Funny (?) Arguments.

I have no idea, but I tried to Google "funny examples of logic arguments"

http://www.cracked.com/funny-1314-logical-fallacy/

It's kinda intersting to read, and some of the pictures are......interesting.  But it gave me a good laugh, and it passed the time writing these blogs.

One-sidedness

I stumbled upon a new fallacy.

One-Sidedness

Alias:

• Card Stacking
• Ignoring the Counterevidence
• One-Sided Assessment
• Slanting
• Suppressed Evidence

Type: Informal Fallacy

Example:

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children—toddlers up to pre-adolescents—whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Source: Massimo Calabresi, "Scott Ritter in His Own Words", Time, 9/14/2002

Exposition:

A one-sided case presents only evidence favoring its conclusion, and ignores or downplays the evidence against it. In inductive reasoning, it is important to consider all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion. For example, suppose that you have observed several white swans; then you might conclude:

All swans are white.

However, if you have observed even one black swan, you should not come to this conclusion. Instead, you might draw one of the weaker conclusions:

• Almost all swans are white.
• Most swans are white.
• Typically, swans are white.

So, the total evidence available to you consists in observations of several white swans and a black one. Whatever conclusion that you draw needs to be consistent with this evidence, but "all swans are white" is inconsistent with there being even one black swan. To leave the black swan out of your reasoning would be One-sidedness.





The swan example almost sounds like Appeal to Ignorance.

Ad Hominem

Throughout the course, I've understood fallacies the best.  But I almost feel like the description:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

...is false? Or just poorly stated? I'm not sure. Thoughts?

 

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."