Fallacies In Argument: Don't Be So Stupid

Make claims; dispute away; but avoid fallacies surely? It's the basic grammar of thinking isn't it? 

Fallacies betray the really stupid woman or man. In at least one case, fallacies are causing war against peoples - some of you really are making war because you know that 'people over there' say there is no scientific evidence for the existence of one God. Of course there is no evidence for there being one God, and not a committee of 27 of them. The word 'scientific' meaning 'using the scientific method' is in the claim. You can claim that there is 'evidence' for a God if you're using the word in one of the several other definitions of so-called evidence that there are perhaps.

1 - THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY
Rather than address the actual claim, you believe that the background of the person making the claim affects whether it is true or not. The stupidest and second most common fallacy of all the fallacies. A man would say 'x' wouldn't he, because he's a man and not a woman; a socialist would say that wouldn't he, because he's . . . ; a banker would say that because . . . . Nope. You fail again don't you. Claims stand or fall solely on their objective strength or weakness; doesn't matter how partial or weak-minded the sayer of the claims is. Obviously.

1a - THE HYPOCRISY FALLACY
A sub-division of the Ad Hominem Fallacy - instead of addressing the actual issue, you believe that the speaker's hypocrisy makes his arguments wrong. And thus you say a boss's arguments for you to accept a pay freeze are wrong because the boss himself is taking a whopping pay rise. Nope. You fail again don't you. The objective reasons you might need to accept (or not) a pay freeze are not remotely affected by the hypocrisy of anybody in the room.

2  - THE STRAW MAN DELUSION
You've caricatured an argument so that you can attack the caricature rather than face the actual argument. You've ducked the issue. 'Darwinists think that we all come from rock! So the 'Theory Of Evolution' is obviously nonsense. (So the Theory Of Evolution says you can evolve a human from rock alone does it?)

3 - CONFUSING CORRELATION WITH CAUSATION
Because this happened after that - this caused that. Because the work-force voiced its complaints loudly, the wages went up at the end of the year. Or was it that the year's jolly sales-figures showed the required improvement and the wages would have gone up anyway - pure business-model causation unrelated to any human noise?

4 - THE CIRCULAR REASONING MISTAKE
Where the (disputed) conclusion is already contained in the premise. The infamous Cartesian 'I think therefore I am'. Nope. Another fail isn't it? 'I think' already assumes that I am, surely? Thus 'thinking' does not actually prove that I exist. The soul exists because it's the bit of me that 'does' the thinking. Nope again? The premise - the concept that I have of myself doing the difficult thinking - already contains the (imagined) soul so it cannot prove the existence of one. It is the nature of this very concept that I have of myself 'doing the thinking' that is the problem isn' it.

5 - THE WEIGHT OF BELIEF FALLACY
People have believed that God exists for centuries. How can so many be wrong? People have used the word 'soul' for centuries: the word must refer to something that actually exists if so many people have thought that it does. Oh dear. For heaven's sake grow up. 12 yr olds studying logic at one of the better English public-schools know this to be rubbish.

6 - THE REFERENTIAL FALLACY
The soul exists because we have a word that 'refers' to it. Words refer to things that actually are. (Er, no.)

7  - THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSEQUENCES FALLACY
God exists because if he didn't, life is pointless. (May your pointlessness be strong with you.)

8 - EQUIVOCATION
Changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument. How can you be against faith when we take leaps of faith all the time? Nope. It's wrong again isn't it. Shifted from 'spiritual belief in a creator' to 'risky undertaking' and not even noticed.

9 - THE FALSE DICHOTOMY
In the labour war you're either for the Workers or for the Bosses. Nope. Can't I detest the both of you? Can't I be 'for' neither of you?

10 - THE LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY FALLACY

God exists because there is no proof that he does not. God is made of blueberry jelly because there is no proof that he isn't? No? Moving on . . . 

11 - THE DIVINE FALLACY (OR ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY)
I cannot imagine how there could not be a God. Therefore there is a God. (Just No.)

12 - BURDEN OF PROOF FALLACY
There is scientific evidence that God exists. I don't need to show it - you need to show that there isn't any. Nope. It's another fail isn't it. If you want to claim anything is the case, you'll need to bring evidence to the table, won't you. Should I wish to claim that there is scientific evidence for the non-existence of God, I'd need to bring this scientific evidence to the table, and so I don't make the claim for there is no such evidence. I suggest that you follow my lead. But have faith that there is a God by all means.

13 - ANECDOTAL FALLACY
Using personal experience or a contrary example to dismiss statistics. The Most Common Fallacy Of All. As soon as you blurt out an example that contradicts the statistics, you lose the argument. It's that simple.

14 - TU QUOQUE
To avoid the difficulty of answering criticism by turning it back on the accuser. Answering criticism with criticism.

__________

A handful of clarifications within thinking, that aren't necessarily tied down to disputation.

1 - CONFIRMATION BIAS
You are only watching YouTube clips that agree with already-held beliefs you boring woman/man. Too excited to bother to do The Contrary Check. It's easier nowadays; you've all got the Internet. And after The Contrary Check do the hard research for the opinion you're loving - Wikipedia has a favourite phrase: Citation Needed. Precisely.

2 - FALLACY OF THE SINGLE CAUSE
There is never 'a' reason, one reason, for anything being the case surely? A banker does not pay himself a huge salary because he is greedy. To keep up with the smart boys, you need to assume 42 reasons for the payment don't you? Not to see complexity is to play with only the child's puzzle all day long. Surely you're going nowhere?

3 - THE PROSECUTOR'S FALLACY
A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found. (Er, yes, I think I've got that.)

4 - THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT is a logical necessity. If the premise is true (that's the problem of course) then the conclusion must be true.

5 - THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT is the basis of most scientific theories - 'It has always been seen to be the case, so it's probable that it always will be the case. But it still can be proved wrong. (What a lovely approach to almost anything.)