History Main / LogicalFallacies

15th May '16 2:06:33 PM KingZeal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Survivorship Bias: over-playing a small number of successes of a given example, while ignoring a large number of failures.

to:

* Survivorship Bias: over-playing SurvivorshipBias: Over-playing a small number of successes of a given example, while ignoring a large number of failures.
28th Mar '16 11:45:36 AM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AppealToIgnorance: Claiming something is true/false because the person making the false/true claim can't imagine how it could be anything else, or can't imagine how the preconditions he (thinks) are necessary for it to be the other way around could possibly be in effect. This is really a failure of the claimer's imagination; the impossible preconditions he thinks are necessary may not be impossible and they may not be necessary, in a way he had not anticipated.

to:

* AppealToIgnorance: Claiming that something is true/false true because the person making the false/true claim it apparently can't imagine how it could be anything else, or can't imagine how the preconditions he (thinks) are necessary for it to be the other way around could possibly be in effect. This is really a failure of the claimer's imagination; the impossible preconditions he thinks are necessary may not be impossible and they may not be necessary, in a way he had not anticipated.proven false (or vice-versa).
7th Mar '16 1:15:44 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->'''*Producers notice a fairly small sign blending in, reading "[[YouMakeMeSic Flim]] Springfield"*'''
->''"This place must be hot. They don't need a big ad, or even correct spelling."''
->''"Can't argue with that logic."''
-->-- '''Radioactive Man Producers''', on the topic of Springfield as a movie location, ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons''

to:

->'''*Producers notice a fairly small sign blending in, reading "[[YouMakeMeSic Flim]] Springfield"*'''
->''"This place must be hot. They don't need a big ad, or even correct spelling."''
->''"Can't argue with that logic."''
-->-- '''Radioactive Man Producers''', on the topic of Springfield as a movie location, ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons''
26th Feb '16 4:08:15 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Fallacies are common errors in logic. By strict standards, fallacies don't address the truth of the premises or syllogism; they only address the ''validity of the logic'', and as [[SoundValidTrue this page]] demonstrates, "truth" and "validity" are not the same thing when speaking of formal logic. There is a reason there are Critical Thinking classes.

to:

Fallacies are common errors in logic. By strict standards, fallacies don't address the truth of the premises or syllogism; they only address the ''validity of the logic'', and as [[SoundValidTrue this page]] the SoundValidTrue rule demonstrates, "truth" and "validity" are not the same thing when speaking of formal logic. There is a reason there are Critical Thinking classes.
12th Dec '15 2:16:03 AM JetpackPercy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->'''*Producers notice a fairly small sign blending in, reading "Flim Springfield"*'''

to:

->'''*Producers notice a fairly small sign blending in, reading "Flim "[[YouMakeMeSic Flim]] Springfield"*'''
22nd Nov '15 1:39:06 PM TheAmazingBlachman
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AppealToPossibility: Claiming that if something could possibly happen, then it will/must happen.
21st Oct '15 1:31:26 PM VariousMetals
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Where deductive logic is valid, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. "If it rains, then the sidewalk will be wet" is valid, so if you know that it rained, you know that the sidewalk will be wet. If you simply reverse the terms and say "if the sidewalk is wet, then it rained" this would not be valid (to correct this, you need to construct a "contra-positive," where you reverse the terms as well as negating them to get "if the sidewalk is not wet, then it did not rain").

to:

Where deductive logic is valid, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. "If it rains, then the sidewalk will be wet" is valid, so if you know that it rained, you know that the sidewalk will be wet. If you simply reverse the terms and say "if the sidewalk is wet, then it rained" this would not be valid (to (likewise, negating the terms, yielding "if it did not rain, then the sidewalk is not wet", is also invalid. To correct this, you need to construct a "contra-positive," where you reverse the terms as well as negating them to get "if the sidewalk is not wet, then it did not rain").
21st Oct '15 3:37:06 AM Nimeroni
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* OccamsRazor: The simplest explanation is most often correct. (Not to be confused with "always correct."

to:

* OccamsRazor: The simplest explanation is most often correct. (Not to be confused with "always correct."")
10th Sep '15 11:55:23 AM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* HardWorkFallacy: The argument that the desired outcome is ''purely'' the result of the effort put in by the individual, regardless of any other factors.

to:

* HardWorkFallacy: HardWorkFallacy ("If I can do it, so can you."): The argument that the desired outcome is ''purely'' the result of the effort put in by the individual, regardless of any other factors.
8th Sep '15 6:05:04 AM DeepRed
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ConfirmationBias: Presenting only data that supports your predetermined position and ignoring data that damages your position.

to:

* ConfirmationBias: ConfirmationBias (also known as cherry-picking): Presenting only data that supports your predetermined position and ignoring data that damages your position.


Added DiffLines:

* Survivorship Bias: over-playing a small number of successes of a given example, while ignoring a large number of failures.
This list shows the last 10 events of 112. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.LogicalFallacies