Each poster must identify the logical fallacy presented by the previous poster. Then, present one of their own.
I think this will work best (and be the most instructional) if the scenarios presented are actual anecdotes or real-to-life. I’ve always been fascinated with fallacies and how easily people can fall for them – I’m hoping this will be educational for all of us.
Here’s one to start with (multiple correct answers):
What logical fallacy has Gordon succumbed to? Provide a link explaining the fallacy, if you can.
I believe the fallacy is that Gordon and Billy Bob are driving on a road near a VW manufacturer or dealership. Therefore, there are plenty of VWs on the road.
My turn: Two nuns are driving around the town at night when a vampire attacks them by jumping on their hood. It grabs onto the car and is trying to get through the front windscreen.
The Mother nun says: “Try to get him off! Show him your cross.”
The other nun points her crucifix at him and shouts “GET OFF THE CAR, YOU TOOTHY GIT!”
Or is that too easy?
Non sequitur - her point is unrelated to the topic at hand.
Alice and Bob are discussing Carol, known for being promiscuous and bragging about it. Upon meeting Carol’s ex, Dave, who is rather crazy, and insists on having sex with Carol then and there on a public street, Bob decides that, since Carol declined, she was ‘all talk’ and probably a virgin.
What fallacy does Bob (rather bizarrely) fall into here?
The VW example looks a lot like confirmation bias, even though that’s not an “official” fallacy it certainly plays the same role. Gordon believes that there are more VW’s than there actually are because the appearance of each one is reinforced (painfully) for him.
I’d say that’s converse fallacy of accident, assuming that particular leads to a generalization. Carol’s refusal to have sex in one instance does not mean that she refuses to have sex in all other instances.
The actual conversation was an excluded middle thing - ‘Bob’ (actually several people)'s argument was if she wasn’t ‘anytime, anywhere, anyone’, she must be chaste and if not virginal, at least not that experienced.
Righty! Questionable Cause (confusing cause and effect)? I think post hoc does work here, too. For what reason are you discounting it? Could fall under Appeal to Tradition, too. Barely.
I was thinking of Antroporphism (AKA Pathetic Fallacy, AKA Reification, AKA Hypostatization). The statement certainly is circular, as well:D .
This is a reverse application of “Appeal to Authority”. The value of information or argument is not tied to the source. In this particular case “They offer me advice that is obviously not applicable, and I believe the cause of the advice being bad is that they haven’t been parents and don’t understand the situation” would remove the fallacy.
There’s a secondary fallacy in that experience as a participant isn’t the only way to observe or understand something, but I don’t know the name of that one.
“My friend often gets upset at people offering him parental advice when they aren’t parents themselves. His argument is that ‘they don’t know what it’s like’ and cannot have anything of value to contribute on the subject.”
Sounds like an ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
My neighbor’s kid is in the Boy Scouts of America, a 100 year old organization, which is weird because he only looks around 12 or so.
