A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Having just completed my first thread, I am convinced a better understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debates here. While I studied logic in college (and therefore logical fallacies), it has been a long time and this debate will do me good as well.Background
Logical fallacies have been studied and debated for thousands of years and are well-defined and well-categorized, but not always well-presented. I am interested in debating the definitions and practical application of these fallacies to debate.I recommend reading Taxonomy of Fallacies at Logical Fallacies as a way to get some context for the debate. There are a number of links there, providing more information about the types of fallacies.Goal of the debate
The goal of this debate is for us to come to some agreement about the definitions of important fallacies and also about how they are to be confronted.I suggest information about each fallacy be gathered into the following outline:Definition of the fallacy — quote from a standard online source (not a blog belonging to a participant here)
Short explanation of why it is bad —
An example -
What to do when you recognize this fallacy —
What to do when you are accused of this fallacy —Example: Quote-miningDefinition: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context - WikipediaWhy this is bad: Quoting out of context can change the author’s original meaning. The context is generally thought of as the immediate linguistic context, but can also refer to the historical context of a person’s life. This is sometimes complicated by the fact people can and do sometimes change their views as they go through life.Example: Newbie says: Albert Einstein was a Christian because he once wrote In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.
In this example, Newbie is probably not maliciously attempting to mislead, but is simply misled himself. It is very easy for someone to project their own views into a quote.How to respond to Newbie: Newbie, yes, Einstein did say that but he was never a Christian. Einstein also wrote I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Please, Newbie, try to be careful not to project your own views into quotes you read.Quotes are extremely valuable inputs into any debate. By responding in this way, it is more likely Newbie will stick around and become a valuable member of the forum. A comment calling Newbie a liar will not increase learning or encourage him to stay. In fact, if Newbie has introduced the quote slightly differently, someone might think is quote mining but he was not. By taking a few minutes to verify the quote does not represent Einstein’s position, you can provide Newbie with new information and a link to conclude the matter.Other fallacies I hope others will consider and write about include:
Ad hominem
Appeal to authority
Circular reasoning
Non-sequitor
Many othersI hope we get many people to engage in this discussion and debate.

The goal is to build a database of common fallacies, learn to recognize a fallacy or when someone is falsely accused of a fallacy and to discuss how best to respond when we see a fallacy or when someone is accused of one.It is conceivable one online definition for a particular fallacy may be markedly different from another. In that case, we may debate which definition is better. It is also possible people may wish to debate the best way to respond to a charge of a logical fallacy.

Definition: Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Argument from authority - WikipediaWhy it’s bad: No expert is always right.Example: The following example is taken from ‘Jl‘TI—oCg In a previous thread, an accusation of appealing to authority came up because a quote was introduced like this: X, winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize is Physics, writes: This is not an appeal to authority because it is not a claim the authority cannot be wrong. It is completely valid to describe someone’s expertise in a particular field. The purpose is to get the reader’s attention, not to claim the expert is infallible.What to do:What is the proper response when you do see an appeal to authority? This is subject to debate, but it is best if you point out exactly what was said that contains the fallacy and identify the fallacy. Then provide a link either to this thread or to another link which explains the fallacy.What is the proper response if you are accused of an appeal to authority? First, consider if the accusation is true. If it is, see if you can restate your point without the appeal to authority. If it is not true, explain why you do not see your comment as a logical fallacy.

Your comment illustrates why this thread is important. You have a view you feel very strongly about. However, you opinion is only your opinion. The logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority is well-defined in the literature. If you think I have selected a poor definition or a poor example, you are free to cite a definition or example you think is better.But just saying "You're wrong" doesn't cut it.See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9YIf you want to marshal a real argument, get some facts on your side.

Did you miss this part of the description? Oh, that's right. You are claiming that my comment is a fallacy because I quote a definition of Appeal to Authority. Does this mean you have never looked up a word in a dictionary? Never looked up a fact in an encyclopedia? Never used a reference book? Never set foot inside a library?Why do you think people pay for college? So they can ignore the experts who lecture from the front of the lecture hall? No, so they can learn from them.I am wondering if you will ever see how fallacious your argument is. Is there anything that can convince you that you are wrong?

I see in this comment you claim the Wikipedia supports your view. What part of the article? I don't see anything in it that supports the view that saying "winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize in Physics" is an appeal to authority.Wikipedia does say that one fallacious appeal is "an appeal to inappropriate authority" which means a person who is cited is not truly an authority. When talking about physics, a Nobel Prize goes a long way to demonstrate real authority.

You claim Wikipedia is supports that an appeal to appropriate authority is a logical fallacy. Where does it say that exactly? I could not find it.And by the way, is Wikipedia an appropriate authority? So then, you just committed a logical fallacy, right?

Thank you jar! Finally someone gets it!

I could agree with most of what you wrote except this part: Identifying the accomplishments of the person is not at all the same as claiming he is infallible. When I quote Albert Einstein, I don't feel a need to say "Nobel Prize winner" because people know who Einstein is. But if I say Stephen Weinberg, people don't generally know who that is. Is he an astronomer, chemist, sunday school teacher? No one knows.Also, your use of "quote-miner" is not appropriate. People can quote without being a quote-miner. The assumption of guilt here is just ridiculous. If you are going to make a charge that someone is using a quote out of context and changing the meaning of the quote, you had better have some evidence to back up the charge. Otherwise you are just poisoning the well of civil discourse.

PaulK,
Okay, this is the first evidence you have presented. Unfortunately, it is poorly worded and is contrary to the standard definition. The standard definition will say an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy if the person is saying the expert is infallible.In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. By quoting an expert who holds the position, or multiple experts who hold the position, then people can see it is a reasonable position to hold. In other words, the goal is not to prove the position is accurate.Here's another definition: See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Appeal_to_authority

I was traveling when I started this thread and was not able to keep up with it. When I got home, I came down with a minor illness and did not feel up to working on the thread. I will try to spend a little time answering some of the comments today.

PaulK cites this quote: PaulK cites a valid authority (the website logicalfallacies.info) speaking in the area of the claimed expertise. PaulK is making an appeal to authority. Is this a logical fallacy on Paul's part?According to Paul's source, it is. Does this mean it is wrong of Paul to cite this authority? Or that the authority is wrong? Not at all.It is important to read the quote closely. It says an appeal to authority is "deductively fallacious." not that the argument is necessarily wrong.The problem, of course, is during the course of debate PaulK, Larni, DWIII and others will accuse someone of being wrong because they have committed an appeal to authority. This is bogus. There are several reasons why.First, it is possible someone quote an authority to give some background about the science, to explain what was going on, etc. in order to build toward the point one is trying to make. Many people here seem to think if a scientist is quoted that the person quoting them is saying the scientist agrees and supports their position. This is simply poor reading comprehension. The quote may not directly support the point being made at all.Second, people here assume if they can identify and name a logical fallacy, then the argument is disproven. Not true. A logical fallacy can be present, as PaulK's deductive fallacy is present here yet his argument has merit.What does it mean when a logical fallacy is found? Let's say I quote a Nobel Prize winning physicist on what the early moments of the big bang was like and someone says "Ah ha! Appeal to authority! Your wrong!" Does that mean the Nobel Prize winning physicist is wrong? Of course not. What does it mean exactly?For one thing, it opens the door to contrary evidence, including direct evidence or evidence from experts who have a competing view. What happens if such evidence cannot be found? Does that mean the expert who was quoted was correct? Not necessarily. It probably means the quoted scientist properly represents the views of the majority of scientists on the question but science is never settled.As Albert Einstein once said "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

From Wikipedia: One example of this is scientific world is the use of computer models to represent earth's climate. Some of the modelers have fallen into talking about their computer runs as "experiments."I also see examples of this fallacy on this thread. There are people here who hold to a belief that everyone who can detect design or the supernatural in the universe have unscientific minds. This belief is so "concrete" and "real" to them that they when they are presented with evidence of fine scientists who were shocked by and had their worldview changed because of the big bang - well, it makes their heads explode.When confronted with evidence of scientists and self-described atheists talking about the supernatural beginning of the universe, is the proper response to attack the person with charges of quote-mining and appeal to authority?Where is the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry? Where is the desire to learn the facts?When the desire to learn is absent, it is usually because a mental abstraction (such as "no religious person can be a scientist") is held to be true in a concrete and physical sense.

Logic divides fallacies into formal and informal categories. A formal fallacy means the argument is always wrong. An informal fallacy may have a flaw that weakens the argument but the conclusion of the argument may still be correct.See Formal fallacy - Wikipedia
Informal fallacy - WikipediaAn appeal to authority is an example of an informal fallacy. It is considered a fallacy because experts are not always correct. However, it is not a formal fallacy because experts are not always incorrect either. This quote is from "An Informal Fallacy Primer" at http://www.acontrario.org/node/350The segment on Argument by Authority is very good, especially this bit: If you were eager to learn about the first moments after the big bang, would you want to read a book by a physicist or listen to the ideas your gardener has on the topic? Obviously, authorities have their place.Another well-written section is on ad hominem attacks: Let me be clear on this. Unsupported claims of multiple logical fallacies is nothing but an ad hominem attack. It is an attack against a person's intelligent or morality or both. Likewise, calling someone a liar is an ad hominem attack.This forum deserves better than that. If you can spot a logical fallacy in someone's argument, by all means point it out and support your claim. Think through the issue of whether it is a formal fallacy or informal fallacy. But, in any case, discuss it an a way that treats the other person with respect. Don't overstate your case or you lose credibility.

Granny Magda quotes me:

quote:

---

...when they are presented with evidence of fine scientists who were shocked by and had their worldview changed because of the big bang...

---

and then Granny Magda says: Not true. The examples and quotes I provided are accurate and well-substantiated. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. You have only made baseless assertions which I did not feel even deserving of a response. But I will respond this time.Arthur Eddington was a well known atheist and expert in general relativity.
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me I should like to find a genuine loophole.
Arthur Eddington The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450Why did Eddington want to find a loophole? Because he knew it meant the universe had a beginning and that leads unavoidably to discussion of the cause.Arthur Eddington states: The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, p. 178)How often do you read of an atheist talking about the supernatural? Not often. Only when the science makes it unavoidable.Robert Jastrow has been variously described as an atheist and agnostic. In either case, he was not a religious man. Yet:Speaking of the big bang, Robert Jastrow says: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).Jastrow's book is about how the big bang shocked the world of astronomy and astrophysics and changed their world view. It is a short and fascinating book on an important period in the history of science. I strongly recommend you read it.Allan Sandage was an atheist who became a Christian late in life and said, "If God did not exist, science would have to invent Him to explain what it is discovering at its core."I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing. - Allan Sandage, Winner of the Crawford Prize in Astronomy, spoken before he became a ChristianNow, if you can find any problems with these quotes, please let me know. I am certain you cannot.Now we return to the actual subject of this thread.