The 10 Logic Commandments ...

That is not the opposite. You are simply describing your favorite debating style. I'm not discouraging exaggerating, I'm pointing out times when it just is not a great tactic regardless of its appeal.Perhaps you could provide a proposition that you think is effectively targetted by exaggeration.

11. Thou shalt not treat any conceivable counter-example as if it completely invalidates a general rule.Edited by MrHambre, : Un-commandment

When I ask someone to imagine the chaos that would result if we could each veto the civil rights of others based on sincerely held religious beliefs--Catholic clerks denying licenses to the divorced, etc.--I dunno if I'm committing ad absurdum, invoking Kantian morality or foreseeing my descent into the Slough of Despair in a world of warring cults.But I think it's okay to say it anyway.

How about an example to demonstrate?

If this is a logic thing than I don't think there should be commandments. Logically I think it should be stated such that they are the "10 pretty good ideas".

Yes, thou shouldest.Thou shalt not cite as a general principle a rule for which every chariot rider and their dog canst produce an exception.

Well, you know, just because Doctor X is anti-vax doesn't mean that there isn't a general consensus in the medical industry that vaccination is a good thing.

That's No. 3 - hasty generalization.I keep getting pops in my feeble little mind about the efficacy of your No. 11 but I cannot get a clear view. Got another?The problem I'm having is that in the hard sciences a single verifiable counter-observation can undermine a well established theory. I suppose that in the realm of opinion a single opinion shouldn't invalidate an argument but the fallacy there is to jump to the conclusion that the counter-opinion replaces the general argument, i.e., making a hasty generalization. Though I suppose one opinion by a recognized respected authority could very well be used to unsettle an argument by a bunch of naves.

In reality, has a single verifiable counter-observation ever done any such thing, ever?

Penzias and Wilson. That one observation threw Hoyle into the trashcan.But this is off topic. I'm trying to find support for you. Got anything?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Come now. The phenomenon of cosmic microwave background radiation had been predicted and theorized for decades before the technology was available to detect it, and it took a good amount of subsequent research to persuade the scientific mainstream of the validity of the Big Bang. I'm not knocking the Nobel winners or anything, but their accidental discovery was only the very beginning of the end for the Solid State theory.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

That can be boiled down to what I've occasionally said here: Science works.I mean, it did put a man on the moon.So, single verifiable counter-observation? Sure, it can happen. But does it? Not so much, because well established theories can continue to work despite the single verifiable counter-observations. It's like it's too well established for the single observation to matter that much, especially as long as it still works.That doesn't mean that it isn't technically wrong, but as long as it's still useful then it doesn't really matter that much yet.

People used to think coelacanths were extinct. All it took to change their minds was one coelacanth.

I feel as if I've been baited and switched. One contrary opinion is not an exception to a consensus. One opinion is an exception to unanimity, always, or never. A general consensus is not a general rule.

Hi RAZD. Nice work. Verily I say unto thee, I SHALL OBEY. (hope you're doing well in health.)What irritates me personally, isn't so much a fallacy but a false claim that a fallacy is being made when I know for a fact that I understand the matter much more than the twit that thinks he is implicating me.For example, it seems it is not possible to NOT be a Christian, once you claim to be. (Lol) This is usually a FALSE No True Scotsman fallacy. I guess it can be easy to forget that just because a no-true-scotsman fallacy EXISTS doesn't mean that it now follows that it is no longer possible to not be Scottish.Such weak semantics would reduce words to having no real meaning. "Hi I'm mike, a serial killing, Scottish Christian from Portugal and I've never prayed until now because they are going to put me in the chair". Some other examples;The god-of-the-gaps.People tend to think that there is something in logical notation which teaches that "God" can never be included in a formal syllogism. They must think that logical notation states something like this;"God is never allowed to be included in any formal statement."It seems to me, whenever I argue ANYTHING that slightly favours God existing, there is a false APPEAL to this fallacy, it is used as a kind of truncheon by atheists, to beat mike over the head with.So I guess fallacies themselves can be used as question-begging-epithets, to MIS-USE, by appealing to their authority, rather than actually showing that the fallacy was genuinely committed.I think the cause of this mistake is usually that misinformed people tend to conflate science with logic. It is scientific rules that ban the supernatural, not logical rules.In fact a god-of-the-gaps is actually committed when you argue thus; There is no explanation for X, therefore supernatural entity P must be responsible, for who could utter with such a loud voice, except Thor, when it thunders!I also enjoy trying to find fallacies that are opposites of each other, in some manner.For example, an Ad Hitlerum, seems to me to be the opposite of an appeal-to-authority.I don't mean literally "opposite" I just mean that something must be false because Hitler approved of it, seems like the opposite of saying that something is valid because an important scientist says it is. Another one might be, well a tautology and a contradiction, truly are defined as opposite of course. By definition a tautology being true, by definition a contradiction being false.I guess another is an argument from credulity and an argument from incredulity.
I believe X therefore it must be true.
I disbelieve X therefore it must be false.Of course another false fallacy I am accused of is an argument-from-incredulity, which can be easily conflated with rational incredulity.For example, if I find superman's costume in my wardrobe and someone tells me they saw him and I don't believe them, I would say this is a rational incredulity, a rational skepticism which is quite logical.Which leads me to an accusation of the Black Swan fallacy, "I have never observed process X so it can't be true".People say I argue this because I don't accept evolution but again, if I have never saw a process such as how a man would fly like superman, does this give me reason enough to accept the process happened, because of some circumstantial evidence?The key here is to realize the size of the claim of both superman existing and macro-evolution turning microbes into microbiologists, both claims would be ASTRONOMICAL, thus we could apply the burden-of-proof axiom that goes something like this if I remember correctly;"The greater a claim the greater the evidence must be, correspondingly".Although I would not say it is the quantity of the evidence but rather the quality of it, because as an inductive tally, 1,000 witnesses would not be enough to convince me that superman exists. If I am honest, I would look for a rational explanation of why they would argue that.It's the same with the interior scapular girdle of a turtle, if I could be shown some evidence of how it could evolve from a girdle exterior to the rib-cage despite a genuine logical disjunction being employed, then this would satisfy me, because obviously there can only be one, "leap" between an exterior girdle and an interior one, without any fine gradations of neo-darwiniasm mechanisms. Any in between stage, would be referred to as, "fused bone".Best regards if I don't get back to you.