Source: Information Is Beautiful
Rhetological Fallacies
January 23, 2015 12:00pm by Barry Ritholtz
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web:Posted Under
Previous Post
10 Friday AM Reads
Love this graphic. Have it bookmarked and refer to it when deconstructing arguments.
Ought to be required learning for high school students.
Very helpful collection of how both logic and common sense can be betrayed to create both individual and collective “confabulation”.
From Wikipedia:
Confabulation is distinguished from lying as there is no intent to deceive and the person is unaware the information is false.[2] Although individuals can present blatantly false information, confabulation can also seem to be coherent, internally consistent, and relatively normal.[2] Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from “subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications”,[3] and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence.
Regarding any confabulation in economics… I’m desperate for someone to tell me how the two different forms of lending haven’t become a source of confabulation and problematic because of false or missing logic. (Hey, it could be that I’m the one confused so I welcome clarification.)
The Two Types of Lending: Why the Difference is Important
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-two-types-of-lending-why-difference.html
What am I missing?
I went to a talk Andy Busch gave at UofC Gleacher and he said, “I never listen to Paul Krugman because of his ad hominem attacks.”
It was right after the error showed up in Rogoff and Reinharts’ silly claims and the two Right Wing shills were being dismembered but the press and Krugman dropped a Rogaine joke in one of his responses.
It’s a tricky business being a BSer. Maybe that’s why you don’t see Andy Busch around.
P.S. One of his acolytes was complaining about Obama’s bail out of the banks. Half the place shouted “Paulson.” The reason people are GOP genuflectors is they don’t know what’s going on.
P.P.S. Most of what Andy Busch claimed in his 2009 call to Congress is on the record. Take a look if you want to have a laugh at the Republican prediction machine.
I think I agree. Calling an argument pathetic or idiotic is not “ad hominem”. The inflationistas in particular seem to want respect for their weak arguments which would affect the lives of millions, and pretend that disrespect for their arguments is desrespect for them.
“… if you’re going to engage in public debate, with very real policy concerns that affect the lives of millions at stake, you are not entitled to have your arguments treated with respect unless they deserve respect.” http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/the-civility-whine/?_r=0
Republicans generally push arguments against things like global warming by doing things like fallaciously pointing to an outlier year like 1998 as if it should be a base year, and then demanding that their arguments which would likely, if accepted, render the earth uninhabitable, be treated with respect.
I agree that my ignorance can’t be a valid argument in a debate, but I don’t think the Appeal to Ignorance example is the most clear/correct/suggestive one. Color me an ignorant, but no one proved me there’s a god, and I was open to hear their arguments on that, so, by definition, there is no god. It is healthy to assume that, by definition, nothing exists; if someone claims the opposite, she has to prove it. The existence, not the non-existence, has to be demonstrated. Maybe the author wanted to say: “I never bothered listening to people that claim they have proofs there is a god. So, there is no God.”