Whats your favorite logical fallacy? Mine is pic related

Ad hominem is fun as fuck.

Nah, I just morphed Reductio ad absurdum. It fits though, doesn't?

Not him, but I'm guessing it's the sort of

>Claim X
>Show one piece of evidence that supports X
>Therefore treat that X is conclusively proven and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

The fallacy fallacy

Obsession with logical exactness is silly when all of our knowledge is inductive and probabilistic. I've found that exposure to the concept of fallacies tends to make some people stupider than before.

yeah but jumping to the opposite conclusion-- that we can't know anything and all arguments are true-- is just as stupid

We can know things, just not with 100% certainty. I don't think anyone takes philosophical skepticism to the extreme anymore, "the opposite conclusion." Very few would say we can know absolutely nothing to any degree of certainty.

>We can know things, just not with 100% certainty
See>I've found that exposure to the concept of fallacies tends to make some people stupider than before.

What are you even implying here?

You can't be serious. No, I am not the user you were arguing with.

I'm legitimately at a loss. Explain yourself.

Shouldn't be too hard for you to understand? They are your words after all. You understand your posts are simply proving points in my favour.

>Shouldn't be too hard for you to understand?
Apparently it is. What do you mean, user?

>Reductio Ad Juden
Funny. Mines reductio ad goyim. It's when Jews were never aggressors throughout history and were always "scapegoated."

Upon the exposure of certain fallacy related ideas you became an extremely ignorant individual.
>muh 100%

See: Your posts.

>Jews were never aggressors throughout history and were always "scapegoated."
and who actually says this? the overwhelming majority of posts I encounter on Veeky Forums concerning jews is negative.

That statement was an empirical one, based on a finite amount of experience. There is no certainty there. I still have no idea what you're talking about.

>and who actually says this?
Western Normie consensus and Western elite consensus.

Anytime you try to bring up a thread on Jewish baby sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance, despite it being enormously well documented.

You say you wanna box a nigga, but punch a shitty straw copy instead

yeah, I agree. but i think once we have a very high degree of certainty we have to assume something is true, or else we get paralysis

>empirical
there it is.

Just stop posting, you are a proper moron. Seriously, lurk more. You might think I am attacking you for no reason, I literally am.

Kill yourself. You are simply proving my point, every time you reply to me.

Yeah I agree with you here. We invented approximations for a reason.

Whatever you say, user.

Is that the fallacy fallacy? I understood it as just because someone argued something wrong that their conclusion isn't necessarily wrong.

Whats actually so bad about it? I mean its a good way to expose an agenda.

Ad hom. People seem to mistake ad hominem for a regular old insult and proceed to get really butthurt. For those who don't know the difference, it's this:
>You're fat, therefore you're wrong.
This is ad hominem.
>You're fat.
This is a regular insult.

You can get away with calling your opponent a faggot, so long you don't use it to justify your argument.

You're wrong because you're a nigger.

Most normies are probably indifferent on uninformed, as normies are on nearly all political or social issues. I don't think you can say that all these normies, if you talked to them, would agree to such an absolute statement as the "jews never did anything wrong"
>Western elite consensus.
pretty sure the western elite consensus is for tolerance of everybody, not just jews. of course the holocaust remembrance can be excessively lachrymose, but, again, that isn't the same thing as saying the jews have never done anything wrong. Besides that, its wrong to condemn an entire group of people just because there are a few bad apples.

>enormously well documented
hmm, gonna need to see those sources senpai. do you also believe that the templars trials and witch hunts were real as well?

Yes, basically. It's the idea just because someone makes a fallacy doesn't mean their conclusion is necessarily wrong. It may still be valid for other reasons or it may simply be a good guess based on available data even if you can't say for certain.

Oh I see.

Pick your poison,Veeky Forums

/pol/ is basically

Genetical fallacy
Ad hominem
Black-white reasoning
Appeal to nature fallacy
Texas sharpshooter falacy

combined

Also add appeal to emotion and no true scotsman

>Reductio Ad Juden

I'm pretty sure /pol/ is guilty of every single fallacy listed.

'slippery slope' and the 'no true scotsman'

Never heard "Special pleading" from them desu

You kidding? Just show them an example of a humanitarian Muslim or an instance of cop-on-black violence where the cop is unambiguously at fault, and watch the goal posts soar.

Depends on if this counts, if you've heard it:
>/pol/:Niggers are all awful
>Person: I live around quite a few black people and the're nice
>/pol/: If you saw the world like I do then you would understand

I don't know if it counts, I'm not sure.

Spewing out insults and swear words instead of actually making arguments.

Can someone explain to me why is appeal to authority considered a fallacy? Is it not expected a brain surgeon will know more about brain surgery than a shit shoveler?

Cuck.

It's a fallacy because simply being an authority isn't enough to say for certain someone is correct. However that person is more likely to be correct than any random person, which is why the fallacy fallacy exists and why fallacies are overrated.

/pol/ doesn't care whether or not a cop is justified in beating a black man, because they hate both cops and blacks.

>implying /pol/ hates cops
Were you hibernated in 2013 or some shit?

Equivocation fallacy.

I always see it when debating evolutionists.

does this make you happy

>However that person is more likely to be correct than any random person

We hope

Nah, but it's my favorite fallacy of all the fallacies that evolutionists use.

Equivocation is the classic bait-and-switch.

First define a word to mean something. In the middle of the discussion suddenly change the definition of the word.

Flip flopping to dazzle and confuse the opponent by using something real (variations within kinds of animals) to make people believe in fantasy (species turning into completely different species).

It is only a fallacy when the person being cited is not a legitmiate authority, Or if the person sights an expert agreeing with him as the final say on whether he is right or not.

If you site someone of authority giving an explanation as to why they believe something for instance its still has added power of argument if that person is an expert on the subject.

Example. I post an article by a leading evolutionary scientist and you post an article by an engineer on the same subject. My article has more authority because the person making it is a specialist in that field

>depicts oponent as a pretentious little prick (ad hom)
>at the same time, the creator of this cartoon illustrates his cognitive dissonance quite beautifully

Scientists dont use kinds. "Kinds" has no scientific definition. Are hyena's and dogs both a kind? If two animals cannot produce viable offspring but look like each other are they still a kind?

Are we doing this again?

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

>First define a word to mean something. In the middle of the discussion suddenly change the definition of the word.
Sounds like your "kinds" to me.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

Kinds have a clear definition, always have.

If you can create offspring, you're part of the same kind. That's the general rule.

HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013
1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world. 7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

>all of our knowledge is inductive and probabilistic
>it's mere chance all bachelors are unmarried

But creatures such as pongids (chimps, gorrilas and orangutans) are considered part of the same kind, and yet are unable to reproduce.

/pol/ doesn't hate cops.

>Are we doing this again?

until you stop posting nonsense

>Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Evolution does not discuss whether life is accidental.

> For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Some scientists believe that it has nothing to do with their work as scientsts. many evolutionist believe in some sort of God

>A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Pointing to the consensus of most experts (whose arguments are more detailed as easily available) is not fallacious.

> This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

No scientist asserts this. We can observe the fossil record, look at dna, and examine changes in microbes and small animals and plants over an extended period of time.

It as as verified by observation as the science we used to prove criminals were responsible for murder.

Just going to respond to the pic you posted.

Notice how when he refers to seeing evolution in his lab he is referring to changes in butterflies over a couple generation, maybe around a year or two. This is micro evolution.

Macro evolution simply extends the timescale from 1 year to millions. Those small changes become much more drastic given ludicrous amount of time and hundreds of thousands of small generational changes.

Funny thing is. The creationist argument is a perfect example of the personal incredulity fallacy.

creation.com/
trueorigin.org/
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Science, facts and logic support creation.

The theory of evolution is dead.

That's one hell of an update thanks

Sure if you consider definitions knowledge.

>the resident christcuck copy paster arrives to demonstrate some fallacies for us.

>I mean its a good way to expose an agenda.
you mean your own agenda?

If your going to spam links at least post the copy paste the relevant paragraphs.

Also anyone can put anything on a website.

>The theory of evolution is dead.

The biology professor at the university I went to didnt seem to agree with you

Stop copypasting huge walls of text.

That, my dear user, is what is known as a "gish gallop," named after creationist Duane Gish.

Would you consider 126^43=2.0698231e+90 to be a definition as well?

It depends on whether you're a realist with regard to mathematics. There's no way to prove it either way.

>slippery slope
>fallacy

There is literally nothing wrong with this. Better to prevent than to remedy.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

So in other words, both sides are wrong.

You can't say for certain that something is a slippery slope but sometimes a chain of causality like that is more likely than not and makes sense. Hence the existence of the fallacy fallacy.

Brainlet pls

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606806/

...

I too enjoy the taste of bait sometimes.

>Catholic priest comes up with big bang theory
>Christians don't understand it
Try harder.

>implying protties think Catholics are Christian

Reductio ad Hitlerum

>implying anyone cares what protties think besides protties themselves

Atheism is literally a mental illness.

youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

>mfw I never knew there were evolutionary biologists and Mormons in the pic

>Who are Christian communists

slippery slope is not in itself a fallacy, the fallacy lies in supposing something to be a slippery slope without proving this:

"First gay marriage, then polygamy and then marrying animals, we have to stop this before it begins!"

if such an argument were true then this would be perfectly acceptable, however the crucial middle step of proving the causality has been skipped over.

No one said christianity is bad.