What is your most infuriating "Logical Fallacy"?

[Kitsune]

When Logical Fallacies are being thrown out, which one drives you crazy the most?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

When Logical Fallacies are being thrown out, which one drives you crazy the most?

The Golden-Mean Fallacy. Because I see it frequently in American news and political discussions.

[bilateralrope]

Naturalistic fallacy. Mainly because it's the one I run into the most.

[mr friendly guy]

Appeal to motive fallacy. See it in the arguments even against people I argue here.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Appeals to history and popularity, mostly since they are the arguments most commonly used by my friends and family.

[General Zod]

Tu Quoeque is always annoying to deal with. It comes up pretty often in political arguments and there's no real way to deal with it besides calling the other guy a fuckwit.

[Formless]

What kind of question is this? Fallacies don't piss me off. People piss me off. Even the nicest person uses some of these fallacies some of the time, and because of how language works most of these fallacies are not seen alone. One sentence could technically count as, like, five fallacies at once depending on how you want to interpret the statement. But its how the person responds or what their apparent motive for using the fallacy that gets under the skin.

The best answer I can come up with is Biobabble. But that's more a kind of meme that compounds many mistaken perceptions and logical fallacies together to support a certain worldview. A worldview I loathe for many reasons.

[Kitsune]

Tu Quoeque is always annoying to deal with. It comes up pretty often in political arguments and there's no real way to deal with it besides calling the other guy a fuckwit.

In some cases, Tu quoque is valid.

[Simon_Jester]

What annoys me most is false accusations of fallacious reasoning. For instance:

1) "Ad hominem" is when you say something like "Joe is untrustworthy, therefore we should reject his explanation." First of all, there are obviously times when that is exactly what you should do in everyday life; some boys like to cry wolf a little too much to be trusted.

Second, some people try to turn this around- they complain when someone says "Joe has contradicted himself and misrepresented important facts, therefore he is untrustworthy." But that's the exact opposite of the 'ad hominem fallacy.' Instead of trying to impugn someone's character to undermine their words, we are using their words to evaluate their character.

2) The fallacy of the Golden Mean is to automatically assume that you can arrive at truth by finding the midpoint between two contradictory claims. For example "some say the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists in airplanes, others say it was destroyed by concealed demolition charges, therefore clearly one tower was destroyed by each" This is obviously an easy way for ignorant people to counterfeit thought, and is rightly criticized in some cases.

But at the same time, often it is true. "Some say courage is better than caution, some say caution is better than courage, but really we need to mix those two virtues and pick the appropriate time to be brave, and the appropriate time to be prudent" is a very reasonable argument, whereas it would be bluntly stupid to say "NO, we should be brave ALL the time, no matter what!"

The 'golden mean' is descended from Greek philosophers who debated politics and ethics a lot, because it is exactly in those areas where compromise is most often necessary, and where thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic is very common. It has to be, because complicated problems about what is right and wrong, or what virtues a person should have, or what political systems are the best, have ambiguity. Moderate answers are both safest and usually best in those areas.

Sure, the Golden Mean can be used as a cover for ignorance when arguing about physical reality, or when a person is trying to say that an extreme position and a moderate position are co-equal and thus that we should 'split the difference' and end up with a position that is further away from the moderate truth.

But rejecting it out of hand can also be a cover for ignorance- for example, an extremist may shout "Golden Mean fallacy!" when someone points out that their ideas are too extreme to be practical, and need to be mixed in with a dose of common sense or more moderate political views.

[Formless]

1) "Ad hominem" is when you say something like "Joe is untrustworthy, therefore we should reject his explanation." First of all, there are obviously times when that is exactly what you should do in everyday life; some boys like to cry wolf a little too much to be trusted.

That would be the Fallacy of Fallacies-- a fallacy doesn't determine true and false. Facts determine truth value. And facts like trustworthiness can determine whether skepticism is called for.

This is another reason why fallacies on their own don't necessarily piss me off.

[Kitsune]

1) "Ad hominem" is when you say something like "Joe is untrustworthy, therefore we should reject his explanation." First of all, there are obviously times when that is exactly what you should do in everyday life; some boys like to cry wolf a little too much to be trusted.

That would be the Fallacy of Fallacies-- a fallacy doesn't determine true and false. Facts determine truth value. And facts like trustworthiness can determine whether skepticism is called for.

That one is tricky because there is the fallacy fallacy fallacy
As well, it is almost impossible to prove a negative

[Formless]

Actually, thinking about it, I'm going to have to step back and admit that there is one fallacy that, while not guaranteed to piss me off, is quite likely to do so. Strawmanning. At best it indicates the person isn't listening, or comprehending, and frequently indicates dishonesty. Of course, it still isn't the only fallacy that could in itself indicate an argument made in bad faith. Poisoning the Well comes to mind. So...

[Ahriman238]

I'm going to say all forms of goalpost shifting, for the intrinsic dishonesty and unwillingness to concede a single point "to the enemy." Admitting when you're wrong only helps you as a person, but some people are so stubborn and prideful...

I've had to eat a lot of crow before the board before, almost always because I said something stupid, or I had no real idea what I was talking about. Every single time this happened, I learned from it, why do people deny themselves the same experience?

I suppose honorable mention should go to "No True Scotsman" just because it's one of the goalpost-shifting ones that seems to come up a lot when discussing religion, history, politics, or any form of culture.

[Simon_Jester]

1) "Ad hominem" is when you say something like "Joe is untrustworthy, therefore we should reject his explanation." First of all, there are obviously times when that is exactly what you should do in everyday life; some boys like to cry wolf a little too much to be trusted.

That would be the Fallacy of Fallacies-- a fallacy doesn't determine true and false. Facts determine truth value. And facts like trustworthiness can determine whether skepticism is called for.

This is another reason why fallacies on their own don't necessarily piss me off.

I quite agree, and to add to that, I am often far more annoyed by someone who (speciously) asserts that X's reasoning is fallacious than I am by X making fallacious arguments in the first place.

My pet peeve is more about refusal to tolerate or try to understand the other party's point of view, which is far more toxic than bad logic.

A person who wants to understand people can correct flaws in their logic quite easily, all it takes is a decent explanation.

A person who uses 'infallible' logic free of all but refuses to take other people's opinions seriously will wind up with a brain full of idiocy very fast. That is the condition of 'ignorance,' I would argue.

Because such a person will reject new facts of which they were ignorant, sticking with whatever they thought they already knew, or with whatever random out-of-context nonsense they get from one or two isolated sources.

They will mistake their ignorance of a subject for the unimportance of the subject, and thus totally neglect important fields of study that have a great deal to say about the thing they care about.

They will insult and drive off people who might have helped cure their ignorance.

And they will often do so in the sublime confidence that their own opinions are perfectly logical.

This is infinitely more infuriating than any merely bad argument could ever be.

[Formless]

Really, you have to learn good logic before you try and understand bad logic. There is an infinite number of logical screwups one can make.

Fallacies are best called on when there is bias and dishonesty afoot. Otherwise, naming them just irritates people who are unaware of what the names mean.

[General Zod]

Tu Quoeque is always annoying to deal with. It comes up pretty often in political arguments and there's no real way to deal with it besides calling the other guy a fuckwit.

In some cases, Tu quoque is valid.

It might be true, but it doesn't actually address the problem of whether the argument in question is valid or not.

[Kitsune]

It might be true, but it doesn't actually address the problem of whether the argument in question is valid or not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
However, while this response does not prove that the person's position is false, it can sometimes be a valid counterargument, especially if A makes an universal claim. For instance, if someone says "Engaging in homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is not an inborn characteristic, and anyone who feels homosexual urges can overcome those urges and live a happy, fulfilled life without engaging in homosexuality", it would be valid to say "Well, seeing as how you have a gay lover, it appears that it isn't as easy as you make it out to be."

[mr friendly guy]

As far I am concern, a Tu quoque would only be valid if the person being accused of it is engaging in a double standard. So for example

Greg says smoking is hazardous for your health then lights up a cigarette. Tom then says but you smoke, therefore you argument is invalid. This is not a good argument because whether smoking is harmful is independent on whether Greg smokes or not. However ....

The Jester Greg (representing country y) says country x should shut the fuck up with its criticism of country y, because they will raise tensions. Tom points out Greg has no problems with country y voicing its criticisms of other nations (including country x), so why should country x have to keep quiet? At first glance Tom is simply using a Tu quoque by saying the equivalent of "huh, you do it too, therefore the argument is invalid." However Tom isn't necessarily claiming the argument isn't valid because Greg does it too, unlike the above argument with smoking.

The reason this its invalid is as follows

While it may be true that criticism will raise tensions, Greg has failed to demonstrate why its ok to raise tensions in the latter case but not the former. The possibilities are
a) there is some difference (snigger), in which case if Greg mentions what it is, it would bring the argument forward and shed light on what sounds confusing or
b) the position is self contradictory, ie if one country can criticise why is it suddenly not ok for another to do so. The argument thus falls for violating the principle of non contradiction.

Note the not so subtle double standards (well subtle only because the idiots who make these arguments can't see it even if its shoved right in front of their faces) I've noticed is quite common among some right wing groups.

[Korto]

When Logical Fallacies are being thrown out, which one drives you crazy the most?

The Golden-Mean Fallacy. Because I see it frequently in American news and political discussions.

Totally agree. I loathed hearing our ex-prime minister say (often) "Since both sides are complaining about our decision, it shows we got the balance right".
Really? Nobody likes it, therefore it's right?

[K. A. Pital]

Golden Mean. I hate it with a passion.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, what do you think of my comments on the Golden Mean?

Totally agree. I loathed hearing our ex-prime minister say (often) "Since both sides are complaining about our decision, it shows we got the balance right".
Really? Nobody likes it, therefore it's right?

To be fair, that's a political commonplace. A good compromise usually will result in both sides griping; if one side is happy it's probably at the other's expense. It is VERY rare for two antagonistic groups to receive a compromise/settlement that makes them both happy enough to overlook the fact that someone got what they wanted.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, what do you think of my comments on the Golden Mean?

I think you're right. Problem is, Golden Mean in politics does not necessarily mean a moderate decision is a good one. "Extremism" is - at least where I come from - a form of suppression of free speech and a penal code article, so I tend to be wary of people decrying others as extremists. Sometimes a moderate decision might not be what is good in the long run (examples: quick cave-ins of European governments before the Third Reich to save their citizens from the horrors of war unleashed these horrors at a later stage on a huge population). Usually in politics people say they use Golden Mean to make politics free from extremism, appealing to centrism. However, after evaluation it is often the opposite. In America a "Golden Mean" approach to history with attempts to reconcile the South and the North glaze over the very important fact that the South had freakin' slavery, and therefore no amount of Golden-Meaning could excuse it. Yet people do, and under the "Golden Mean" they actually seek to rehabilitate what has fallen, rehabilitate something which is by modern standards not simply "extremist" but abhorrent to most foreigners who don't have this historical baggage (many nations did not have such forms of slavery and/or slave trade after all). Attempts to use a "Golden Mean" approach to World War II, raising grievances about Allied bombings, Hiroshima, Allied war crimes et cetera in reality often betray crypto-Nazis like Irving.

[Channel72]

How is "Golden Mean" even a fallacy in relation to politics? It's only a fallacy in logic because it doesn't follow that the median value in some set of things is always the optimal one. But in politics centrism often rakes in the most votes, so it's a common strategy. This is totally orthogonal to any kind of logical principal. Politicians aren't even trying to avoid logical fallacies - they're trying to please people by packaging their message in a way that optimizes for getting more votes and/or financing.

[Formless]

In that case, it becomes the Overton Window theory, which is in fact more of a strategy, where the "middle" value undergoes goalpost shifting every election cycle. This is why American "leftists" appear conservative to Europeans and Canadians, or how a healthcare bill put forth by the Republicans in the 90's became a dirty socialist thing of those LIEBRUL Democrats by 2010-- its a very sinister and successful technique for getting what your party wants in politics.

But besides, I think people are talking about the use of false compromises in political debates that pisses them off, and politicians don't normally participate in debate. They have people to do that for them, or their party does, in political media like Faux News.

[Formless]

my mistake, double post while trying to edit