Jump to content
Caroline Voclain

Welcome Guest!

Welcome to UK Pagan; The Valley

Like most online communities we require you to register for an account before we give you access to read and post.

Only a small number of our forum areas can be read without registering for an account.

Please consider supporting us to help keep our Website and Facebook groups online. Become a Patron!

Argument Flaws - Hope this is of some use


Guest Yarrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since we argue a lot here in The Vally here’s a list of some argument flaws. I hope it’s helpful.

 

Hasty Generalisation

Making a statement about a group of things or people based on knowledge of only some (non-representative) members of that group.

 

Weak Analogy

A comparison of two object/things/people based on the fact that they are similar in one respect. This similarity does not mean they are similar in all respects.

 

False Cause (Post Hoc)

Attributing the cause of an event or outcome to something that had no influence on that outcome.

 

Straw Person

After hearing an argument, the opposition rephrases the argument in a different way from the original version. They then go on to knock down the argument. This can sound persuasive but if inspected closely the counter argument has not attacked the real issue but a ‘straw person’.

 

Slippery Slope/Thin End of the Wedge

The fallacy of stating that an event will lead to a series of other inevitable events ending in disaster (if we allow people to have easy divorce then there will be more single parent families, single mothers will not be able to properly socialise their sons, their sons will grow up to be criminals and society will collapse – a New Right* argument against divorce). On closer inspection, the inevitability of the ‘domino effect’ can be challenged.

 

Circular Argument / Begging the Question

An argument in which statements are used as both reason and conclusion. E.g.

A: God exists because the bible says he exists.

B: Why should I believe in what the Bible says?

A: Because the Bible is the word of God.

 

Appeal to the People

Arguing that something is right because a large percentage or number of people think it is.

 

Appeal to Ignorance

Arguing that because something has not been proved it must be false.

 

Appeal to Authority

An argument is said to be true because an authority figure believes it to be.

 

Appeal to Emotion

The argument is buried underneath emotional issues. These issues are used as persuasive impetus rather than any logical progression.

 

Red Herring

The argument is based on reasons that are irrelevant to the conclusion. (e.g. ‘John must be an honest person because his best friend is a policeman’).

 

Missing the Point

The argument is based on reasons that are relevant to a related issue but not to the exact point of the argument.

 

(E.g. A: it is a moral right to own a handgun.

B: it cannot be a moral right. Look at how many people have hurt themselves accidentally

through ownership of guns.

 

Attack on the Person (Ad Homini)

An argument is challenged not on the grounds of its truth or validity but on the grounds that the person supporting it is disreputable.

 

Division

It is argued that because the sum of something has quality X, all parts of it share that quality (e.g. My car is heavy therefore every part of my car is heavy).

 

Composition

This is the opposite of Division – because the parts have quality X, the whole must demonstrate that quality (e.g. Every player in the England team is good therefore the team is good).

 

*the New Right are mostly politicians and journalists; their ideas and policies are based entirely on their twisted ideologies. Not only do they not have any evidence to support their claims but any evidence there is or any good quality research that has been done goes against them. Despite this the New Right wields a disturbing amount of influence in our society and no one seems to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please consider supporting us to help keep our Website and Facebook groups online.

To which may be added, as deemed necessary:

 

Drivel, flim-flam, hogwash, verbal skitters, pomposity, sanctomoniousness, evangelicism et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw  person  !

 

 

It's PC gone mad I tell you.

 

 

 

 

 

dav

225255[/snapback]

 

 

You mean we cannot say John Barleycorn any more :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw  person  !

 

 

It's PC gone mad I tell you.

 

 

 

 

 

dav

225255[/snapback]

 

 

You mean we cannot say John Barleycorn any more :lol:

225259[/snapback]

 

 

The Cereal Grain formerly known as John Barleycorn.

 

:)

 

J.B.

 

 

 

 

:P

Edited by davkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To which may be added, as deemed necessary:

 

Drivel, flim-flam, hogwash, verbal skitters, pomposity, sanctomoniousness, evangelicism et al.

225254[/snapback]

:lol:

 

Someone in a in an ivory tower somehwere obviously has too much time on their hands to be able to invent this lot.

 

Well said Tas :)

Edited by orchidmoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but feel that I have wasted my time. Would you prefer that I limit myself to discussions about fairies, unicorns, 101 uses for menstrual blood and other inane topics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we argue a lot here in The Vally here’s a list of some argument flaws. I hope it’s helpful.

 

Hasty Generalisation

Making a statement about a group of things or people based on knowledge of only some (non-representative) members of that group.

 

Weak Analogy

A comparison of two object/things/people based on the fact that they are similar in one respect. This similarity does not mean they are similar in all respects.

 

False Cause (Post Hoc)

Attributing the cause of an event or outcome to something that had no influence on that outcome.

 

Straw Person

After hearing an argument, the opposition rephrases the argument in a different way from the original version. They then go on to knock down the argument. This can sound persuasive but if inspected closely the counter argument has not attacked the real issue but a ‘straw person’.

 

Slippery Slope/Thin End of the Wedge

The fallacy of stating that an event will lead to a series of other inevitable events ending in disaster (if we allow people to have easy divorce then there will be more single parent families, single mothers will not be able to properly socialise their sons, their sons will grow up to be criminals and society will collapse – a New Right* argument against divorce). On closer inspection, the inevitability of the ‘domino effect’ can be challenged.

 

Circular Argument / Begging the Question

An argument in which statements are used as both reason and conclusion. E.g.

  A: God exists because the bible says he exists.

  B: Why should I believe in what the Bible says?

  A: Because the Bible is the word of God.

 

Appeal to the People

Arguing that something is right because a large percentage or number of people think it is.

 

Appeal to Ignorance

Arguing that because something has not been proved it must be false.

 

Appeal to Authority

An argument is said to be true because an authority figure believes it to be.

 

Appeal to Emotion

The argument is buried underneath emotional issues. These issues are used as persuasive impetus rather than any logical progression.

 

Red Herring

The argument is based on reasons that are irrelevant to the conclusion. (e.g. ‘John must be an honest person because his best friend is a policeman’).

 

Missing the Point

The argument is based on reasons that are relevant to a related issue but not to the exact point of the argument.

 

(E.g. A: it is a moral right to own a handgun.

        B: it cannot be a moral right. Look at how many people have hurt themselves accidentally

        through ownership of guns.

 

Attack on the Person (Ad Homini)

An argument is challenged not on the grounds of its truth or validity but on the grounds that the person supporting it is disreputable.

 

Division

It is argued that because the sum of something has quality X, all parts of it share that quality (e.g. My car is heavy therefore every part of my car is heavy).

 

Composition

This is the opposite of Division – because the parts have quality X, the whole must demonstrate that quality (e.g. Every player in the England team is good therefore the team is good).

 

*the New Right are mostly politicians and journalists; their ideas and policies are based entirely on their twisted ideologies. Not only do they not have any evidence to support their claims but any evidence there is or any good quality research that has been done goes against them. Despite this the New Right wields a disturbing amount of influence in our society and no one seems to care.

225249[/snapback]

 

 

Very interesting

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey - loosen up Free Choice! Or you could be accused of trying to start a fresh argument just to test out these premises! Which are clever, btw, and I don't mean to be rude.

 

Incidentally, please don't knock the 101* uses for menstrual blood until you have tried them!

 

*There are actually 102 uses. :o_hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but feel that I have wasted my time. Would you prefer that I limit myself to discussions about fairies, unicorns, 101 uses for menstrual blood and other inane topics?

225316[/snapback]

 

 

why do you feel you have wasted your time? I have read your thread a few times and your comments may useful. I am just a little confused as to why you would say it.

 

fizz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but feel that I have wasted my time. Would you prefer that I limit myself to discussions about fairies, unicorns, 101 uses for menstrual blood and other inane topics?

225316[/snapback]

 

Er, you making a hasty generalization here? :o_hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you feel you have wasted your time?  I have read your thread a few times and your comments may useful.  I am just a little confused as to why you would say it. 

225344[/snapback]

 

I viewed it as an attempt at education.

 

Which is better than preaching. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Leave that to the experts.

225372[/snapback]

 

 

Absolutely. There are more than enough preachers around!

 

Frey :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but feel that I have wasted my time. Would you prefer that I limit myself to discussions about fairies, unicorns, 101 uses for menstrual blood and other inane topics?

225316[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry for diverting your thread FCM.

 

 

Yours

 

promise to try to not do it again

 

 

dav

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list is very comprehensive and, yes, interesting to read. I hope you don't think it will stop people from arguing, though, Free Choice. When somebody gets a bee in their bonnet, nothing can deter them, particularly not the idea that there is a flaw in their argument. I'm not talking about anybody on this list, just some people I know. On other lists. Honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise if my comment was inappropriate; I may have misinterpreted a number of posts. It appeared to me as though my time an effort had been wasted as some comments seemed unappreciative even hostile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand the point of your post. As a community; some of us are well established on our many and various paths, some of us are still searching for a path, some of us are making it up as we go along, and some have their own agenda. Further, some of us use the site as a source of knowledge, some as a purely social outlet, and most a mixture of the two. All, apart from blatant trouble makers, are made welcome.

 

Along the way, we ask questions, banter, debate and sometimes argue, but the mods do an excellent job of stepping in if things get out of hand. Yes, the categories you list have all appeared at one time or another, but even arguments can have their value if some small snippet of information which might seem obvious to one member reveals a new viewpoint or possible avenue to be explored, on here or elsewhere, to another member. As TAK said, much more succinctly, its all good :o_roflmao: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Free Choice - here's one that is used a lot. Was popular with my students anyway !

 

 

 

PERSONAL ETHICS :

 

Personal Ethics are part of the psychological make-up of individuals.

They form a part of what is called "Personality". We are not born with a system of ethics, it is something we develop throughout our lives. We build this system through experience, by observing others, by taking lessons from life itself.

This exercise looks at the constraints of your ethical system and compares your values with those of others.

One of the major roles of managers is to influence the behaviour of others in order to achieve certain objectives. This questionnaire seeks to find how far you would be prepared to go in order to persuade others to your point of view. Do you believe that the ends justify the means ? If the outcome has value, does it really matter how you achieve it ?

 

METHODS : PERSONAL GROUP

 

Honestly express your aim.

Delay revealing your aim.

Conceal your aim.

Exaggerate to make your point.

Focus attention on your issue.

Simplify by omitting details.

Use symbols or analogies.

Get personal in your argument.

Use slogans.

Take care over your timing.

Stage a dramatic presentation.

Cover yourself in a smoke screen of virtue.

Flatter those in power.

Ingratiate yourself to the strong.

Present yourself like an unopposed leader.

Select material that supports your point.

"Forget" material which weakens your point.

Embellish your point with flattering examples.

Begin by talking about your previous triumphs.

Associate yourself with the triumphs of others.

Use "purr" words to "stroke" your audience.

Speak in glittering generalities.

Appeal to the self-interest of authority figures.

Raise, and then knock down, easy issues [strawmen]

Divert trouble by bringing up side-issues [Red herrings]

Confuse others with trivial complexity.

Exclude those who don't count in the decision.

Distort the facts to suit your purpose.

Illustrate your point with flair.

Make an emotional appeal when your argument is weak.

Play safe by getting everyone involved in decision.

Be theatrical.

Admit to no alternatives to your solution.

Create a band wagon of known supporters.

Play up the universal benefits of your approach.

Imply endorsement by powerful figures.

"Name-drop" your powerful supporters.

Show that your idea is supported by religious leaders.

Scatter quotations from obscure "experts" in support.

Mention that history proves you are right.

Bring in Machiavelli, Tom Peters, and Drucker at least once.

Suggest that statistics prove you right.

Stress the scientific method in your plan.

"Invent" proverbs to support you.

State your facts in unarguable terms.

Sneer at doubters.

Promise written guarantees.

Claim that your vast experience over-rides objections.

Vary your argument according to which way the wind is blowing.

Give a practical demonstration.

Threaten discretely, if necessary.

Coerce other with promises or threats.

Command with eye contact, tone of voice, and posture.

Plead urgency.

Prepare for a long siege.

Wear others down by constant repetition.

Knock the opposition by negative association.

Weaken opposition with name-calling, witty or barbed.

Silence others with verbal abuse.

Insinuate something negative about opponents.

Admit to no shade of grey. Your point is white, others black.

Turn the tables by showing that arguments against you also

apply to others arguments.

Imply guilt by association.

Ridicule arguments or people who oppose you.

Ignore telling arguments against you as long as possible.

Act the martyr if things are not going your way.

Make your bottom lip tremble and sob.

Call in old favours before the meeting.

Act in an embarrassing manner so that others agree to shut

you up.

Throw a tantrum.

Ensure that known opponents are not informed about meeting.

Schedule the meeting for eight p.m. on a Friday.

Fax the Chairman before the meeting about the "crisis".

Sabotage your opponents operations so that they can't be at

the meeting.

Omit your presentation from the agenda so that others cannot

prepare.

Introduce your presentation five minutes before the scheduled

end of the meeting and filibuster.

Slide in your idea as an afterthought of no consequence.

Put your idea into effect before the meeting and commit huge

resources.

Lie.

Backdate the advisory memo about the meeting so that those

who oppose you only find out about it afterwards but ensure

that the "boss" receives his memo in advance.

 

Having completed the questionnaire, and compared the results, are you more or less ethical than they are ? Being more ethical could be construed as a lack of drive and ambition, while being less ethical could be seen as a person who is driven by personal ambition to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Edited by Norseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're always going to have arguements, we all have different view points, of course they are going conflict every once in a while.

 

This isn't meant as hostile or anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Moonsmith
      I’ve posted a link (in links) to a BBC article in today’s news just to illustrate a bit of the colourful side of Paganism.  Perhaps it will do something to balance my prosaic take on the subject. i know little of Witchcraft but I enjoyed the article and like her approach.  
    • Ellinas
      👍 It's as good a position as any and better than quite a few.  
    • Stonehugger
      Yes, it was in Nettle's "Who are your deities?" thread. I said "I seem to have become an atheist. That was never my plan, but here I am." Veggiedancer later said it better than me - "I don’t exactly believe in deities as such. I think they come from  our minds. Archetypes, ways of identify or characterising the spirit/ magic/ life or whatever it is we sense around us. Ways our minds try to explain the unexplainable to us???"
    • Moonsmith
      I’m probably second guessing Nettle wrongly but it wasn’t all that long ago that you would have read posts about alters, magic, Shamanism, spells etc. I think it was either Teatimetreat or Drachenfach that had a hex on her handbag and her car.  When the car was stolen it crashed and the thief was caught. I agree and would very much like to see more of the colourful side of Paganism back here.  Quite right Ellinas.  I do not understand how anyone can claim to be Pantheist (or even pantheist) and atheist at the same time even though the most prominent Pantheists do exactly that.  As I’ve said elsewhere: why can’t they call themselves Panists.  The prefix “pan” means everything and everywhere as in “pandemic”.  The god’s name arose from the adjective so it wouldn’t necessarily mean a devotee of Pan. pee ess - it may be worth mentioning that there are a vast number of belief groups under the umbrella word Paganism.  Druids Witches, Polytheist and Shaman are only a small part of what the greater picture of Paganism depicts. Dunno and don’t care are probably the biggest groups.
    • Ellinas
      All the above, plus the impression of a preponderance of atheism is currently, as well as historically, inaccurate.  Certainly, I am no atheist.  I believe MS rejects the term as applicable to himself.  Stonehugger, I think, recently said he had headed in that direction, but I've not seen the other resident atheists for a while. However, our ideas of deity are not the same, necessarily.
×
×
  • Create New...