Rhetological Fallacies

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. Singmaster commented on Jan 23

    Love this graphic. Have it bookmarked and refer to it when deconstructing arguments.
    Ought to be required learning for high school students.

  2. CulturalEngineer commented on Jan 23

    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

    What am I missing?

  3. VennData commented on Jan 23

    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.

  4. end game commented on Jan 24

    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.

  5. adrian.who commented on Jan 24

    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.”

Posted Under