Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-27089028-20190930224518

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: "Damn, that's a lot of fallacies to remember. Wish A Level Philosophy had taught me this instead of whatever it was we actually learnt. Okay so argument from authority that's straight forward don't pull the 'so and so said it so it must be true.'"

Exactly.

"Argument from incredulity is don't pull the 'well I can't picture it therefore it can't be so' card."

Right. Have you tried picturing general relativity, by any chance?

"Affirming the consequent is 'just because A leads to B doesn't mean B leads to A' hence the Undyne example. Red herring is 'don't try and use an argument proving something for something else' and circular reasoning/begging the question is kind of going off the assumption you're right anyway or structuring the argument in a way that it leads back to only what you think is the answer."

That's right.

"Okay I think I've wrapped my head around most of them, I may have missed a few though whilst picking out the key parts. It's good to remind myself of these."

Another thing to remember, which is always important, is that the argument itself (plus the canon evidence, of course), is all you should be taking into account when looking at the argument. Many, many fallacies all come from taking characteristics of the person making the argument, and using that to discredit (or to support) the argument.

Which is why I want to make it very clear that you should be looking at the argument itself, not the person who made them.

Though when one argument relies on another argument.. That's when we start getting into meta-arguments, which I plan on going over in a later part. Ah thank you for taking the time to reply to my comments as it is greatly appreciated. I look forward to future instalments of this series and will be sure to read up on them as it is important to me that I avoid commiting logical fallicies to the best of my abilities.