The Counter-Point Guide to Logic

[Robert Monroe]

I have another. Trying to find a name for it. Where A and B are arguing. Person B is losing, and so claims that "This conversation is over" and doesn't reply to any more posts, comments, questions ect.

Quitting.

[Four-eyed Vulpine]

That made me laugh out loud, Robert.  But yeah, that sounds about right.

[DZComposer]

I have another. Trying to find a name for it. Where A and B are arguing. Person B is losing, and so claims that "This conversation is over" and doesn't reply to any more posts, comments, questions ect.

There is no attempt to discredit A or A's position. It is B saying "screw this" and leaving the discussion. It may not be polite, but it isn't fallacious because it isn't an argument.

[Sabre]

There is no attempt to discredit A or A's position. It is B saying "screw this" and leaving the discussion. It may not be polite, but it isn't fallacious because it isn't an argument.

True, but it does make the claim "I'm right, and we aren't going to discuss it any further".

[Sarita]

I cracked my philosophy textbook today, and the way you present the fallacies in the first and second post are the way they're presented in my book. I was pleasantly surprised.

[Sarita]

Adding a couple argument forms. (Mine are in a different format, that doesn't use the symbols, because I don't know the symbols. )

Disjunctive Syllogism

Either A or B

Not A

Therefore B

and Constructive Dilemma

Either A or B

If A then C

If B then D

Therefore C or D

Also, some hints in helping you identify invalid arguments. If you can replace words that make the premises true and the conclusion false, then the form is invalid, and will always be invalid, no matter how good the original argument sounds. Your argument can still be cogent if it's invalid, and a good argument, but if someone tells you your argument is invalid, don't boohoo. Because it might be by these rules.

[Sabre]

Not really a logical issue, but rather an underhanded tactic I consider a form of trolling.

Pretending not to understand your opponants argument so you don't have to acknowlage it is not valid. Think of it as a reverse chewbakka defence.

[Sabre]

The Toupee Fallacy (many say it's variant of No True Scotsman, Circular Reasoning and Confirmation Bias, either way, worth a special mention)

"I can always tell when someone is wearing a toupee"

This is common with various make ups, fake tans, toupees, wigs, and more recently photoshop and 3D films. The person basicly claims they can always spot a toupee. This is a fallacy because the person assumes all toupees are easy to spot. In fact they are only spotting bad, or obvious toupees, if any at all as there is rarely a qualitive way to messure a hit or a miss. Any times they are wrong will be quickly forgoten, especially if the person has a reputation.

A recent example on the forum came in the Cosplay thread, where people claimed they could tell if it was a guy in the suit by the figure, breast, or some other messure. It later turned out to be women.

Other examples include 3D movies, even in 2D people claim to tell a 3D movie based on quality (this assumes all 3D movies are bad and 2D movies are good) or by the 'floaty' look of the effects. Again, this even happens in cases where the movie was 2D and 3D was added later.

and of course the old saying "I can tell it's photoshopped because of the pixels".

[DZComposer]

Sounds a lot like a Converse Accident to me.

[Sabre]

Sounds like alot of things. Hence it deserves a special mention. Personally, I think it's a 'new' fallacy simply because people have a hard time pigeonholing it in the rest. Never heard it called a Converse Accident though. It's like-

No True Scotsman- because they are excluding members of the group that don't fit with their previous idea of what the group is/should be.

Circular Reasoning- because they are saying "I can always spot a toupee because I can always spot a toupee." and

Confirmation Bias- because they are only counting obvious hit's and ignoring misses.

Given how many fell for it I thought it was worth a post.

[DZComposer]

I found a good resource on fallacies:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org

Under "Examples" there are real-world fallacious arguments instead of the textbook demonstration arguments. They also don't tell you what fallacy it is until you click a link, so you can practice fallacy identification with them.

This part is great too:

http://www.fallacyfi...g/taxonomy.html

[Gene Inari]

Welp. There goes about an hour of my afternoon. :U

[Robert Monroe]

It's.... beautiful. All. That. Information.