CATEGORY: #LogicalFallacies
The next tier down in the hashtag stack, when using the Propaganda Watchdog protocol to forensically identify potential coercion, required for the successful forensic analysis of communications, are the ‘Logical Fallacies’ which either comprise and enable the above tactics and techniques or are in themselves used in coercion
In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound. Regardless of their soundness, all registers and manners of speech can demonstrate fallacies.
[…]
The conscious or habitual use of fallacies as rhetorical devices is prevalent in the desire to persuade when the focus is more on communication and eliciting common agreement rather than on the correctness of the reasoning. The effective use of a fallacy by an orator may be considered clever, but by the same token, the reasoning of that orator should be recognized as unsound, and thus the orator’s claim, supported by an unsound argument, will be regarded as unfounded and dismissed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
,…here is a small example:
1.#Strawman
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[…] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man.”
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Retrieved 05/ July 2019
2.#FallacyofComposition
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: “This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber.” This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of #hastygeneralization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division; it may be contrasted with the case of emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in the parts.
Fallacy of composition Retrieved 05/ July 2019
3.#Argumenttomoderation
“Fallacy of gray” redirects here. Fallacy of gray may also refer to the continuum fallacy.
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as false equivalence, false compromise, [argument from] middle ground, equidistance fallacy, and the golden mean fallacy[…]—is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.[…]An example of a fallacious use of the argument to moderation would be to regard two opposed arguments—one person saying that the sky is blue, while another claims that the sky is in fact yellow—and conclude that the truth is that the sky is green.[…] While green is the colour created by combining blue and yellow, therefore being a compromise between the two positions—the sky is obviously not green, demonstrating that taking the middle ground of two positions does not always lead to the truth.Vladimir Bukovsky maintained that the middle ground between the Big Lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth was itself a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between disinformation and information.[5] According to him, people from the Western pluralistic civilization are more prone to this fallacy because they are used to resolving problems by making compromises and accepting alternative interpretations—unlike Russians, who are looking for the absolute truth.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
This is how the #ReversiveBlockade works, via an #AdHocHypothesis
4.#Divinefallacy
The divine fallacy is an informal fallacy that often happens when people say something must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural causes because it is unimaginable for it not to be so.[…] A similar fallacy, known as argument from incredulity, appeal to common sense, or personal incredulity,[…] asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong. Arguments from incredulity are called [ #nonsequiturs….] Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy
I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[…]
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce.[…]
5.#Homunculousfallacy
The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain human vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a “little man” or “homunculus” inside the brain “looking at” the movie.
The reason why this is a fallacy may be understood by asking how the homunculus “sees” the internal movie. The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus’s “head” or “brain” looking at this “movie”. But that raises the question of how this homunculus sees the “outside world”. To answer that seems to require positing another homunculus inside this second homunculus’s head, and so forth. In other words, a situation of infinite regress is created. The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
6.#HypnoticBaitAndSwitch
Stating several uncontroversially true statements in succession, followed by a claim that the arguer wants the audience to accept as true. This is a propaganda technique, but also a fallacy when the audience lends more credibility to the last claim because it was preceded by true statements. The negative can also be used in the same way.
This is a classic sales technique often referred to as, “getting the customer used to saying ‘yes’!”
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/105/Hypnotic_Bait_and_Switch
7.#EitherOr
What is Either-or Fallacy?
To explain it in simple terms, the either-or fallacy refers to presenting two opposing options in a situation, in such a way that they seem to be the only available options.For instance, if something is true, then the other must be false. However, both can be false or true as well. This is the reason why the either-or fallacy is also called false dilemma; a situation need not necessarily have two outcomes, it can have more, which weren’t thought of, or weren’t introduced on purpose. For instance, if you see the adjoining image, the rich man is trying to judge the common man’s condition in two possible ways. He concludes that since the common man doesn’t seem very rich, he might be saving a lot. However, he fails to think that the common man appears poor because he might actually be poor (doesn’t earn a lot).
https://psychologenie.com/explanation-of-either-or-fallacy-with-examples
8.#FalseDichotomy
A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words “either” and “or”, like this: “Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong.”
http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy
A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It’s not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.
A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position — by making the assumption that there are only two positions.
Examples:
“If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. If you don’t want to raise taxes, you can’t have better schools.” – A third alternative is that you could spend the existing tax money more efficiently.
“You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem.” – No room for innocent bystanders here.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” – Being neutral is not an option.
Forcing people to classify themselves as either “with us” or “against us”, leads to the saying “An enemy of my enemy is my friend.” While they may hate both of you.
This last might not be such a good example. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is just a pithy way of saying that you and your enemy’s enemy have a common interest, and therefore you can probably work out some way to cooperate even if you have other differences. (For example, it doesn’t (necessarily) matter if you oppose your common enemy for different reasons.) Tell that to your enemy’s enemy.
9 #NonSequitur
When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur
10. #Hobson’sChoice
Similar to #EitherOr:
A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one thing is offered. Because a person may refuse to accept what is offered, the two options are taking it or taking nothing. In other words, one may “take it or leave it”. The phrase is said to have originated with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England, who offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in his stall nearest to the door or taking none at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
11.#AlternativeAdvance
When one is presented with just two choices, both of which are essentially the same, just worded differently. This technique is often used in sales. Fallacious reasoning would be committed by the person accepting the options as the only options, which would most likely be on a subconscious level since virtually anyone—if they thought about it—would recognize other options exist.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/16/Alternative-Advance
12.#SomebodysGotItWorse / #RelativePrivation
Trying to make a scenario appear better or worse by comparing it to the best or worst case scenario.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation
A more complete list can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies