I am not well versed into how these logical fallacies are supposed to be applied.
Everyone is operating with imperfect information, so no implication will ever be 100% logically tight.<p>For example, using "appeal to authority", it is logically true that just because a group of Fields Medalists think your proof is wrong, does not necessarily mean that your proof is wrong. But in practice, there is a very high chance you are in the wrong.<p>Logical fallacies are binary, but the world is more stochastic, so I may be wrong, but I think these logical fallacies do not actually apply to reasoning about the real world. They only work when applied to thought experiments.<p>But I am no philosopher so I do not know for sure.
I'm sceptical of this website.<p>It looks like that it intermixed a few things that are not logical fallacies in order to appear to have more content to sell books that are more than a few pages thick.<p>Example:.
<a href="https://www.logicalfallacies.org/shotgun-argumentation.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.logicalfallacies.org/shotgun-argumentation.html</a><p><<A student argues that he didn't do his homework because, he had lost his backpack, and when he found it the notebook was not in there, and it turned out that the dog had eaten his notebook.>><p>It is clearly not a logical fallacies case:<p>either it is a lie, or if it is the truth, it is a logical explanation of the chain of unfortunate events that resulted in the student not to able to deliver.
My objection to this kind of thing continues to be: having lists of fallacies arms everyone with fully general counterarguments that permit everyone to avoid thinking. No argument on anything important is watertight; every important argument is fallacious in some way; dismissing every fallacious argument will allow you to "win" every argument simply by pointing out all the ways in which your opponent is wrong, without ever actually arguing in favour of anything.
One observation I've seen made, and have agreed with time, is that using analogies is bad form in an argument.<p>Once an analogy has been made, the conversation always turns to contorting it to matching the viewpoints by both sides. It's <i>always</i> distracting.<p>If you're reaching for an analogy, spend a bit more time to try to make your point without it.
The most useful and effective tool I've come across to use in a debate is to get the two sides to outline the position and argument of their critics as clearly as hey can, to the satisfaction of their critics, before engaging in the debate. That's not really practical in internet forum comment wars, but I think if you come to the table with this spirit in mind it can be very helpful.<p>Arming yourself with rhetorical weapons like this, especially if you rather view them as tools for thinking, will get you some way but I think rarely aid in reaching consensus or understanding where disagreement comes from.
This looks like an advert to try and sell the Amazon books, there's an entire curated wiki available as an alternate resource:<p><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy</a>
That is NOT what "Informal Fallacy" means.<p>The definition offered is effectively a rewording of the formal fallacy.<p>In fact the very thing that makes an informal fallacy INformal is the fact that from a formal point of view it is not fallacious (i.e. the argument is technically valid)<p>Informality comes from the fact that while technically valid, an informally fallacious argument does not further the conversation, either because there is no universe where the premises could ever be true (i.e. a valid but unsound argument), or because the validity is the result of a "vacuous truth", or because it is structured in such a way that the conclusion, while not invalid, is designed to derail rather than further the conversation in a useful way (i.e. trolling)
The slippery slope fallacy (which I see made the list) is often abused in discourse to argue against anyone proposing that A could plausibly lead to B, even if the person thinks there's a fairly low probability of it playing out.<p>I would go so far as to say it's not a legitimate fallacy. People can both overestimate <i>or</i> underestimate the probability that A will lead to B, but we call the former fallacious and not the latter, which makes no sense. If we think that the former should be validly called the slippery slope fallacy then we need a fallacy for the latter too (inertia fallacy? fallacy of lack of imagination?)
I don't understand the appeal of lists like this. Attacking the structure of someone's argument only works in high school debate club, not real discussions with real people, where you need to actually engage with the substance of their argument. This feels like the conversational equivalent of tattling to the teacher and a slim step above criticizing someone's grammar to look smart.
My personal favourite is the logical-fallacy-fallacy. This is where someone names a logical fallacy that doesn't quite apply, but is close enough to fool people into making it look like they have won debate.<p>An example might be: "Listening to the scientists is just an appeal to authority"
> Women should be able to have abortions, so abortion should be legal and easily available.<p>This is given as the second example for circular reasoning, but I don't agree. I think it's a simple logical statement that doesn't prove its prerequisite.
I believe that there is a distinct difference between formal and informal fallacies and how they should be dealt with in a debate.<p>I agree with many here that just pointing out fallacies does not advance the debate, however I believe this only applies to informal fallacies (which are often much less clear cut). To me informal fallacies are often just poor debating style.<p>However formal fallacies should absolutely always be challenged, because the make the argument formally invalid (non sequitur).
I’ve written about how we use some of these fallacies in our arguments because of the core fallacy: we think we have to <i>win</i> arguments. <a href="https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/" rel="nofollow">https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/</a>
This sort of thing really isn't all that useful, since no argument outside of pure mathematics is logically airtight. In particular, arguments accused of employing a slippery slope fallacy or no true scotsman fallacy are not generally bad forms of argument.
AKA "A guide to typical arguments, political and otherwise, with special applicability to online discourse."<p>That being said, where's the favorite of the moment, "guilt by association?"
If you can directly identify any of these fallacies while arguing on the internet your stance on the subject instantly becomes correct and the opposing view wrong.
What about "whataboutism"? It's not listed. Is me asking that question an example of whataboutism?<p>Joking aside, whataboutism is a "logical fallacy" that I see commonly invoked here on HN, most often when the topic is political in nature.<p>It seems like many people want to assert their opponents questions are whataboutism so that they do not have to consider the <i>broader context</i> of the issue, which almost always would invalidate the narrow, one sided, siloed analysis which they are desperately clinging to.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense</a>
Slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy. It's often being incorrectly used, usually as a result of the continuum fallacy, but it isn't a fallacy in and of itself.
There are only two fallacies: anticipation and procrastination.
If you're discussing something and it isn't directed towards an immediate course of action, stop already it's not worth wasting your attention.