Logical Fallacies 2013-11-26Geir Isene A really nice overview: Click the image for full resolution Sharing is <3Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading... Related
78 thoughts on “Logical Fallacies”
Interesting, but it’s very difficult to read a text with such a small font size…I’ll try to zoom in my browser view, let’s see…
Actually, you can download it at yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Hi dragos. 🙂
I found that if you click on the image in the blog post, it will show up bigger – and then you can click again on any one of the logical fallacies to make it large enough to read easily.
I see 🙂 Thanks. To bad I cannot post for you a photo in a yellow t-shirt again. Today it starts snowing in Romania. I feel cold only when I see that photo. You have to wait until next summer 🙂
Okay. Since I perceive clearly that you’re a man of your word, I’ll look forward to next summer. (Funny how we get to know each other. ;))
Anyway, the photo you have now is good! Very summery – and a nice smile! Here’s a big one back: 😀
A great tool for me who loves being illogical and always admired those who can be logical at a high level. On the way to study it….thanks, Geir!
Go, my children, and commit fallacies no more.
Don’t you just love these assorted “bones,” that Geir lobs into the crowd, to see who runs after what? ARF! ARF! WOOF! YAP! YAP! 🙂
Good observation. The type of bone that I haven’t been able to leave alone is the one that has the strong scent of cynicism. That’s the one I really protest! I think it pollutes the whole damn universe! (Not to be dramatic or anything. :))
This post doesn’t happen to fit that bill. And Geir isn’t the worst cynic around, either. But he does get them going!
Anyway, you can always tell when there’s a good auditor around. I itsa. 😉
Sharp Scentability, Marildi! Here’s the popular one (bone) though – Axiom 10! Funny thing is, you see a whole lot of nose’s sniffing and snuffing all over the playground. and seem to pass right clear over the thing– like it’s there ?(Sniff?) — but can’t see it? (Snuff!!)(Not-is!!!) 🙂
BTW, I suspect Geir has has a cold room full of “bones” that could keep our pack sniffing, digging, and barking to our heart’s content, whenever he decides to lob a couple into the fray! And you? (And Geir?) ARF? 🙂
And I suspect he loves that friggin’ game! (He loves to bait me especially. :))
Yep, the guy’s a “master” at it!
Ahhh… That explains it! Pretty good, Calvin. I need to take that bigger perspective. 🙂
Hey, you never answered a question I asked you on an earlier thread. You had said that there were flaws – in either the tech or in the underlying basis of it, I forget how you worded it. I was curious what you meant exactly, especially if you meant flaws in the basic principles like the Axioms or Logics. It seems that you’re pretty smart in staying out of such discussions but I’m really interested. And I remember you also indicated that you’ve made a thorough study of the basics. Your thoughts could be helpful to me and others.
Okay, Marildi, I’ll take the bait, (with a dose of insouciance, ok?) Nope, my take on the Factors, Axioms, Logics, is that it’s pretty workable, in terms of explaining phenomena! After all, didn’t the ol’ man dish up that claim? (that it wasn’t perfect, as a system, but that it works?)That flaws, ARE detectable, around LRH’s work, has mushroomed into a fashionable industry,” with growth stats going through the roof,” these days. One can take one’s pick!…Gee, I mean, it’s common knowledge, isn’t it?
After all, he was “just a science fiction writer with a very vivid imagination, ” after all!
But i’ll be dammed if he wasn’t also into “exploration” as well, on an enormously varied number of fronts. Apparently, he had also conducted mineralogical surveys, around Puerto Rica, in his youth. Maybe this is how he had the sharpness to discover the amazing array of “gems”, referred to by so many, who have truly evaluated his staggering volume of “research!”
I think that it behooves both you, me, Geir, and everyone else, to discover for ourselves, which are the “gems,” and which is the fiction. I’m not into the invalidation of others independent beliefs, findings, or stable data, that they have established, to “hold” their cherished anchor points from caving/being kicked in. To me, that’s just a spiteful (low ARC) game, used to suppress others/assert the self importance of the “kicker.” IMHO, this holds no real value, in understanding the bigger awareness, such as the immense peace achieved in the duplication and understanding of “The Factors,” or the Axioms of Duplication, themselves.
Gee, Marildi, closing up the space a bit, (downscale from Serenity of Beingness,)
we still, absolutely, indisputably, need “games” to play, even in this here li’l ol’ universe, (even Geir’s blog, for that matter!!) So let’s have some fun, too, shall we?
Oh, perhaps this additional snippet on “stable datum/ data” used to resolve confusion/s (check out the dfns, in the Tech Dcn,) or “handling the confusions in the workaday world” in The Problems of Work. Has it occurred to you that the subject of Scientology, itself, serves as THAT stable datum, in and of itself? The admission, if you care to check, (in T/Dcnry, p.400,) “does NOT have to be the CORRECT one.”It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned. (POW, p24) I think what Geir has established for himself, it that he has evidently found better stable data, than Scn, by which other data align. I say — Good for him!
Perhaps a creator of data and also a player with data and also an inspirer of data ?
That is the Source and Game Changer which, according to Ron, cannot be found in the Mest Universe? That is : Truth?
To Marildi’s comment (below). Yep, that’s about it, hey? The more we ignore the observer, (of MEST) the more we agree with MEST ( & become thoroughly messed.)
Sorry, my bad! The above was intended for Marianne (above)
Yes! Yes! Just race on……
you may read this….if you like….me here likes your name and posts
Calvin, thanks for your thoughts – and the funny stuff! 😀
Your insouciance about all of it is no doubt wise. That and humor may indeed be more valuable than serious discussion – or at least more doable! A true discussion may not be possible in a blog format. I’ve noticed that what happens when a valid point is made by someone – if it invalidates the convictions (stable datums / anchor points) of some other person, that person seems to feel made wrong, even though that may not have been the intended outcome at all. The intention and ability to discuss seem to be commodities that are hard to come by!
One thing I disagree with LRH about is the prohibiting of “verbal tech.” But that is policy, I believe, and in any case it definitely isn’t a fundamental of Scientology. I may not have made it clear to you that it’s the fundamentals I’m interested in discussing, more so than the tech – which I don’t claim is perfect either.
The question I was actually hoping you would answer was whether you saw any flaws in the core basics. That is what I would find to be an interesting subject to ponder! It’s not that I think Scientology basics constitute a monopoly on truths. All those truths are no doubt found elsewhere too, just expressed differently – and perhaps not as comprehensively all in one place.
I’ve sometimes wondered why it is that there is no blog that has discussion of the true basics as a central purpose, because I think a lot of people would be interested in getting their questions and disagreements and confusions aired – and handled. The same could be done with the tech, for that matter. And when you talk about games – this would be my idea of a very “fun” and intriguing one. What’s more intriguing than the basics of existence?
So you see, Calvin, I’m not entirely of the mind that we should, strictly speaking, “discover for ourselves, which are the ‘gems,’ and which is the fiction” – except ultimately, of course. It seems to me that there is greater potential in putting heads together than in study on one’s own. That’s been my personal experience, although there are exceptions to that rule with the unusual individual, such as yourself. I give you lots of credit for investing so much of yourself in the study of the basics. That took some real dedication, for just one thing. 🙂
Marildi: One thing I disagree with LRH about is the prohibiting of “verbal tech.” But that is policy, I believe, and in any case it definitely isn’t a fundamental of Scientology.
Chris: Oh, but it is a core fundamental of Scientology. It is basic to keeping Scientology working. It is the first thing addressed at the beginning of every course of Scientology. I would call that basic.
But with the True Scotsman Fallacy, se can simply redefine Scientolog Basics to exclude that datum to be able to uphold the Scientology Basics as pure and true. Keep redefining and soon you will be left with bits of truth.
Marildi: I’ve sometimes wondered why it is that there is no blog that has discussion of the true basics as a central purpose, because I think a lot of people would be interested in getting their questions and disagreements and confusions aired – and handled.
Chris: This blog is very close to that and I did get a chance to air and to resolve my questions about Scientology. That you have not been able to do this is not really a commentary about this blog nor or blogs nor that a “blog is needed.” Like Scientology processing, a person viewing their mind as an opportunity for change will change. A person hoping to have their beliefs cemented, expecting to become right in their beliefs may be disappointed. You have been blogging here for a very long time and written tens of thousands of words and you’ve seen first-hand the general beliefs and attitudes of this blog drift from a pro-truth and pro-Scientology demeanor to a pro-truth and anti-Scientology demeanor. How and why do you suppose that this has happened?
The datum about verbal tech won’t be found in the Book of Basics. Can you name some of the principles in that book that have been discussed?
Axioms. Factors. ARC. Tone Scale…
“Axioms. Factors. ARC. Tone Scale…”
From what I recall, in the last 3 years and about 200(?) blog posts, the only topic in the above – or any other basic – that you have had a blog post on was ARC. The blog post on Mark Schreffler’s Tone Scale seminar just happened to end up in a discussion about the Tone Scale. In any case, these were the only two significant discussions on the basics. Anything else about the Axioms or Factors or other basics has been minimal.
We have revisited many elements of the basics many times in many different threads.
But hold on to your hat, I am about to post one that will take the foundation out of the most basic of the basics – the Clear.
A discussion of Clear isn’t a discussion of basics – it’s a discussion of tech. And that is where we need tech-trained posters, few of which even visit this blog – and even fewer are interested in such a discussion.
It’s like Per (a highly trained auditor) basically said in a comment one time – it would take far too much time and effort to take the untrained through a whole series of courses. I personally feel exhausted at the prospect of trying to get across what even I know!
In any case, I have long ago stopped believing that the tech is 100% perfect. But your selective memory seems to sift out such things. 😛
Marildi: In any case, I have long ago stopped believing that the tech is 100% perfect. But your selective memory seems to sift out such things. 😛
Chris: So you say; However, you have yet to name one of these imperfections. Even your word “perfect” hopes for absolutes. This is a religious notion.
Chris: “So you say; However, you have yet to name one of these imperfections. Even your word “perfect” hopes for absolutes. This is a religious notion.”
Nothing religious about it at all. When I said that I don’t think the tech is 100% “perfect” I was referring to its “workability.” So let’s not quibble over semantics.
Furthermore, I neither “believe” nor “disbelieve” anything particular about the workability of the tech. I only know that – from my experience on different flows – it has been highly workable. However, I also know that some people who are more trained and experienced in the tech than I am have found that it isn’t 100% workable (although they still seem to find the percentage pretty high). Thus I am open to such possibilities. Are you open to the possibility that it is in fact highly workable, even if not 100% so?
“Clear” is the very premise of Dianetics. It was invented for the purpose of Clear. And Scientology is the advancement of Dianetics. You can’t get much more basic than the Clear. Even LRH says that Clear is as close to an absolute that you can come in this universe. My recent discovery about the very basics of Clear is to me astounding. It may even have the power to demolish a few axioms on its way. You may not like it, you may protest it, you may try to Red Herring it or pull a True Scotsman, but the OP will still be the OP and those who are really interested in discussing it will do just that. And I have never seen this foundation being discussed anywhere on the Net. As I said, hold on to you hat 🙂
The scale of motivation is wrong.
Marildi: So you see, Calvin, I’m not entirely of the mind that we should, strictly speaking, “discover for ourselves, which are the ‘gems,’ and which is the fiction” – except ultimately, of course.
Ct: This sentence is utter nonsense.(really) Re-write/re-submit.(joke)
LRH’s basic supposition that if you apply the tech 100%, then it is 100% workable… is wrong.
The sequence of the Factors is wrong.
Marildi, there has been dozens of discussions of Scientology basics on this blog. And several points in the basics have been proven wrong. Vinaire has contributed to such discussions.
But you are unwilling or unable to see or admit it, and subsequently disregard those discussions as you do here.
Can you spot any logical fallacies here?
What is wrong in the sequence of the Factors?
That it is a sequence.
HaHa…you really got going! Beware as you might demonstrate that the definition of power is true!
Marianne: HaHa…you really got going! Beware as you might demonstrate that the definition of power is true!
Chris: To be fair and accurate, change is inevitable. Cementing one’s position against any and all comers is both a pretense and a fantasy. But within limits, we seem to be able to steer that change if we latch onto opportunities to do so. We are not really dealing with horsepower here and “holding one’s” position is not important in the give and take of discussion.
Also, watch out as if you fall into the Heart, there will be no trace of logics, calculator
and the data that arise might surprise even you.
yes, we deal with horsepower here which does not know about fairness and accuracy and there are no limits when it is Life steering…the only price is the drop of logics…
No, I will not accept that. We do not need bulldozers to reason together. We tried LRH and now we are getting better traction using the logics that he pretended to use and falsifying his claptrap to the left right and center. We do not have authority here but we have better and worse arguments.
Marildi, and thank you for your validations and sincerity. If feeling ‘made wrong’, has put you at effect, here are two words to rescue you: … “so what?” This is the typical response of the “thick-skinned,” seemingly unaffected, insouciant types. The Mr. or Mrs. or Ms Cool, if you will. it (the ability) is arrived at by a variety of approaches.
Some requiring more work than others, but really still achievable on a gradient scale.
You showed appreciation of “the funny stuff” in your first sentence above.Well, Marildi, welcome back to one of the ‘basics’ that equip you with the “thick-skin” needed to deal with cynicism / and /or criticism.
it’s no secret at all, that “laughter is the best medicine”, and entire therapies are out there propounding this principle, as a totally valid approach to relieve the build-up of stress, anxiety, and or worry or resentment, in an affected individual.
One such approach, is punted by a qualified psychologist, Enda Junkins, using her “laughter therapy” which makes for an interesting fresh switch to the power of having a spontaneous burst of sustained laughter! Check it out 🙂 Or notice how you feel while/after you spent time watching a really funny comedian on TV.
It’s also no secret, that your endorphins or ‘feel-good’ hormones, including seratonin, kick-in, during a prolonged period of laughter.
Of course, closer to “home,” with you being a scientologist, you already know the following datum, or should!
Seriousness = inflow = mass = introversion = effect!
Laughter = outflow(rejection!) = relief = extroversion = cause!
There, my Dahling, now you have all you need, to get a “thick – skin”!!
Practice makes perfect 🙂
Calvin, not that there isn’t truth to what you’re saying about me feeling made wrong at times, but actually what I meant was that my intended efforts to clear up what I consider to be misrepresentations or misunderstands ends up with the other(s) just feeling made wrong. And then the whole idea of discussion seems pointless to me.
Off the top of my head, I can’t even remember a single time when someone came back with – “Oh, thanks for the reference (or for whatever point was made) – I had an misunderstanding about that.” The whole attitude to start with doesn’t seem to be truly amenable to discussion.
Marildi: The whole attitude to start with doesn’t seem to be truly amenable to discussion.
Chris: You are routinely thanked for references. Your working knowledge of Scientology is without a better that I have seen. From my point of view, the discussions fail to begin when there is no acquiescence to the authority of L. Ron Hubbard. You however already know the Tech is True and go about thoroughly addressing others confusions since it is your stable datum that once they understand the Scientology point in question that they will then naturally come to an understanding, be relieved, and move on. This is the way it works within the structure of Scientology or other ideology but breaks down when we try to map that world-view onto the world.
Chris: “You are routinely thanked for references.”
By whom? Valkov?
As for the rest of your comment, you just proved my point about the usual (in your case – incessant) personal evaluations of ME. Not only are they Ad Hom but the following logical fallacy as well, listed in the OP:
“False Cause: Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.”
p.s. to Calvin.
Btw, I don’t particularly feel made wrong when someone expresses a criticism about Scientology or LRH. It’s the frequent reference to me as being being stuck in my “beliefs” and unwilling and unable to change – things like that – which are actually versions of the Ad Hom fallacy but that doesn’t seem to inhibit those who do it, who for some reason feel they are justified in so doing. Those are the kind of jthings I find to be personally offensive – and, once again, disappointing!
(Aren’t you glad you took the bait? :D)
Marildi, Got your latest @ 00.21. Thanks, your point/s now cleared up. What’s also observable to me, (perhaps it’s getting late…) is a growing irritability in the ‘pack’
The ARFS WOOFS & YAPS have been replaced by lot’s of GRRR’s & SNARL’s
I don’t know bout you, but the MEST bod it crying out for some much needed ZZ’s.
See you after the battery is recharged!
“…a growing irritability in the ‘pack’
The ARFS WOOFS & YAPS have been replaced by lot’s of GRRR’s & SNARL’s”
Have a good recharging. You might need it 😉
Marildi: Anyway, you can always tell when there’s a good auditor around. I itsa. 😉 Chris: Auditing or confirmation bias? Itsa to what auditing question? Itsa or verbosity?
Sometimes, one must look with the heart. And sometimes, that looking is impossible to avoid.
Here astronauts tell their stories of beholding the earth.
Humility….listening to them there is no trace of ego in their voices and what they are
speaking about. Some of their words like ‘boundaries are the result of human impact’, ‘there was nothing in the religious and the science literature about’ the experience, only in the ancient literature….’total unity and oneness’…’the Self and the world are not separate but interconnected’….many more.Stunning pictures!
Interesting though that the ego, bullbating, whatever are also parts of Oneness.
Also interesting that some say that one can ‘travel in the universe’ as awareness…no vehicle needed….would be great to be as aware as that…
Thank you Kata for posting it. What I do not understand, why do you write ‘sometimes’, one must look with the heart….?
Because there are optical illusions of the heart that can lead to enslavement just like our eyes see illusions. Hearts must be trained in bullshit detection or else …
A touchy feely Tin Man may accept a chain with an attached, plastic from a fake wizard and think THAT heart is his true heart all along.
The Heart does not judge….accepts illusions, enslavement…whatever it sees…even the judging mind….
It is such a good metaphor from beginning to end. And the final scene resulting in Dorothy’s computation, “There’s no place like home.” Thanks for highlighting that.
Perhaps because one may be mostly ‘conditioned to’ ‘looking’ without one? 🙂
Katageek, thanks for posting that link about the astronauts viewing Earth. Awesome! I loved how they perceived it as being like a living organism. And as being aesthetic. And all the other uplifting comments that were made.
Good to have you back around! You always have interesting contributions – and your writing is one-of-a-kind. I may not always go for the substance (ahem), but the “style” makes up for it. 🙂
Thanks Marildi! I hope you have a thankful Thanksgiving full of wonder.
Same to you, kg! 🙂
Here’s a video I thought you in particular would enjoy. It’s a California style Thanksgiving but typical Americana too, IMO. And Geir and the readers from rest of the planet can get a sense of this American holiday.
Nothing wrong with the holiday itself. Problem is how can you manage to have in the same day so much turkey meat available? 🙂
Here you go: Thanksgiving Showdown – Farmer vs. Turkey
The Dueling Bangos is the best part (for dragos, the music lover ;)).
marildi, marildi…really don’t understand why you don’t reveal your true identity. Why are you hiding? Nobody is perfect…I’m not. Geir is not. Anette is not. Nobody is perfect. You are a very smart woman. Why do you hide yourself? PS. I’m not changing my mind and I respect your invisibility…I’m just asking a question, nothing else…
Dragos, dragos 🙂 I’ve answered that several times, and it has nothing to do with “nobody is perfect.” Besides, I’m hardly “hidden” – almost everybody who posts here regularly all know my “true identity” through email exchanges. (But it gives them another “bone” to throw out to the doggies. ;))
The simplicity of it is that I still have a few friends connected with the CoS and I’m sure it would cause some unnecessary upsets. Anyway, I think the day is coming soon when this will no longer be a problem. Thanks for your sincere interest. ❤ 🙂
Here is one for all those people who have not the kindness you and all the others display here. . .
OMG – that is Hilarious!
Well hello friend Mister Insightful
Thank you for your comment on my little Youtube clip!
Most people say you’re cruel and spiteful,
But you’re right, how do I sleep at night? I am a massive pr-ck.
They call you hater well they’re just jealous
Your constructive pearls of wisdom give me thrills I can’t deny
How will we know if you don’t tell us
We could improve our Youtube channels by “f–king off and dying”?
Some might say you are a…
Sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
Cowardly, illiterate, waste of human skin,
Sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
Cowardly, illiterate, waste of human skin,
But I say: thank you beautiful stranger.
I love the way you don’t upload things
You know we’d be too dazzled by your cinematic vision
But you’re there on every comment string
Where you teach us, just like Jesus but while wanking like a gibbon.
I’m really sure that if I met you
You probably wouldn’t rape me like you promised that you would.
We are like “that”; I really get you
You’re right about that laughing kid, he is a total “cnut”.
You wished me cancer and misspelled “cancer”
But I know that it’s a metaphor. You hope that I will grow,
Just like the tumor you hoped would kill me
Inside the t-ts on which you said you’d also like a go.
You said that girls shouldn’t do funny
But you’d f–k me double hard and let your mates go after you.
Oh what a line you lovely honey.
Are you on e-harmony? Oo! I’ll join the queue!
Some might say you’re a…
sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
cowardly, illiterate, waste of human skin,
sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
cowardly, illiterate, waste of human skin.
But if it wasn’t for you my darling,
I would never have written this tune.
Some might say that You’re So Vain,
But this song is all about you!
Excellent video, katageek! Thanks for sharing. PS. What about people who have height fear? 🙂
Wow. Donno. Can one be afraid of heights in space? I guess getting there would be scary as Ben Affleck playing Batman!
I’m just joking 🙂
I’m not! Ben Affleck is BATMAN!
. . . and he is also Phil !
Maybe, but Affleck is no TOTO!
Toto is the BOMB.
Back to your OP, Geir, (after some playful digressions). The list IS indeed a pretty good overview, and definitely has a front page position as a tool of logical evaluation. In fact the author/s have covered a lot of ground to be able to bring these “gems” (there I go again!) to the front desk. The chart deserves to be downloaded, and taken aboard, by anyone confronted by “logical fallacies.” especially as demanding, as say, the legal battlefield, where one can expect to be taken apart, literally, if not armed with these sharp retorts of wisdom!