Find the Logic Fallacy (in Contests)


AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 23 2008 6:38 PM EDT

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to expose you all to some new ideas, so I figured the best way to do it would be through offering some cash; to be exact

500k

The point of this contest is to find a juicy logical fallacy outside of our own Carnage Blender forums, and repost a link (or quote it) here, along with the logical fallacy you are demonstrating.

To elaborate, anything is game: Politics, Other Forums, Video Games, Fashion, Celebrities, Science, Religion, etc. However, there are a few exceptions: No hate speech can be submitted for this contest (that's too easy to categorize and too offensive to our fragile sensabilities ;) )

I'll be judging the contest along with one or two other possible judges. Your fallacy will be rated on accuracy (is this as clear-cut an example of the fallacy as you say it is?), shock (omg! that guy fell for that?!) and, of course, hilarity (if I have to explain this, please don't enter this contest). To help you along the way, here is the definition of a logical fallacy according to http://www.logicalfallacies.info/:

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

For reference, here is the list of logical fallacies that I will accept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] April 23 2008 6:44 PM EDT

MTV Commercial where people take it the wrong way and think that MTV suspects USA is the new Nazi Germany.

Where as, I think it is a holocaust awareness ad. It's drawing a parallel; basically saying "Imagine if these SWAT guys stormed a subway train and tore everybody apart from their families. It's possible right? That's what happened to the jews on the train."

I hope this is what you're looking for. lol.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 23 2008 6:45 PM EDT

cum hoc ergo propter hoc or correlation does not imply causation, it is an informal fallacy and listed under the correlative ones, so i think it is accepted. if not, ignore my submission.

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002PvG

many of the posts in that thread are examples and i even pointed it out at the time without using the proper terminology.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 23 2008 6:46 PM EDT

d'oh, i misread and thought you wanted inside our cb world, my bad! please ignore my post.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 23 2008 6:48 PM EDT

ok, you can replace my former submission with this one for the same or very similar fallacy:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] April 23 2008 6:48 PM EDT

My post would be a fallacy in religion in media.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 23 2008 6:49 PM EDT

You can make as many submissions as you like dudemus :)

Vaynard [Fees Dirt Cheap] April 23 2008 6:55 PM EDT

Here's one I thought of, let's see if this works...

Google can find an answer to anything
Only god knows everything.
So... google is god?

I believe that would be Begging the Question, but don't quote me on that. Hope that works!

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 23 2008 7:01 PM EDT

That's partially correct Vanyard, but I'm looking for examples of the logical fallacy in use, not for us to make up our own fallacies, because lord knows we already know how to do that! :)

Blarg April 23 2008 7:25 PM EDT

Bush, 2001. You're either with us, or against us.

false dilemma.

Blarg April 23 2008 7:32 PM EDT

Global warming causing decrease in pirate population.

Correlation does not imply causation

Wizard'sFirstRule April 23 2008 10:20 PM EDT

thank you. I am doing a philosophy paper and I can just give the text book ftw.
really, there are a few juicy ones in there that is from real world examples.
one question: do you want just fallacy that you don't care if it fails logically or materially? or do you just want arguments with logical failure?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 23 2008 10:34 PM EDT

Both, and would help to show your work Painkiller :)

Wizard'sFirstRule April 23 2008 10:39 PM EDT

let's start with a song then, shall we?
"Everybody loves winner, so nobody loves me." - fails logically. premise does not entail conclusion. (I hope you all can see why)

here is an example of circular reasoning (cited from my course book quoting Gilbert W. Kirby, "Is the Bible True?" Decision, Vol 1, Jan 1974 p4.)
"How do we know that we have here in the Bible a right criterion of truth? We know because of the Bible's claim for itself. All through the Scripture are found frequent expressions such as 'Thus says the Lord.' 'The Lord said,' and 'God spoke'. Such statements occur no less than 1904 times in the 39 books of the Old Testament."

I hope I don't need to explain.

Wizard'sFirstRule April 23 2008 10:49 PM EDT

"Here's one I thought of, let's see if this works...

Google can find an answer to anything
Only god knows everything.
So... google is god?

I believe that would be Begging the Question, but don't quote me on that. Hope that works!"
sorry, pal. but I feel like ripping apart your argument.

Construction in standard form:
P1 Google can find an answer to anything.
P2 Only god knows everything.
Therefore,
C Google is god.

I believe your intent is for this arguement to be deductive (so if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true). You are referring to one specific object (google, as oppose to things like search engines in general) is another.
The premise does not entail the conclusion. The ability to find an answer to anything does not necessarily mean knows everything.
A researcher, with the help of some books and the internet (as well as other sources + experiment), can find an answer to anything, but that doesn't imply that the researcher KNOWS everything.

Even if I am being charitable (principle of charity) and accepts the link between find out anything to knowing everything, the argument still fails materially.
P1 - Google can find an answer to anything. This is not true. There are things that no one knows about, or have no evidence of its existence. Those things even Google can't find out.
P2 - Only God knows everything is controversial. It is true to christians, but there is no conseneus among men.

In conclusion, the argument is bad because it is (deductive and) invalid and the premises are not plausible.

Wizard'sFirstRule April 23 2008 10:54 PM EDT

A even better one to rip apart: quoted from the CB forum:

"Sex Panther by Odeon. It's illegal in nine countries... Yep, it's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good" - author obsceured to protect the innocent.

P1 Sex Panther by Odeon is made with bits of real panther.
P2 Sex Panther is illegal in nine countries.
Therefore,
C Sex Panther by Odeon is good.

lets just say this argument fails logically, okay?

Wizard'sFirstRule April 23 2008 11:18 PM EDT

I just remembered a very cool example of ambiguity.

P1 - I am not in France.
P2 - I am not in Spain.
P3 - I am not in England.
P4 - I am not in Germany.
Therefore,
C1 - I am not in France, Spain, England or Germany.
P5 - If I am not in France, Spain, England or Germany, I am somewhere else.
C2 - I am somewhere else.
P6 - If I am somewhere else, I am not here.
C3 - I am not here.

This argument is more amusing when you are physically standing in front of a group of people and proving you are not there, but whatever.

Blarg April 23 2008 11:40 PM EDT

"A even better one to rip apart: quoted from the CB forum:

"Sex Panther by Odeon. It's illegal in nine countries... Yep, it's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good" - author obsceured to protect the innocent.

P1 Sex Panther by Odeon is made with bits of real panther.
P2 Sex Panther is illegal in nine countries.
Therefore,
C Sex Panther by Odeon is good.

lets just say this argument fails logically, okay?"

The phrase was originally used in the movie anchorman made by Ron Burgundy played by Will Ferrel, so technically he made the fallacy.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 24 2008 3:13 AM EDT

Thank you Painkiller, but I think you are forgetting the point here. I'm trying to show people solid examples of logical fallacies along with what the actual logical fallacy is. I'm seeing plenty of examples here, but with no clear idea what the "fallacy" being represented is (especially according to the huge list of fallacies), which doesn't help me to judge this thing very well. ;)

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] April 24 2008 7:39 AM EDT

I'm having difficulty finding proof but I remember on one of the dice levels in James Pond:Robocod (the Amiga version) there was an extra life hovering underneath a platform and above some spikes.
The 'fallacy' is that with it being there you would assume you could collect it, however this is not the case as if you did successfully collect it, you would die as soon as you reached the spikes anyway in effect, not giving you any extra life at all.

I'll try find a link to a pic or video which shows this area and hope this is along the right sort of lines for an entry, if not then just some interesting trivia :)

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 24 2008 1:20 PM EDT

Zoglog, which fallacy is this an example of? The "Perfect solution fallacy", or the "Denying the correlative" fallacy? Or one of the others? Please let me know okay, I have a feeling nobody is reading the "logical fallacy" wiki pages to see which logical fallacy they are describing.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] April 24 2008 2:14 PM EDT

It would be inductive.

The reasoning would be:

(1) The extra-life is there
(2) You can move into the space the life occupies

(C) You can gain an extra-life

The fallacy comes from the fact that although the statements draw a good conclusion, the reality is that the net gain of the action comes to zero due to the trap awaiting below.
I'm not 100% at explaining this well I know, especially without pictorial or video proof but I feel there is a basis for the point.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 25 2008 1:14 PM EDT

I'm still looking for fallacies here people. I know you've seen them. I'd love to see an examples of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy or the "Google Fallacy". My personal favorite is the "Poisoning the well" fallacy. Get to work people, 500k at stake here!

iBananco [Blue Army] April 25 2008 1:46 PM EDT

How's poisoning the well different from an ad hominem?

TheHatchetman April 25 2008 2:06 PM EDT

A google fallacy was me claiming that the AoIs addition to evasion was linear for the past 10 months or so, even though the only char I ever had that had an opponent where it could make enough difference to be noticable and conclusive beyond randomness had been sold... Right?

TheHatchetman April 25 2008 2:11 PM EDT

Sox's char is deplorable! He could do so much better with a ToA...
No true archer uses anything but a ToA...
Can you name another tat that boosts ST, DX, encumbrance, and the pth of your weapons by up to 2/3 it's nw? (1/3 for ranged, 1/3 for melee)

TheHatchetman April 25 2008 2:21 PM EDT

Stem cell research is a must, it can save and change lives for the better. People who are against it are against people!


Stem cell research is evil! It encourages abortion, rather than prohibiting it like we need to do! No *decent* member of society would ever find themselves in such a position to support this!

chuck1234 April 25 2008 2:26 PM EDT

0 = 2


The explanation is embedded in this link, at Appendix A.

QBOddBird April 25 2008 2:28 PM EDT

I'll go with door #2, Mr. Hatch. :)

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 25 2008 3:36 PM EDT

Let me re-iterate.

This is a contest.

To enter do these two things:

  • Show example of fallacy.
  • Name the fallacy in the example.

That is all.

Obscurans April 25 2008 5:21 PM EDT

Aw come on, this computer of mine is rented and I can't do fun things like that (takes too much of my bought time). Can't you just throw down one link and have us tear it apart?

I love fallacies. They're everywhere. They'll get us!

mfc2003 April 26 2008 10:02 AM EDT

The Fallacy is:

Abortion will cause euthanasia to become legal.

or, for another example,

Evolution will make the world turn into another Nazi Germany.

(BTW, both were real quotes off of a pretty off-the-wall right-wing site.)

This is the slippery slope fallacy. We cannot assume that the actions of one event will cause the actions of another event, and thus, are not acceptable for use in an argument. All we can argue are what the effects are now, not what "could" happen because of it.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 28 2008 6:30 PM EDT

I'm going to extend this contest just a little longer, so I can get some more entries. I like the last few though. Keep em' coming! :)

ActionAction April 28 2008 8:10 PM EDT

Cereal Mothers: Babies' Sex Linked to Moms' Breakfast Calories

Although this may actually be true, I just thought the title would be a great example of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, or questionable cause.

This is a hilarious example of the fallacies committed when certain Americans argue against gay marriage :D. Examples include parodies of slippery slope, post hoc, and relativist fallacies.

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] April 28 2008 9:25 PM EDT

Well, I don't know if this really counts or not, but I found it to be quite funny.

The End of the Internet...

Could it really be....the end? *gasp*

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] April 28 2008 11:21 PM EDT

I misread the rules. Here is the fallacy I am comparing my post with: I dare you to prove it...

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 30 2008 3:25 AM EDT

I appreciate all the effort people made for this contest, but considering I found very few entries that actually followed my rules. I'm going to create another contest where the rules are easier to understand; also everyone who entered this one will get a consolation prize. :)
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Q6X">Find the Logic Fallacy</a>