|
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2001 : 16:25:08
|
I've run across this valuable and concise guide to fallacies:Logical Fallacies
We are likely to see any or all of these in irrational propaganda, but it seems to me that appeal to authority (incluging negative appeals eg"you believe everything NASA tells you") are the driving force behind most pseudoscience and science bashing.
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 07/08/2001 : 20:52:37 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown:
Thank you for the list and your comments.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 15:45:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've run across this valuable and concise guide to fallacies:Logical Fallacies
A logical problem evidently common in skeptical circles is the inductive fallacy of unrepresentative sample.
There are various ways to commit this fallacy, but herein this forum it is most common to see someone cite a few counterexamples in an attempt to refute an inductive (probabalistic) argument or it's conclusion. I've seen this happen here on SFN more that a half-dozen or more times since I joined just a little while ago.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 16:31:22 [Permalink]
|
Here are a couple of the threads that I can recall offhand which invoke the sampling fallacy:
The Skeptical Dater
A Natural History of Rape
It seems that the skeptical attitude is, “If I've a counterexample, you've lost your case, whatever you claim might be,” but this clearly is not so for probabilistic arguments and their conclusions. Perhaps the problem is that people tend to interpret arguments and their conclusions as deductive: “All women are denied good careers,” or “All men are more sexually aggressive than women,” or “All men cheat.” Naturally, the original claims at hand were probabilistic generalizations rather than such blanket statements of fact.
In short, we surely ought to be skeptical of generalizations, but let us not discount the data or distort the questions at hand.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 16:35:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are various ways to commit this fallacy, but herein this forum it is most common to see someone cite a few counterexamples in an attempt to refute an inductive (probabalistic) argument or it's conclusion. I've seen this happen here on SFN more that a half-dozen or more times since I joined just a little while ago.
Not everyone is well versed in logic and logical arguments. I haven't studied logic since high school - a few years ago. Currently, I am taking the time to relearn logic and its arguments however, I won't stop posting while I try to refamiliarize myself with the principles of logic.
If you see a logical fallacy - please point it out without sounding *superior* or *condescending* (and I'm not saying you do - just people in general  ). I'm sure that as this occurs more of us will learn to recognize our own errors in logic. Then said instances of fallacies will, hopefully, decrease.
Please remember we're starting at different points in our knowledge here.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 20:41:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems that the skeptical attitude is, “If I've a counterexample, you've lost your case, whatever you claim might be,” but this clearly is not so for probabilistic arguments and their conclusions.
The use of counterexample in inductive arguments can be provided to illustrate the subjective nature of the data interpretation. It is generally not used in the manner stated above. As you probably realize, subjectivity is the greatest danger in using inductive arguments to propose any mechanism. I often generate and use multivariate models of data. As you may know, the methods used for ANOVA of these models are open for debate. For example, there is no true 'F' test when dealing with these models although several have been postulated. Multivariate models are used extensively in the social sciences (they were invented by social scientists) due to the practical problem of controlling the variables. At least I can control most variables, and I have arguments from first principles to fall back on. Social scientists have it much tougher.
One doesn't see invalid argument forms as often as one sees questionable premises. For example, analogy is useful in illustrating a point but is very questionable as a premise.
I think that folks sometimes make off-the-cuff remarks that are taken as arguments. Usually, people on this forum know fallacious reasoning when they see it (or at least when it's pointed out to them). I think that I have a good background in formal symbolic logic (not very good in rhetoric though) but I sometimes get into too comfortable a position and slide into fallacious reasoning. Nobody's perfect. Typing is a chore and sometimes it's easier to slide. I think that you are right in asserting the need to be skeptical about your own arguments. Perhaps it should be the 'first principle' of skepticism.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 05:48:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here are a couple of the threads that I can recall offhand which invoke the sampling fallacy:
A Natural History of Rape
It seems that the skeptical attitude is, “If I've a counterexample, you've lost your case, whatever you claim might be,” but this clearly is not so for probabilistic arguments and their conclusions.
Sorry, tergiversant, but I have to disagree here...not with your facts, but with your application. I didn't realize until reading this post that you misunderstood my comments regarding Thornhill/Palmer and their (in my opinion) errors.
From my posting of 27 July: "I don't have time to look up numbers now, but I recall reading some study somewhere that prepubescent females, postmenopausal females, males and animals make up something like 45% of victims of rape. I'm not prepared to run statistics on (possibly) misremembered numbers, but this strikes me as disproportionate."
Even if I'm off a bit on the numbers, this doesn't qualify as a "few" counterexamples...and unless I've forgotten a bunch of stats, this was not an example of unrepresentative sampling.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 10:13:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Here are a couple of the threads that I can recall offhand which invoke the sampling fallacy:
A Natural History of Rape
It seems that the skeptical attitude is, “If I've a counterexample, you've lost your case, whatever you claim might be,” but this clearly is not so for probabilistic arguments and their conclusions.
Sorry, tergiversant, but I have to disagree here...not with your facts, but with your application. I didn't realize until reading this post that you misunderstood my comments regarding Thornhill/Palmer and their (in my opinion) errors.
From my posting of 27 July: "I don't have time to look up numbers now, but I recall reading some study somewhere that prepubescent females, postmenopausal females, males and animals make up something like 45% of victims of rape. I'm not prepared to run statistics on (possibly) misremembered numbers, but this strikes me as disproportionate."
Even if I'm off a bit on the numbers, this doesn't qualify as a "few" counterexamples...and unless I've forgotten a bunch of stats, this was not an example of unrepresentative sampling.
Clearly not, since you address the entire population here. But that particular post was not the one I to which I referred.
BTW,we've yet to look up the numbers! Any thoughts on where to find crime stats or better yet in depth surveys which avoid the problem of incidents unreported to the authorities?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 10:32:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that folks sometimes make off-the-cuff remarks that are taken as arguments. Usually, people on this forum know fallacious reasoning when they see it (or at least when it's pointed out to them). I think that I have a good background in formal symbolic logic (not very good in rhetoric though) but I sometimes get into too comfortable a position and slide into fallacious reasoning. Nobody's perfect. Typing is a chore and sometimes it's easier to slide. I think that you are right in asserting the need to be skeptical about your own arguments. Perhaps it should be the 'first principle' of skepticism.
What I've seen did not look like merely off-the-cuff remarks, since conclusions were given.
We've a couple clear-cut examples of (possibly faulty) induction from counterexamples.
“Joan de Arc, Maddam Currie, Golda Meir, and many others who were leaders in their fields (no pun on Joan, ha ha). Is it their fault or socities that other women didn't choose to follow? If those women could do it why not others? … [Social repression] is just an excuse for women not to have tried to do what they want.”
“Also, nothing is said (as far as I recall) regarding the number of male-on-male rapes, instances where females force males to copulate, the times when males rape then kill their victims, or the vast number of events in which males rape females out of child-bearing age (either the very young or post-menopausal women). All of these would play against the authors' contention that rape is a vehicle for procreation.”
Of course, such arguments are perfectly valid, provided that the counterexamples are numerous enough to outweigh the probabilistic pattern being asserted. I'll allow that this remains an open question in the second case, we've yet to dig up the numbers.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2001 : 16:58:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course, such arguments are perfectly valid, provided that the counterexamples are numerous enough to outweigh the probabilistic pattern being asserted. I'll allow that this remains an open question in the second case, we've yet to dig up the numbers.
Correct. BTW, I was incorrect regarding the biggest danger of using inductive arguments. It's actually biased or insufficient data. Subjectivity of interpretation needs to be adressed in the social (and sometimes the physical) sciences though.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
