{"id":547,"date":"2008-01-26T11:16:19","date_gmt":"2008-01-26T15:16:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=547"},"modified":"2008-01-26T17:23:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-26T21:23:00","slug":"fun-with-fallacies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=547","title":{"rendered":"Fun with fallacies"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/pages.csam.montclair.edu\/~benham\/funstuff\/logical.html\">This<\/a> from James W. Benham and Thomas J.Marlowe is hilarious.&nbsp; Can anyone think of any others?<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Ad hominem<\/em> arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid. <\/li>\n<li>If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn&#39;t argue from an appeal to pity. <\/li>\n<li>What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment? <\/li>\n<li>I don&#39;t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity. <\/li>\n<li>If you argue from an appeal to force, I&#39;ll have to beat you up. <\/li>\n<li>You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity. <\/li>\n<li>Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid. <\/li>\n<li>Circular reasoning means assuming what you&#39;re trying to prove.  This form of argument is invalid becuase it&#39;s circular. <\/li>\n<li>As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid. <\/li>\n<li><em>Post hoc ergo propter hoc<\/em> arguments often precede false conclusions. Hence, this type of argument is invalid. <\/li>\n<li>Using the <em>Argumentum ad Consequentiam<\/em> makes for unpleasant discussions. Hence, it must be a logical fallacy. <\/li>\n<li>The <em>argumentum ad nauseam<\/em> is invalid.  The <em>argumentum ad nauseam<\/em> is invalid.  The <em>argumentum ad nauseam<\/em> is invalid.  If three repetitions of this principle haven&#39;t convinced you, I&#39;ll just have to say it again: the <em>argumentun ad nauseam<\/em> is invalid. <\/li>\n<li>Ancient wisdom teaches that the <em>argumentum ad antiquitatem<\/em> is invalid. <\/li>\n<li>An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion. But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument.  Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof. <\/li>\n<li>If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments.  Eventually, we won&#39;t be able to reason at all.  Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid. <\/li>\n<li>A real logician would never make an argument based on the &quot;<em>No true Scotsman<\/em>&quot; fallacy.  If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s\/he is not a real logician. <\/li>\n<li>An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion.  Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion.  Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.<\/li>\n<li>The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading. <\/li>\n<li>Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook. <\/li>\n<li>Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that&#39;s a fallacy too. <\/li>\n<li>And I bet the gambler&#39;s fallacy is also invalid &#8211; I seem to be on a roll! <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>If so, post them in comments and I&#39;ll send them to the author.<\/p>\n<p>By way of update, I&#39;m not happy with the use of &quot;valid&quot; here nor would I consider all of these to be fallacious.&nbsp; But you get the idea. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This from James W. Benham and Thomas J.Marlowe is hilarious.&nbsp; Can anyone think of any others? Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid. If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn&#39;t argue from an appeal to pity. What would your mother say if you argued from &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=547\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Fun with fallacies<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=547"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}