall under the category of an outright lie.

The site above seems to qualify the replacement of 1: as a Fallacy of Insignificance, wherein that which is not the unique cause is purported as such.

The first iteration of 2 seems to be a false analogy:
Multiple people are needed to tango.
Misdeeds are like tangos for reason X (assume this statement to be true)
Therefore, multiple people are needed for misdeeds.

The second and third dive deep into the realm of the blatant and simple non-sequitor, sans sub-class. Demand proof that A leads to X.
Given A.
Therefore X.


3 seems to be a lie, not a fallacy, since the speaker obviously cannot percieve a difference in the pattern of natural objects with the pattern of natural objects, because that demands that a!=a, which is absurd--yet he claims to anyway.

[Feil]

Oh, damn it all. Quoted the whole post in stead of *snip*ping. Appologies.

[mr friendly guy]

Thanks for the link.

However example 3 still seems like a fallacy rather than a lie. Even if you accept his premise, his conclusion doesn't logically follow from it, because its a self contradiction. They are most probably hoping for a type of "sleight of hand" with words, so that you don't notice it.

The reason I think it might fall under a stolen concept, is that he applies the concept (statement b) in such a way to contradict his next statement (without realising it).

[Wyrm]

3) This next one I think is a stolen concept. However usually the stolen concept involves a statement which is self contradictory to even say it (even if not obvious), eg like "how do I know I even exist".

The example I am thinking of is a design argument which involves several sentences. To break down their rhetoric it goes like this

a) I can observe the nature (presumably he means pattern) of man made items.
b)from this difference to natural objects I can tell it was designed
c) I can likewise observe from the pattern of natural objects that it was designed (by God no doubt)

If he tells an object is designed by the difference to natural objects, he can't suddenly apply that logic to natural objects themselves.

I strongly think that #3 is indeed a stolen concept. "Natural" here is being defined in terms of some property that is used to distinguish it from being man-made. But in proposition (c), the author is denying that natural objects have this property, thereby depriving the word "natural" of any meaning. Linky that explains the stolen concept fallacy, and what I read seems to fit the bill.

[Rye]

Yeah, that's a stolen concept, if one the one hand he's claiming artificiality can be identified as distinct from nature, then he claims that nature is designed (and thus ultimately artificial) he's refuted himself.

The usual argument from design is more an appeal to incredulity; everything is complicated therefore an intelligent entity made it (though this then runs into issues with that entity requiring a mind of extreme complexity that can design and maintain something of the scope of the universe having no explanation for its own complexity).