Description of Fallacies

[general]

I did several searches and couldn't find a post regarding this - so here it is...
Mods- If this belongs somewhere better/more appropriate.. do as you will.
A buddy of mine turned me on to this web site that explains errors in reasoning - a very good site for deducing and deconstructing others arguments when they don't hold water - already used a few of these to break down anti-gun illogic.
Excellent reference.
The Nizkor Project
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
_________________
Hope it helps some of our efforts.
I hope it is ok for me to paste their description...

 

[Thumper]

Yes, this needed to be posted.

Did you know that logical fallacies aren't covered in my girlfriend's Philosophy 101 class?

Do they not teach this stuff anymore?

 

[BigG]

This is good info. I would just point out that some people make the mistake of taking it too far trying to invalidate a basically sound argument thru minute criticism of the language. For example, a valid argument is valid regardless if it may contain a little ad hominem attack on the side. The blue noses attack it as if the ad hominem were the argument.

 

[Tamara]

BigG,

The blue noses

There you go again...

 

[dwkennedy]

Here is another excellent on-line reference.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

 

[Sean Smith]

The blue noses

Ad-hominem. We can ignore EVERYTHING BigG says now. What a relief!

 

[Sean Smith]

On a serious note, there probalby needs to be a "sticky" on this forum with references to sites like these, or anything else that can be used by us to construct better, more logical and more compelling arguments for the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[MacPelto]

Did you know that logical fallacies aren't covered in my girlfriend's Philosophy 101 class?

Yep. you pretty much have to take a specific Logic class to learn this kind of thing.

The real thing to note is that explaining the logic and/or fallacy of these arguments to anti-gunners will largely be an exercise in futility. The logic of it doesn't matter one whit to them, as they base their arguments on emotion.

 

[MrAcheson]

Did you know that logical fallacies aren't covered in my girlfriend's Philosophy 101 class?

True. Logical fallacies are one of the reasons that we should start teaching rhetoric in the schools again. Being able to understand, disect, etc an argument is a crucial ability in a free society. Otherwise people are just sheep who listen to appeal to authority or appeals to emotion.

 

[BigG]

Need a specific LOGIC course? How about just reading a little Aristotle?

 

[ctdonath]

Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion.

No it doesn't!