Talk:List of fallacies
|The content of Shotgun argumentation was merged into List of fallacies on April 6, 2012. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fallacies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of fallacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidbergan.com/Summa/Chronological_snobbery
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
Archived sources still need to be checked
These aren't really fallacies ....
The label is a bit confusing, as fallacy has common meaning of 'a wrong belief, a false or mistaken idea'. (m-w.com)
The items listed seem basically Rhetorical device, a tactic of language to convince folks. Methods of one sort or another used intentionally and commonly seen in advocacy. Doesn't mean the belief being advanced is wrong, just that silly word games are going on.
So the label association of 'wrong belief' is confusing, and even the provided subtext that the logic isn't formal or good -- isn't relevant.
Maybe better to insert (neutrally) that these poor-logic items are often used styles of argument in convincing people. - Seems to me like it's kind of the main point about them.
- That's basically what the lead says, though not in so many words; it can be expanded a little. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
From a Wikipedian's point of view the problem with the false fallacy is ubiquitous. In this fallacy, the responder asserts that the speaker has committed xyz fallacy when in fact no such fallacy has been committed, but the discussion has now been re-directed to a review of the xyz fallacy rather than the original premise. For example, the speaker offers that: the coffee is hot, so the cup is hot, too. But a responder, who doesn't want to discuss whether hot coffee results in a hot cup, asserts that the speaker has engaged in the "cherry picking" fallacy, and now redirects the conversation into a discussion of what constitutes cherry picking. In the Wikipedia article (Argument from Fallacy) we see the following description:: "William Lycan identifies the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present." I've seen this problem in various wiki discussions where genuinely important subjects were dismissed out of hand by a quick reference to a so-called "fallacy". I think this type of fallacy should be included and discussed in this article's list of fallacies. N0w8st8s (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s