Talk:Formal fallacy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

I merged this article with fallacy for the following reasons:

[edit]
  • Logical fallacy is a subsection of Fallacy, by namespace and definitions.
  • The bad definition of 'logical fallacy' is to ambiguous and self contradicting!
  • Logical Fallacy is a short article, barely worth an article by wikipedia standarts defined.
  • Fallacy already contaied 25% of this article, some parts copied word by word.
  • Fallacy already contaied ALL "common fallacies" links.
  • Fallacy is only about "logical fallacies" & General examples of causality & informal and Verbal logic ... as defined by their categories below Category:Logical fallacies.
  • Fallacy is not generally about fallacies, deceptive, misleading, false notion or belief, misconception, delusion, misapprehension, but only' about formal logic, causality and phylosophy, also /informal) logic.
  • Fallacy without logic like "it is a fallacy to say the moon is made of cheese" or "logical fallacy also means fallacy" is lied or nonsense by todays standarts, therefore "fallacy" is the historical word for "logical fallacies".
  • Fallacy has no word about fallacies that are not logical, old concepts like above, as opposed to logical fallacies by the meaning of logic. (but it should have them as historical reference.)
  • There is no category:fallacies, category:logical_fallacies and its subcategories are either inaccurate or there is not much to differenciate anyways.
  • Therefore both articles are about exactly the same, therefore merge.
  • Merge into 'Fallacy', even though 'logical fallacy' is more 'logical' and not only by the category:logical fallacies namespace and many double redirects, just because "fallacy" is a shorter and more general namespace.

--Ollj 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy is definitely separate from other fallacies and that is mentioned several times on the fallacy page. On the fallacy page it might be possible to reduce the examples of individual logical fallacies, in favor of linking to this page. The merge was a little hasty. Allow some time for discussion and then we can find out the best way to put these two pages together. !@#Rtrev 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Fallacy#general examples is not only logical fallacy, i refined my arguments. But there is nothing in Fallacy that is not in 'Logical fallacy' and logical fallacy is a short article.
ad absurdum Note: Discussion to merge started in Talk:Fallacy 23:14, 22 May 2005 with 2 "for merge" and continued 17 monts later with +1 "for merge" and +1 for "not so hastly, allow more time for discussion". You got to be kidding me! --Ollj 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my claim of haste was not temporal but more for consensus purposes. There have definitely been proposals for mergers but proposals do not consensus make. So here is what I propose as a compromise. Keep this section dedicated to purely logical fallacies. Move any content to the fallacy page that does not belong here. Then edit the fallacy page to mention logical fallacies and a couple common examples with a link to this page for the more curious. How do people feel about that? Rtrev 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rtrev's idea of keeping this purely logical fallacies, then trimming the section in fallacy. There is a difference, and although not a user, this is a page I've used quite commonly, where fallacy doesn't add anything for the uses of one who is searching just for fallacies of logic. 68.190.124.240 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Everyone's a user on the wikipedia 68.190.124.240. You just aren't a registered user. Rtrev 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • fallacy and logical fallacy still fail to differenciate and seperate between each other in more than in historical developement and classification (aristotelian), mostly because the definition for 'logical fallacy' is too general and unspecific. If the only difference is historical Logical_Fallacy#history would include 'fallacy' in a merge as suggested (but using the 'fallacy' namespace). It would be easy if a more specific 'logical fallacy' would simply be a subsection of 'fallacy' (as it is in the fallacy article), if logical fallacies would simply mean all formal fallacies, but not informal fallacies and not all other kinds (see subcategories). Then a merge would be irelevant and both could be seperated easily by (sub)category. But 'logical fallacy' malso means informal and verbal fallacies just like 'fallacy', it fails to differ. And nothing in fallacy is NOT about "logic" to differenciate between the article titles, verbal and formal fallacies (not logic fallacies) also include logic and are in a 'logical fallacies category'.
  • logical fallacy needs separation improvement, a more specific definition separating it from general 'fallacy' and it needs to be more than a partial copy of the fallacy article content matter and an accurate separate "fallacies category" (note formal fallacies) to seperate categories accurately, or just a merge because its just the same. --Ollj 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to have a page auto-redirect to an anchor on another page? For example if you just typed in 'logical fallacy' in the WikiBox over there, and we could have it redirect to a section of 'Fallacy' attributed to logical fallacies? I personally think that would be an improvement since the logical fallacy page is very stub-like. It gives plenty of examples and related articles, but the description is very short. I vote Merge. :D

Kalatix 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure with examples?

[edit]

It would be a good idea to have an example of each fallacy on the page. Perhaps it could be done as a table.

At the moment it is just a list and the reader does not know what all these terms mean, and there are too many to jump to. Most fallacies I think can be summarised by a short example. m.e. 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy navigational templates

[edit]

I have created some navigational templates for the fallacy articles. Please view and comment on them at the WikiProject Philosophy talk page. Thanks Andeggs 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"tu quo que" missing

[edit]

The "tu quo que" argument is missing from the list of logical fallacies. Can we get some discussion going on exactly how to define it here and what an article on it should contain? Frotz661 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually regarded as a subtype of Ad hominem, and is covered in that article. It has its own article as well. If you're having trouble finding it, try spelling it correctly; it's two words, not three. PurplePlatypus 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to classify this fallacy

[edit]

I'm having trouble classifying the following fallacy. Often one will challenge another to falsify an inadequately defined claim. There is deception however, in that the claim is not well defined, and this fact is intentionally is obscured.

As an example: It could be claimed that it cannot be proved that leprechauns do not exist. But this is only true to the extent that what is meant by the word leprechaun remains undefined. Once specific claims are made, such as "leprechauns are evidenced by pots of gold at the end of a rainbow," these claims can be shown to be true or false (false in this case). The supporter could attempt to argue that the pots of gold are 'invisible' or 'in-another-dimension' but this merely repeats the same fallacy by again invoking undefined terms, i.e. 'invisible' and 'in-another-dimension'.

This appears to me to be close to Ad hoc, but I believe in the case of Ad hoc, the claim is well defined, it is just modified in light of new evidence. Here the one making the claim is relying on the listener to mistakenly think that the claim is well defined, perhaps because the terms or concepts are commonly used.

RDU 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight redirect?

[edit]

Just a quick thought here: the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_weight redirects to this page but there seems to be no info on it here. it seems to me an important term/logical fallacy in journalism and politics. hoping to get more info on it. do people agree this would be a good term to add under logical fallacies?. Beakermeep 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words into someone's mouth: a logical fallacy?

[edit]

In internet forums arguments, I often see the following occur:

Two people are arguing over something they have opposing views over. One of the people states "I feel so and so. You'll say that this is wrong because X. That's nonsense, because X is not true for the following reasons. Therefore, you're a moron."

The point being that that person dictates what the other person is saying (making an assumption), and then immediately proceeds to debunk that statement. The debunking would prove that the other person is wrong, were it not that he/she may never have even said that. In the discussion, this immediately makes the first person 'lose a point' while he/she has not even had a chance to defend him/herself and may never have actually made that claim to begin with.

Say for instance that person A is a proponent of Windows, while person B is a proponent of MacOS. Person B may say "MacOS is a great operating system. You'll say that it sucks because 'there are no games' for Macs, but this isn't the case. Here is a list of mainstream games that run on MacOS: you obviously don't know what you're talking about."

Now, person B has branded person A an ignorant, but it might have been that person A wasn't even going to bring up the 'no games for macs' argument. However, since the debunking of A's fictional claim occured immediately, before A even had a chance to say that he wasn't going to mention games at all, B has 'scored a point' by false means.

Is this a logical fallacy, and if so, what is it called. If not, why not, and what is it? 82.95.254.30 12:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—— I think you are describing a straw man argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Beakermeep 06:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic fallacy

[edit]

Is it a logical fallacy?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{disputed}} and {{Unreferenced}} tag

[edit]

The factual inaccuracy of this article is almost unbelievable. It may be worth it to just scrap the entire thing and start over. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with renaming this article to "Formal Fallacy"

[edit]

I have to say I find it a bit sad that this article was renamed. I feel that the title "Logical Fallacy" is more accurate as to exactly what types of errors in logic and arguments these fallacies are. "Formal" almost implies that because an argument doesn’t take a proper form it is incorrect.

Also, I believe that the term logical fallacy is more common than formal fallacy. admittedly this is a terrible citation but searching for "logical fallacy" produces 371,000 hits in google while "formal fallacy" produces a mere 956 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22formal+fallacy%22&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22logical+fallacy%22&btnG=Search

Also look at the names in external links, all the sites refer to this kind of fallacy as a logical fallacy.


I propose that this page be renamed to its previous name and have formal fallacy redirect to logical. Beakermeep 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that the references cited do not use the term "formal fallacy" in the title. Was there consensus to rename this article? Shawnc 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Informal fallacies are also logical fallacies. This page is supposed to be specifically about formal fallacies isn;t it? If so, keep the current name. Anarchia 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original commentator. This article has nothing to do with formal fallacies. I mean that literally. There are literally no formal fallacies listed on the article. Mavaddat (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

[edit]

First of all, this article is supposed to be about formal fallacies, and yet none of the formal fallacies appear here (there are only a distinct, universally agreed on number of syllogistic formal fallacies).
Second, the article goes into great detail about informal fallacies, which it is not supposed to be about at all.
So the article not only fails to provide the information that it is about, but it also includes information that has nothing to do with formal fallacies. For those two reasons, I propose that the article needs a clean-up. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy

[edit]

Both the formal fallacy and the deductive fallacy articles claim that their alternative name is "Logical fallacy". Currently, Logical fallacy redirects to deductive fallacy. This needs to be clarified. See also Talk:Deductive fallacy#Rename. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Developing the article - GO FOR IT

[edit]

After saving this comment, I will save an edit to the article in which I provide its first inline citation. I'll also add a messagebox atop the article requesting more inline citations. I'm a bit reluctant to use messageboxes, as there seems to be no shortage of editors who do little more than add messageboxes etc and very little actual article development. Given this, I have made a point of providing an inline citation.

On perusing this page, I see some comments from editors pertaining to the fact that this article is somewhat misleading. Ironic that, in an article about fallacies, which are by definition misleading! A few of the comments pertain to the same issue, and appear to have been written by editors who have some understanding of the issues. I suggest you simply go forth and develop the article. Don't stuff around on this talk page. Just go for it. Develop it, using inline citations, and where possible, references that others can view, at least for the main arguments and concepts. Let the article develop in its natural direction - i.e. the direction that the data naturally take it in. At that point, if the naturally derived article needs renaming to avoid the name being misleading - which some commentary above indicates is already the case - then at that point, you simply propose renaming, wait an appropriate time, and rename the bloody thing. Constructive editors can always find a way to work together. Just do it folks, and good luck. Wotnow (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "formal" and "informal"

[edit]

I find the lead of this article somewhat confusing because the words "formal" and "informal" are used in senses that are (I think) not their common meaning. (To be clear, I'm not saying these words are used incorrectly.)

To many (perhaps most) readers these words convey meanings that are different & more general, i.e., "informal" as "casual" and "formal" as "not casual", than the technical meanings in which they are used here. Also that having these meanings in mind is a positive detriment to understanding this article.

It seems to me it would be helpful to spell out what "formal" means, along these lines:

"A formal fallacy is a statement that is false because of a fault in its form (i.e., in its structure)."

"A informal fallacy, on the other hand, is a statement that is false where the fault is NOT inherent in its form but rather in its specific content."

I'm not being bold and changing the article. I'm suggesting alternate wordings to try to address the particular concern I have. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Formal fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with redirects

[edit]

Logical Fallacy redirects here, whereas Logical Fallacies redirects to Fallacy. One of the two should be changed, but which one? KarlPoppery (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Petr Matas 14:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reassign?

[edit]

This seems more like a list than an actual article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caker18 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated Lead

[edit]

Especially very first lead sentence, which is very complicated. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my language suggestion for clarifying and simplifying the lead:
"When an argument is rationally disconnected from its conclusion it is called a logical fallacy." DDilworth (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive bias

[edit]

Fallacies include logical fallacies and congitive or social biases, but cognitive biases include logical fallacies, and I'm having a difficult time understanding the relationship if it's not somehow cyclic. Are all logical fallacies, in fact, cognitive biases? Because this page only lists cognitive biases in a footer. DAVilla (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DAVilla cognitive bias is a seperate topic. Search for it or click on that FOOTER. Iamabovethesky (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here too complex to read and also understand, especially or particularly the first part of the article.

Should be much simplified here for only a better understanding of the subject.

There could be still other things here instead for only meaningless just for the same.

Feilretter2468 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation

[edit]

I have been attempting to discredit a source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mapping Prejudice, because the source employs a formal fallacy—that correlation implies causation—to support its conclusion. The input of others would be welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a textbook example of the fallacy, it's baffling how the consensus deemed it as a reliable source. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SpaceEconomist192: I felt like I was participating in the Asch conformity experiments. You are welcome to comment on that noticeboard, just so others can see I'm not the only one. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an embarrassment

[edit]

Whatever in the world is going on here, it's an abject embarrassment. This collection of words, very loosely associated with some common subject matter, not only reflects a tragic lack of oganization, but demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for the apparent subjects it attempts to address. It is so bad, it's actually useless. Wikipedia would be better served to delete it in its entirety than to allow it to continue existing. For starters, "logical fallacy" should not redirect here. If it needs to be redirected, it should simply be redirected to the existing "fallacy" page. But that's really just the tip of the iceberg, and whatever intellectual butchers are responsible for this mess should have their keyboards fried.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.192.199 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]