WHAT IS LOGICAL FALLACY?

WHAT IS LOGICAL FALLACY?

Logical fallacy is a faulty reasoning occurs in argumentation or rhetoric. It is a mistaken beliefs based on unsound arguments,derive from reasoning that is logically incorrect, thus undermining an arguments validity.

Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians, media, business advertisement and persons beliefs to fool people.  

Fallacy is quite common and difficult to spot in the conversation, debate, argumentation and writing due to the application and structure they apply. We often accept what they are saying and writing is true, not taking a moment to use critical thinking, to assess the validity of what has been written or said or to question its applicability to our own lives and context.

HOW TO IDENTIFY LOGICAL FALLACIES 

FALSE DILEMMA ( Black or White )

When it is suggested that only two options, although they have more alternative options.

( When you choose god, you must choose between Jesus or a Jehovah)

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

Assuming or claiming that because someone authority said something, it must be true.

( Oprah says that it is bad to eat after 6pm, we shouldn't eat after 6pm if she says so )

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Rather than responding to an argument, a personal attack to a person is used.

( Person 1, we are not came from monkeys but a family of apes, Person 2, You´re stupid,

 you  don't know anything! )

SLIPPERY SLOPE ( or domino )

Suggesting that if X happens, it will lead to Y, therefore we shouldn't do X.

( If we legalize same sex marriage, it could lead to people wanting to marry animals or children, what´s next? )

CIRCULAR REASONING 

This is where one assumes the statement under examination is true, often because their arguments is 

ingrained in their thinking that it becomes a given or a fact.

(They will often argue that Atheism isn't a belief, Atheism is a default position, a lack of belief)

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Rather than proving or providing evidence for one´s own argument, they dare people to prove them   wrong.  ( Of course God exists, Has anyone ever proven otherwise? ) 

PERSONAL INCREDULITY (or Argument from ignorance)

This is where one argues that something is true because it cannot be proven false (or vice versa) or 

where because something is difficult to understand, it must not be true.

( There is no evidence to prove that god exists, therefore god doesn´t exist )

( There is no evidence to prove that ghost do not exist, therefore ghost must exist)

( God seems so illogical to me, he cant possibly exist )

STRAW MAN

This is where someone´s argument is misrepresented in order to easily attack it.

( You believe in god? Well you must believe in suffering, paedophilia, misogyny, and fairies. I

don't believe in these things, therefore god does not exist! )

APPEAL TO EMOTION

Rather than providing a sound argument or evidence, one attempts to manipulate an emotional response.

(You must donate to HYK charity otherwise you condone the starvation and death of  children.)

( How could you honestly believed in god, when there are starving children in  Africa)

HASTY GENERALIZATION

A broad statement or idea that applies to a lot of people or situations. When you make a general 

statement without evidence and details about what you see or hear.

 ( Priests are paedophile) ( Politicians are greedy ) ( Poor people are lazy )

NON  SEQUITUR

Is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from previous argument or statement.

( Dogs are animals, fluffy is an animal, therefore fluffy is a dog )

RED HERRING

Is a distraction or avoiding the issue, deliberate diversion of attention with intention and trying to

abandon the original argument. This tactic is common when someone doesn't like the current topic     and wants to detour into something else, instead of clarifying and focusing they confuse and distract. ( To distract from arguments, Atheist try to refute saying, baldness is a hair colour/baldness is a new hairstyle)

APPEAL TO RIDICULE

Also called appeal to mockery or the horse laugh, which opponent´s argument as absurd, ridiculous    or humorous and therefore not worth consideration.

( Evolution is the idea that humans come from pond scum ) Explanation, It is ridiculous to think that we come from pond scum, and it is not true. It is more accurate to say that we came from exploding stars as very atom in our bodies was once in a star. By creating a ridiculous and misleading image, the truth claim of argument is overlooked.

(You cant claim that God exists all you want,the theistic position is still laughable and illogical )

GENETIC FALLACY

Also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue, a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something history, origin or source rather than its current meaning or context. ( Religions arose because people feared reality, people were scared of death, therefore religions is false )

APPEAL TO A COMMON BELIEF

When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person´s belief, or many people beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that persons accept the belief is a lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information. ( Common belief of atheism and theism, Bigbang is an accident event )

APPEAL TO COMMON PRACTICE

is a type of fallacy, or unsound argument. when writers or speakers appeal to common practice, they argue that something must be okay ( correct, reasonable) because its a common behaviour or because most people do it. ( Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on test is wrong, but we all know that everyone does it, so its okay )

QUESTIONABLE CAUSE ( Cum hoc ergo propter hoc )

known as butterfly logic, confusing correlation and causation. Conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated. ( Many homosexuals have aids, Therefore Homosexuals causes aids )

POISONING THE WELL ( Discrediting smear tactics )

To commit a preemptive Ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponents claim. ( I hope I presented my argument clearly, now my opponent will attempt to refute my argument by his own fallacious, incoherent, illogical version of history )

APPEAL TO FAITH

This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when the reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have ( the right kind of ) faith in order to understand the argument. Even arguments that heavily rely on reason that ultimately require faith, abandon reason.

Theist: God is omnimax,

Atheist:what's your evidence?

Theist: I don't need an evidence, I only need a faith.

LOADED QUESTION (complex question)

When a question is asked that has an underlying assumption or implication or guilt and puts one in a   position where they feel compelled to defend themselves.

( You are a Muslim, Why aren't  you and your leaders condemning terrorism? )