The 10 Logic Commandments ...

from facebook post by Update Your Browser | Facebook Good references for logical fallacies:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
Page not found - Nizkor
Logically Fallacious - WebpagesI'm sure there are others (wikipedia has a page)Recommend a little study ...Enjoyperhaps links and information forum if not coffeehouse

Hi RAZD,I'm having difficulty with commandment #2:

quote:

---

Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack. (straw man fallacy)

---

There's a critical difference between misrepresent and exaggerate.The argument using strawmen is basically lying:

quote:

---

A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or INACCURATE [my highlight] form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

​

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

---

While the Reductio_ad_absurdum argument, is commonly used in our forum debates.

quote:

---

this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

​

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

---

As long as the argument is the SAME, an exaggeration can help illuminate why a particular reason is faulty. I often use this technique in debates about religion. And as long as one doesn't go too far, (for example, using Hitler when not debating war criminals) I think Reductio_ad_absurdum is okay to use.Comments?Or are you exactly like Hitler? Edited by dronestar, : "too," "zwei?"

I think there is a clear difference between merely exaggerating and Reductio ad Absurdum (RAD). The difference for is that for RAD the absurd or exaggerated consequences flow directly from the given argument as stated. If so, then when you attack the absurd consequences you are actually attacking the argument that was made.If instead you enlarge the argument in a way that is not required by the original argument, then you are not attacking the argument made. Your attack is then fallacious.Check:1) If a proper response to your argument is for the other side to say, 'I did not say X and surely we can stop before we reach X' then perhaps you've misrepresented or exaggerated the other persons argument in a way that is a fallacy. If you did that intentionally, then maybe we can say that you just lied. I don't think mistakes in logic are lies.2) If you really don't have an attack without exaggerating, then you ought to think again about whether you have an argument at all.3) Take the extra step of working out for yourself that the exaggeration is a logical outgrowth or at least a reasonable outgrowth of the original statement. If you are not willing to provide this reasoning when prompted, then your argument is probably fallacious. At the very least the argument is weak.

That doesn't sound quite right.I've never considered "absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence(s)" essential to a straw man fallacy--that definition seems like a case of argumentum ad circumstantiam, the appeal to consequences, which can be used to promote or attack a proposition for the consequences of its validity.For me, the pure straw man fallacy is simple and pure and often not a case of lying: People like the sound of their own arguments; they'll make straw man arguments out of sheer enthusiasm at finding a rebuttal, not willfully deceiving but innately biased in favor of their own mental creations, as we all are.The key component to the straw man fallacy is changing the proposition in rebuttal. I might have done that a time or too. It doesn't mean I'm bad.AbE: I'd add that callouts of logical fallacies generally come across as accusations, as if your opponent used the Devil's Playbook. Better, I think, just to observe the flawed reasoning itself: e.g., I didn't say that, or You're critiquing me instead of my proposition.Edited by Omnivorous, : afterthoughts

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement: the 2nd commandment in RAZD's list seems to be in error because of conflated wording. Okay, good, I concur. Yeah, I think that would then be called a strawman. While strawmen arguments can be innocent mistakes, I often think about Crashfrog's strawman arguments. Clearly those were almost always dishonest debate tactics. Strange. I often think oppositely: If I can't exaggerate an argument's flaw, then perhaps I should not attack it.

Well I didn't write the thing, but I would think they would say that exaggeration is not the same as extrapolation, which is what proper Reductio_ad_absurdum would be -- following the argument to a logical conclusion.One of the problems I have with Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments though, is that you are extrapolating from the initial information, and extrapolations are always suspect imho.If I said that I like the social programs that Bernie Sanders promotes, and somebody says that he is a raving socialist ... is that a misrepresentation? an exaggeration? and extrapolation?I would say that both misrepresentation and exaggeration would apply but not extrapolation (the argument has not been carried to a logical conclusion)Enjoy

quote:

---

The key component to the straw man fallacy is changing the proposition in rebuttal.

---

I agree. And exaggeration is not changing.The 2nd commandment in RAZD's list and the entire definition in the wiki entry is amiss.

Or the wiki article is not correct:Page not found - Nizkor

quote:

---

Description of Straw Man

​

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

​

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

---

This one's a little simpler:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm

quote:

---

Definition:

​

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

---

Enjoy

quote:

---

If I said that I like the social programs that Bernie Sanders promotes, and somebody says that he is a raving socialist ... is that a misrepresentation? an exaggeration? and extrapolation?

---

IMO, I would say that example is more Reductio_ad_absurdum than Strawman. There is SOME arch to the argument.With Strawman, the arch would be entirely broken. Thus:If I said that I like the social programs that Bernie Sanders promotes, and somebody would give examples of Sander's being a carnival barker, there would be no logical link. A strawman.Agree?And from a entertaining aspect, some of the forum's Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments have been pure gold. Dr. A should compile a book.

quote:

---

Definition:

​

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

---

Yes, "different from." Not just an exaggeration. I would label this definition as the classic example of Strawman.

But you can't logically get from promoting some socialist programs to being a full blown socialist: that horse don't run. You would have to show that all his proposals are full blown socialist items and none are not. I think you are exaggerating the reductio position to take away from the straw man fallacy ... see Message 8.Enjoy

quote:

---

that horse don't run.

---

Wouldn't all extreme exaggerations/Reductio_ad_absurdum eventually become crippled. Thus the reason for not using Hitler?By the very definition, an exaggeration or Reductio_ad_absurdum is not the exact argument. Thus, it is crippled starting out of the gate.But a strawman wouldn't even make it out of the gate.

I would think that a reduction ad absurdum is fine as long as it isn't a non sequitur.

It seems we can agree that a strawman argument is one that distorts and misrepresents the argument being challenged, so it still stands as a "commandment" yes?But I am curious why you quoted the http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm definition from Message 8 and not the Page not found - Nizkor one:

quote:

---

Description of Straw Man

​

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

​

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

---

bold added for emphasis And I think you are missing the point that Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments are extrapolations rather than exaggerations (and making a straw man argument about what is a straw man argument in the process).To say that Bernie Sanders is a full blown dyed in the wool socialist is an exaggeration, but not an extrapolation -- because not all his policies and positions are full blown dyed in the wool socialist positions.It is an exaggeration to say the Trumpets latest rally drew hundreds of thousands of avid supporters, it is not any kind of Reductio_ad_absurdum argument to make that statement.Logically Fallacious - Webpages

quote:

---

Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, always, never, everyone, nobody, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

---

Curiously I don't see how exaggeration fits into that description: "following it's implications" is extrapolation not exaggeration. Can you enlighten me?Enjoy

quote:

---

It seems we can agree that a strawman argument is one that distorts and misrepresents the argument being challenged, so it still stands as a "commandment" yes?

---

Yes, except for the word "exaggerate," I can agree with your ten commandments. It is specifically the word "exaggerate' that's sticking in my craw . . .

quote:

---

But I am curious why you quoted the http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm definition from Message 8 and not the Page not found - Nizkor one:

---

I'm hung up on the word "exaggeration." Would you consider a mildly exaggerated paraphrased argument as a strawman argument? I wouldn't. Please confirm.FWIW, I prefer a re-assembled definition from Ringo's post above: "Strawman=non-sequitar" definition over your linked definitions.Also, I think extrapolation does not fit into the spirit of the definition in "Reductio_ad_absurdum." An extrapolation connotes a measured, objective, scientific statement. Specifically, where is the absurdity in that?Edited by dronestar, : Ringo's paraphrased definitionEdited by dronestar, : "I prefer a re-assembled definition from Ringo's post above"