Talk:Fallacy/Archive 2

Same Team Fallacy

Is this actually a distinct logical fallacy? If so I'd like to see a verification of it as I have been unsuccessful in locating one (which is not to say it doesn't exist). To be honest, this seems like a sloppy attempt to get a certain conclusion labeled as a logical fallacy. I have no doubt that people come to that conclusion fallaciously. However, this just seems like a mix of various logical fallacies which were identified and not a distinct fallacy in itself, either formally or informally. The second example is just an example of "affirming the consequence". For this reason I'm going to remove it until a verification can be found that it is in fact a distinct fallacy. Aharburg (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Musician" example in Fallacy of Composition

I do not think that the appended example conveys the sense of "Fallacy of Composition" appropriately. Most musicians will argue that the ability to function in a musical group is a prerequisite to "musical talent". Subsets of musical talent include technical talent, accuracy, virtuosity, etc. ... including "musicianship".

The below should be worded "Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled performers, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled in performances. / Problem: The band members may be skilled in performing by themselves but lack the ability to perform together."

The argument as is not appropriate. In place of the identified "problem" one might as well say that "The band members may be skilled cooks but lack the ability to function properly as a group"; it is irrelevant: the problem lies in the vagueness of how the band members skills are specified...

From the article: "Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled. Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group."

I have left the segment as is, awaiting confirmation or comments 209.159.249.193 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with music than logic, but the example seems fine to me. I wouldn't argue that the ability to function in a musical group is required to consider a musician talented. Many talented pianists are strictly soloists. The common usage of the word 'diva' (original meaning: popular female opera singer) denotes talent combined with the inability to interact effectively with other band members, the most well-known example probably being Diana Ross in the Supremes. Your example actually worsens the wording of the argument. No band, no matter how talented or untalented, lacks the ability to perform together. Seventeen beginner flutists can come together, call themselves a band, and perform for an audience in a long tunnel. The quality of the performance, however, would be quite low. The quality of any performance is based on many variables, such as the skill of the musicians, the acoustics of the venue, etc. Effective non-verbal communication is essential for a good live concert. I would list that skill in the skill set 'Ability to function as a group'. Unless you disagree that a band is a group...? Four talented soloists could each record individual instrument tracks in a studio, playing from sheet music. A sound engineer could then mix the tracks together and produce and release an album. The musicians could theoretically never interact with one another, not even know each other. I wouldn't call those four a band, would you? 98.119.81.81 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone caught mentioning one-man bands will be ridiculed, then taken outside to be shot. 98.119.81.81 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sore throat

Denying the antecedent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

Actually, this argument is correct. It's a necessary condition (but not a sufficient condition). In other words; if the statement "having a flue" implies "having a sore throat"; then "no sore throat" implies "no flu". Please consider changing this description. 77.56.95.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

But "no flu", doesn't imply "no sore throat", so you're wrong about the argument being correct. Remnant76 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You were confused with P implies Q being equivalent to Not Q implies Not P. So if Q is false, P also cannot be true (since P implies Q) (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have a sore throat. Therefore, I do not have the flu.)
--Shannonbay (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

True, sorry for that 77.56.85.5 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Accent

Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress, or an expert's deprecation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable pianist.

Why is a citation needed here? All the statements can be logically attributed to the example given. Amnion (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs reworking.

This article needs work. I've done a university level course in logic that covered this material and I was having a hard time following article. I cleaned up some of the examples and provided a couple more but more are needed. I think that some of the writing is too high level for an introductory article on logical fallacies. For example in the line about connotation fallacies there is a reference to dysphemistic words and attribution fallacies. While there are links that can be followed to learn what these are they weigh down the article. I found the article a tough slog because this sort of stuff.

It would also be good for someone to go through and clean up the style and grammar.Rmawhorter (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

For the intent of the article and for the purpose of common understanding, I understand what is implied by ambiguous in the section Verbal Fallacies, Example 1. This ambiguity, however, struck me as being a little inappropriate in the context of the example. I could not find, in the article called Ambiguity any argument for ambiguity by multiple definitions as I feel was implied by this section. The closest I could find was ambiguity in semantics, but even this does not seem to fit. I could argue that technically all words are ambiguous, as their definitions rely on individual foreknowledge, definitions in various dictionaries (I know from recent experience, for example, that the definition for "hypocrisy" is very different in the American Heritage Dictionary from the one in the OED), translations, encyclopedias, reference texts, etc. We must agree, to avoid chaos, on some baseline correct interpretation. Therefore (perhaps in a sort of Orwellian fashion), the classification of "good" as "ambiguous" seems to be a little ambiguous itself. I vote that it be changed. Loonybin0 01:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loonybin0 (talk • contribs)

Small cleanup here

This line needs cleanup:

fallacies. – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – .--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

The example doesn't agree with the problem. "Staff" should, perhaps, be replaced with "bricks" or similar, I think.

* Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part

Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".

Problem: The materials used to build the university are older, because when the materials are formed, the university isn't formed yet.

--Chigozienri (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition and summary

The definition and summary given at the top seem to be incorrect. The article states "A fallacy is an argument that is not logically valid."

However, several fallacies are logically valid. These include begging the question and the slippery slope fallacy.

In logic, validity normally refers to the link between premises and conclusion. To test validity, we imagine that the premises are true. On that assumption, we look for ways the conclusion could be false when the premises are true (counterexamples). If there is no imaginable counterexample, the argument is logically valid. In other words, if the truth of the premises on its own guarantees that the conclusion is true, the argument is logically valid.

That does not mean the argument is good. The premises may be false, or potentially false. But if they were true, the conclusion would have to be true.

The fallacy of begging the question assumes the truth of its conclusion in its premises. It is logically valid but bad reasoning.

A slippery slope fallacy presents a chain of "if...then..." conditional statements, which if true, guarantee that the conclusion is true. Some of these statements may be false (or likely to be false), in which case the chain will present bad reasoning.

For this reason, I edited the definition to [1]

This edit was reverted by User:Frozen4322 to restore the definition quoted above. The above definition is contradicted by examples in the article, and so needs reworking.

Jacobean Grid (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy

I have doubts that this sentence would be how "appeal to authority" is conceived of in books on fallacies.

An appeal to authority ... can be appropriate form of rational argument

While appeal to authority might be practical and useful in life, and might be considered rational in public relations and ordinary life, the notion of fallacy as conveyed in logic is generally not concerned with those domains (where people are swayed merely by someone's credentials without evidence), but instead with a priori objectivity.

Yes, the statement also has no citation, but more problematic, the phrase "can be an appropriate form" seems breezy and editorial, like someone's own personal guess. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What is often referred to as "appeal to authority" is most often NOT a fallacy, and has in the modern day become a tool of the ignorant to keep their invalid argument from being totally debunked. No where is this more evident than in the discussion of global climate change and AGW. It is not fallacious to point out that a global scientific consensus have been established on the subject, so long as this is not the sole exhibit of evidence, yet the so called "skeptics" cling to the "appeal to authoritarian" ruse like a life raft in an iceberg field...no pun intended Cosand (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Many Questions Fallacy

I don't believe that the "many questions" fallacy meets the requirements for a fallacy. As I understood it, though it isn't mentioned earlier in the article, a fallacy must be a statement, not a question. A question cannot be wrong or right, just resonable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.218.162 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is Non Sequitur to state that the answer 'No' is an admission of guilt to the question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? It asumes the premise that you actually started beating your wife, or for that matter, the premise that you have a wife. Therefore if you haven't started the beating (or don't have a wife) then you can't stop, hense the answer 'No' is a reasonable answer that does not carry with it an admission of guilt. In other words, to get to a possition of guilt you have to make at least two assumptions: 1 that the beating started and 2 that there is a wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Herbert (talk • contribs) 01:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm studying Psychology and in the Cognition: Reasoning section they mention Fallacies in Reasoning which I have noticed are exactly the same as the Fallacies in Arguments. I do agree that a question should not be used as an example for fallacies, but would like to point out that being reasonable or not is what fallacies are about, or actually: Being unreasonable. Or am I confused?????? Michaela1992 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of logic

Many so-called logical fallacies appear to be based on the premise that all human beings share a common mode of logic. This itself could be a fallacy, since logic can become an ideology on its own, the fallacy of logical fallacy. Many of the newer thinkers of post-modernism, such as Feyerabend and Lyotard, have argued that much of rational and scientific discourse is based on ancient Greek philosophical ideas that are either outdated or that have turned out to be a kind of social construct, one that is true for those that accept it as true, but not for others. Hence, following this trend of thought, logic would in fact become exactly the same as magic, and their political and moral equality could no longer be questioned. ADM (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea...Indeed, my own mode of logic includes the fallacy of the existence of a fallacy of logical fallacy and the principle of autodoxastic universalization. Thus, from my perspective, your arguments fail and since this is my belief, by my principle of universailzation, it is everyones; thus, everyone believes you are wrong including you. I also have the principle of modal metamorphisis, in short, I can switch modalities at any time; thus, what is believed becomes what is true. By the way, please don't attempt to rebut what I've said, not only would that be intolerant of you, it would force me to write a large paragraph using absurdly large words ending with, "...And therefore, by deconstruction, and Lacan's principle of <insert funny misuse of topology>, I win." Seriously, no one wants that...Phoenix1177 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ADM, if you have a specific example of criticism of the idea of a fallacy, and reliable sources to establish that criticism, then by all means insert it. However, since deductive logic is built up from such straightforward principles such as, "If 'A and B' is true, then A is true," that it's hard to see how this is an "ideology" or "outdated". To criticise the claim that an argument is a fallacy, you need to show that the argument is actually deductively valid (or otherwise a good argument). Do you actually have sources to back that up? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, uh, øh... In what context is "fallacy" defined? (Imagine an insinuative tone here!) ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't resist answering myself. The intro starts with:

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is ...

Cheers! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Straw Man

Corrected previous straw man example to a politically neutral argument. The previous one was politically charged and generally a weak illustration. --Nphyx (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a fairly good pianist

A better example of this fallacy of accent placement would be "I didn't say he stole the money." It's far more emotionally charged and derives many more meanings. Just a suggestion. 206.24.49.1 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Section: "Fallacies in the media and politics"

Seeing as this section lacks any sources, is certainly POV, stinks of original research, and has been identified as such for 16 months, it's time to just get rid of it. dlainhart (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. Here's the text in case someone wants to salvage some of it.

Fallacies in the media and politics

Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, "You don't have the moral authority to say X", this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. Arguably, the politician is not even attempting to make an argument against X, but is instead offering a moral rebuke against the interlocutor. For instance, if X is the assertion:

The military uniform is a symbol of national strength and honor.

Then ostensibly, the politician is not trying to prove the contrary assertion. If this is the case, then there is no logically fallacious argument, but merely a personal opinion about moral worth. Thus identifying logical fallacies may be difficult and dependent upon context.

In the opposite direction is the fallacy of argument from authority. A classic example is the ipse dixit—"He himself said it" argument—used throughout the Middle Ages in reference to Aristotle. A modern instance is "celebrity spokespersons" in advertisements: a product is good and you should buy/use/support it because your favorite celebrity endorses it.

An appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy, though it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if, for example, it is an appeal to expert testimony . In this case, the expert witness must be recognized as such and all parties must agree that the testimony is appropriate to the circumstances. This form of argument is common in legal situations.

By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be (re)written in such a way that they fit a valid argument form. The challenge to the interlocutor is, of course, to discover the false premise, i.e. the premise that makes the argument unsound.

MartinPoulter (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

begging the Q Circular Reasoning this is a BETTER EXAMPLE

fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionarily statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

a page teaching people what fallacy means is not the right place to attack people's beliefs and their reasons for believing certain immeasurable things in life, its meaning, the existence of God. who's to say the bible isn't divinely inspired ? if it is then it follows that everything it says is correct. in most courts of law that wouldn't be considered circular reasoning. the case for the bible being divinely inspired is stronger than the one against it, at least for anyone who thinks life has any meaning, and that society can't function without a moral compass, and that there are absolutes that govern the universe. that there's something an isolated, mentally challenged, crippled man can access and find hope, faith, and love in. Grmike (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)grmike

Rock strata are dated directly by potassium radioactive decay, relatively by the level of the layer and the direct observation that sediments are deposited in newer layers over older as are volcanic flows. Direct observations of earthquakes and rift valleys explains curvatures in the layers. Fossils are identified with various layers and, along with chemical composition, texture, etc then are the fossils used to date the layers. Your original criticism was valid many years ago but not anymore. Alatari (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Grmike is trying to propose never-used circular reasoning arguments of a not-so-neutral religious kind as examples of fallacies. Which is not a good idea. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

- If the shoe fits, wear it. The evolution example is incorrect. Stratum are dated using radiometric dating to occur approximate dates, thus, layers and fossils in between lie within the dates of the creation of those strata. THEN, once approximate dates are found for fossils in various regions, it can be assumed that those fossils found in other areas are approximately the same age, given there is no other radiometricly available strata to test. One does not PROVE the other, you can use both to make seperate assertions. HOWEVER, the circular reasoning argument works for God and the Bible. If you are a believer, just have better reasons to believe than a fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.155.12 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The bible is the sole reference to it's own content, and since the Bible declares itself to be the divine unchangeable truth, if everything contained in the Bible is NOT factual, the entire contents becomes suspect, if not moot. This is most certainly NOT circular reasoning or fallacious Cosand (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Butterworth

Argument: McDonalds soft serve ice creams are made purely from pig fat. Problem: No substantial evidence to support- this plays on the human emotion, that pig fat in your ice cream would be horrifying to eat. Jeremy Butterworth was found susceptible to this emotion.

Perhaps I missed something, but the last sentence seems completely out of place. I don't see how it adds anything to the example, if anything it is more akin to random trivia. Assuming Jeremy Butterworth is somehow related to the example and readers can make that correlation, the context is not even correct. The previous sentence is talking about human emotion in general. So this is either saying the he is susceptible to some unnamed human emotion, or that he has emotions in general, of which both contexts are irrelevant. Just pointing this out in case someone else feels the same way and wants to delete it it. Not a big editor, this just stuck out to me.

--174.52.7.12 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I know some people that fry everything in pig lard so I'm not sure every person would be disgusted. Maybe the wording is awkward but it still needs saying. Alatari (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer examination it appears that was a vandalism that was overlooked. I rewrote to better clarify and remove vandalism. Alatari (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Fallacy of Emotion content

No reliable authoritative cite for such a fallacy by that term could be found this date: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Fallacy+of+Emotion&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off , just circular references to this Wikipedia article and informal use by individuals, possibly acquainted with it via same. There is a logical fallacy along these lines, just not named and stated as excised. Appropriately cited content on it is welcome. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Tag

I propose that we tag this article {{cleanup-confusing}}, because although the content of the article is generally good, it can be hard to follow (especially when printed). If I don't get responses, I think I'll just go ahead and add the tag. threecheersfornick (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I guess this is included in the tag that's already there. Nevermind.threecheersfornick (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy of Improperly Applying a Fallacy

Is there a special name for the fallacy of improperly applying a fallacy? Or would that be best to simply fall under Non Sequitur?

Example: If it were to be discovered that vaccines do in fact cause autism, then many former accusations of post hoc ergo propter hoc would be shown as fallacious. (That is, the bare bones claim could be correct in that the conclusion was reached through fallacious logic; however, the accuser in thinking that he had thus disproven the conclusion would also be committing his own logical fallacy.) Stated more generally:

Argument A is fallacious. Therefore, Argument A's conclusion C(A) is false.

This is a logic fallacy that I think deserves its own mention, and perhaps even its own name.

204.179.219.251 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

See "fallacy fallacy", which is currently mentioned in the article. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning By Innuendo

Is it worth adding this term to the section on use of dysphemisms and/or reasoning by emotional appeal? This phrase always struck me as a good name for the concept. 204.179.219.251 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I found one source for this via Google Books (and two more scholarly sources which cited it), so I've added it. Thanks for the suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

God exists circular argument sources

From Gary Colwell's sources in his paper Informal Logic, Spring 1989:

• Michael A. Gilbert refers to this standard example of circular reasoning as "one more classic:" How to Win an Argument (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1979), p. 54.
• John Woods and Douglas Walton have produced a penetrating and sustained treatment of the fallacies in their work, Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1982). They devote their entire Chapter Seven to the fallacy called" Arguing in a Circle. " They, too, give special attention to the standard example.
• Anthony Weston has written a popular, easy-to-read introduction to arguments, designed primarily as a freshman supplementary text to be read without the aid of a lecturer's commentary. A Rulebook for Arguments (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987), p. 86. The one example that he uses to

illustrate the fallacy of Begging the Question is the same standard example to which the author of this paper is referring.

• Howard Kahane, Logic and Phi1osophy: A Modern Introduction, 5th ed. (Belmont, California: Wadworth Publishing Company, 1986), pp. 256, 257.
• S. Morris Engel, Analysing Informal Fallacies (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1980), p.55.
• Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument. 2nd ed. (Belmont, California: Wadworth Publishing Company, 1988), p. 86;
• Robert J. Yanal, Basic Logic (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1988), p. 274.
• Jack Pitt and Russeli E. Leavenworth incorporate the notions of God, freedom and evil in their example. Logic for Argument (New York: Random House, 1968), pp. 113, 114.
• R.H. Iohnson and I.A. Blair use the idea of a rabbi who claims to dance with angels, in their illustration of begging the question. Logical Self Defense, 2nd ed. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1983), p. 54.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not verifiable or notable. Alatari (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Simplification Needed

Too many Latin terms are used in a confusing way in the article. I subit you should write them in English (the page’s language), then in Latin in parenthesis. An example of a good statement: “popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.)” Remember, this document wasn’t written for (nor in all likelihood by) people with doctorates, it was written for common people who may not necessarily understand a word you said.174.25.34.44 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Oh, nice ad hominem ad infinitum a contrario vis-a-vis a posteriori veni vidi vici, et tu rubeum allec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Be bold and help out. You're very welcome to improve the article and you make a great point. Alatari (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Latin terms are appropriate, as they are the names by which those familiar with this particular field would likely have learned these fallacies. You're absolutely correct that they should not be used with the assumption that everyone knows what they mean. But I think it would be better (and I'm going to scan the article to see if I can do this) to lead with the "proper" Latin terminology, then provide both a literal English translation and other common English names as parentheticals.Kutulu (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Proving too much

Is proving too much another name for one of these fallacies, or a subset of one of them? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Underwear example

"Billy's going to ace this test because he's wearing his lucky underwear" is a bad example of non sequitur, since the added confidence from wearing underwear he believes to be lucky could very well boost his test score. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

However, it is not the underwear that does the trick, it is Billy's erroneous belief. Lova Falk talk 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, wearing the underwear is part of what causes him to do well. It's like saying, "2 + 3 = 5." Both 2 and 3 are needed in order to reach 5; thus, if you start with 2, you can legitimately say, "Adding 3 will cause 5 to be reached." If someone comes back and says, "No, it was starting with 2 that caused 5 to be reached when 3 was added," that is true, but it doesn't make the other statement untrue.

In this case, if Billy starts out with a belief that his lucky underwear will help him, then actually wearing the underwear is the other factor that leads to the result of doing well on the test. A better example, then, might be to say, "My sister will get well because I secretly prayed for her to recover from her illness." There is no way that the placebo effect can occur if the sister doesn't know that she was prayed for. But that's kind of a controversial example, given widespread belief in theism and in God's response to prayer, so it probably wouldn't last in the article.

Now, another question arises: Should we assume that Billy knows that his underwear is considered "lucky" underwear? Probably; who else would have designated it as such? And he may well have purposefully worn it on the day of the test so that he would do well. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy of False Cause Example

The example given about taxation is an incorrect example because there is a direct and clear causal relationship between the funds that pay for public services and tax revenues levied by the funding agency. It seems the author of that example had a political agenda and wanted to insert it into this encyclopedia, but happily for us, they brilliantly demonstrate a formal deductive fallacy since the theoretical possibility of something (funding public services without taxation) does not prove its practicality, probability or even its existence.

It would be better to provide a less political example. Argument: Sally picked strawberries and now the warts on her fingers are gone; therefore, strawberries cured her warts. Problem: the cure of the warts is not actually known since Sally may have been subjected to some other curative process prior to the disappearance of the warts. This is not to say the strawberry juice was not the cure, only that it cannot be known without further evaluation and testing. (e.g. it could have been a fungus, bacteria, or farming chemical on the strawberries or strawberry plants, something in the soil, or it could have been entirely coincidental and the cause was unrelated to the harvest.)

General Ludd (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'd agree that I think providing a less political example would be more appropriate, concluding that those services must necessarily be public services is actually a fallacy itself.

While it doesn't appear to be the author's intent to display this, these services can also be private (and private versions of these services exist to varying degrees, both today and throughout history). Replacing State provided services with private ones is a largely Libertarian position, (though the services under question, being some of the most basic services a State customarily provides for, would likely be closer to a position along the lines of Anarcho-Capitalism rather than a position of Minarchism or limited-government, which does accept a State providing some basic services that at the very least the first 2 would likely fall under.)

Being that the video the author linked in the comment is not along these lines, this is not likely to be the viewpoint the author was trying to convey, but it still stands that your conclusion was fallacious, as these services were not specifically designated as "public services". 76.176.166.39 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, since the example I have above would fall under one of the special cases, it might be best to go completely abstract: If A and B exist together, then A must cause B or B must cause A.

General Ludd (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs a distinction between formal and informal fallacies

The term "material fallacy" is another term for "informal fallacy." There are formal fallacies and informal fallacies. So, the entry is incorrect to have formal and informal fallacies under the heading "material fallacies" (which, again, is just another term for an informal fallacy).

For example, begging the question is an informal or material fallacy while affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy.

All fallacies of language (verbal fallacies) are informal or material fallacies, so maybe someone could put the rest of the material fallacies there and call it "material fallacies." Then, you could make a new section for formal fallacies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.171.153 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article is pathetic. For instance "this is my bike, therefore this is my bike" would be laughed at by most people as an argument, but it's a valid tautology "A; therefore A". This stuff is easily sourced. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Fallacy of Composition

If all of the parts of the car are in the garage, the car may not necessarily be in the garage. This example is used in the section to indicate an acceptable use of logic, yet it is an invalid conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalLog (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article needs rewrite (was: Linkdropping)

As a proposed pattern for a hypothetical future structure of the document: Informal Logic: 3. Fallacy Theory (plato.stanford.edu). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this article should be rewritten. The WP:EXAMPLEFARM-style list of fallacies should go. (Let the list of fallacies do its thing.) Greater focus should be made in helping readers understand the wide range of fallacies and their classifications, views on fallacies, the effect of fallacies on arguments, books and writers on fallacies, and so on. Reduce the outdated dominance of Aristotle's fallacies and classifications (verbal vs. non-verbal). I think we should consider merging the little articles on classifications such as informal fallacy, formal fallacy, syllogistic fallacy, etc., here so that readers are provided with better context to differentiate these concepts. At the very least they should be introduced here.

Just a thought. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article is high-school level at best, but fixing it is a lot of work, and the SEP entry is not really focused on this. Books by Hamblin (not even mentioned here, except in the bibliography, but not actually used/cited) Woods and Walton and van Eemeren et al. should be used. For example the 1st chapter [2] here is a resonable approximation what the toc should look like, except there's no need to put the pragma-dialectical at the outer level for our purposes, but list it among the modern approaches. By the way, the SEP entry doesn't even mention Damer's book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, which seems to be held in high-esteem in Wikipedia. Tagged for rewrite. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Without prejudice, why two articles?

There is an article on fallacy and on List of fallacies. A cursory look suggests to me that they could and should be united (with redirection if desired). Am I missing something? (I am putting this question in the other discussion page as well). JonRichfield (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Total revert?

Several years ago this was a GOOD page. Now it is, well, bad. What happened? Can someone please go back a few years in time and try to find again the much better structure the page hand then? Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fallacy vs logical fallacy

What's the difference? In particular, what I find confusing is that the main article for Category:Logical fallacy is fallacy, and that there is no Category:Fallacy. Where should articles like lump of labour fallacy or Luddite fallacy be? Are they logical fallacies? It think not... so do we need a fallacy category? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit: since nobody seems to watch this page, I am putting this question up for an RFC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your initial question, a logical fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic, also called a formal fallacy. If there is flawed logic - that is, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises - then it is a logical fallacy. However, if some reasoning is wrong, but not based on flawed logic, then it is not a logical fallacy, but an informal fallacy. Lump of labour fallacy and Luddite fallacy are to do with economics, not logic, so are not logical fallacies. You are right, though - I think our articles on fallacy need to be drastically improved. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Better straw man needed

The current straw man example contans too many other fallacies, and probably not the straw man itself:

Person A: Sunny days are good.

Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain

false dichotomy, rain with sunshine not impossible

and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

false consequent, we could have deep wells and irrigation

Therefore, you are wrong.

A classical straw man is instead when an atheist attacks the religious non-literalist Christian by claiming:

Now, your Bible claims that the Earth was created by in six days, and science have proved that it was not created, but instead came to existence 13.7 billion years ago, then science have proven your religion wrong

The error here is that the atheist rhetorically assume that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, and disprove a literal interpretation, despite it is well known by the atheist, by the public that this specific Christian never would interpret the Bible in such a way. The straw man error is then to assume to have disproved the main argument, when only an irrelevant unclaimed argument (the straw man himself) have been disproved. Like decapitating a straw man rather than the real enemy.

It's very hard to construct a straw man without a political or a religious context, but it might be possible to use some lousy-styled science dispute somewhere. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is one of the great ancient and true religions. It goes without saying that a literal interpretation of Genesis is popular in America. Would the public know that specific non-literalist? Can she be seen on TV? Surely our zealous cowboy of the apocalypse could be an American without guile?

A straw man is so flimsy, he might huff and puff and blow it down. But a straw man doesn't really need a head. Mystery. Noting what a great big mouth our abrasive little lamb has, the red working girl points out that 6000 years or even 6 days is much much closer to 4.5 billion, than 13.7 billion years, in which time one could play Earth again, and again, and again. Proving religion wrong has never been part of the job description of science or natural philosophy. Rather that, science prove itself wrong, to it's own satisfaction, rigorously and often.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I have changed a few of the examples given for some fallacies to reflect a more neutral POV. I don't believe it's necessary to use this article to comment on Marijuana's addictive qualities or whether vaccinations cause autism. Similarly, the adjective "Indian" applied to cows is counterproductive.Nickrz (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More relevent examples required

I understand the fallacies, but often the examples just confuse me. Perhaps we need more examples of fallacies that are more 'realistic', as the ones here are situations that would rarely arise in a debate. Maybe just add examples instead of changing them. Even could be very clever and use real world examples of fallacies, such as political arguments from prominent speakers, and could suggest why some may argue they used a fallacy.... I think expanding on the examples is the best way to make people understand what each fallacy actually means, which I feel strongly will increase the quality of this article ten fold.

Real world examples will make people more guarded to fallacies, and will be very important in educating people on where fallacies are often used in the real world.... I see no point in educating people in unreal situations.

In my humble view taking my advise will make this article.... bloody brilliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.71.236 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Magisterial Fallacy?

I've highlighted the section on the Magisterial Fallacy as dubious; I have not encountered such a fallacy in any text on logic. The citation for this fallacy also comes from an anthropology text, not a formal study of logic. I recommend either removing the section, clarifying it, or finding a better source. 107.4.132.99 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Steve

I'm the Steve from above, and I just remembered that I made a wiki account before, so I'll use that from now on (sorry!). After a little more research, I found no evidence outside of this Wikipedia page for a "Magisterial Fallacy". Therefore, I've removed the section from the article. I do suggest, though, if you disagree with me and think it should be here, that it is put in the material fallacy section, not the verbal section. If this is indeed a real fallacy, it would be a type of irrelevant conclusion, not some defect of language. Tangerinewarrior (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)tangerinewarrior

Fallacy and falsity

What is the difference between fallacy and falsity and should the differentiation be briefly defined on each article? — RW Marloe (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Intentional Fallacy

The article presents "intentional fallacy" as the case where an author intends to be fallacious. I believe the term is more commonly used in reference to Beardsley and Wimsatt's essay The Intentional Fallacy in which they argue that an author's intent is neither available nor desireable in understanding or judging their creation. Alf2019 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to submit some acknowledgment of this (tangential and obviously related meaning) into the thesis paragraph for this section with a link to: Authorial_intent dvdrtrgn (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

merge Informal fallacy and Formal fallacy into this article fallacy

When I read over Formal fallacy I find almost the same information as Informal fallacy. The main point of each article is to show how the two are differnt. Would it be better to merge the content into this one topic of Fallacy with two sections of 'Formal fallacy' and 'Informal fallacy'? R00m c (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to present both formal and informal fallacies but without necessarily merging.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why?R00m c (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Rv of major change

I have made some changes to improve the article. As this article has multiple issues, I feel that this is a large task. It is a larger task than I alone can do. I started with a mission to improve on the points:"This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." and "This article or section lacks a single coherent topic.". I made a point to read the talk before I started working on the article. I considered several things others had suggested. I imporved the main section first, so that the article could be formed into a single coherent topic. I went back to the talk a few times to find where others had talked about how the article may need to be rewritten entirely. Since the tag had been there since 2010 and has not been removed yet, I assumed I would have seen more talk about how the article needed to be rewitten and such. It could be that no one else has wanted to take on the project yet. I belive I used good judgement in how I edited the article. I was sure to comment on every change I made. I still belive it is no way perfict, (ie needs a lot more sources, ect) however I fail to see how my edits are worth a complete revert back to the old version.

1. How can something be completly rewritten, without making any large changes?
2. How can we get to a single coherent topic if we never focuses on a single coherent topic?
3. What edits exactly where a problem?
4. Why where these problems not listed in talk after the rv?

R00m c (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It does need work, however blurring the distinction between formal and informal fallacy is problematic. As I've said, I don't think a merge is the way to go but at the same time, I don't think the material on formal and informal fallacies is out of place here. Whereas some of the informal material could possibly go to the informal fallacy article, too much is being removed all at once.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I now see what you are trying to say about too much at once. I am now thinking I should have explained more in the talk myself as I was working. What about Mrwojo's comment in the talk: "The WP:EXAMPLEFARM-style list of fallacies should go. (Let the list of fallacies do its thing.)"? Are you suggesting that the list should be moved to informal fallacy or formal fallacy articles instead? I removed the list assuming there was consensus on this idea as no one had opposed it yet.R00m c (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with R00m c, Mrwojo,[3] and possibly others, regarding the list of fallacies in this article. Seems like this article should not be giving a list of fallacies with explanations and examples when there already is the article List of fallacies, which has brief explanations, inline citations and wikilinks to individual articles on each type of fallacy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

After Waiting a few days for comments, I am going to assume that it is safe to removed the list of fallacies in this article. R00m c (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of notices at top of page

A few notices were removed from the top of the article's page.[4] The reason given was "unclear from 2010". So I checked when the edits for the notices dated August 2010 were made and found they were made in August 2010[5], although the "original research" part of the notice wasn't displayed until that part's markup language was corrected in December 2010.[6] It seems like we can simply revert the edit that removed them without any adverse consequences. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bob, it wasn't unclear that the article was tagged in 2010, but rather if it's not currently too excessive.

1. Please make appropriate in line requests for citations where you feel they are needed... to me, the coverage seems fairly typical for this sort of article.
2. I don't think there's been a consensus since 2010 that "this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards" though as I've said, it needs some work...
3. Not that it's working but further to point 1, I don't have a problem with an additional citations needed tag.
4. The topic of the article, insofar as informal fallacy goes, "lacks a single coherent topic..." but how is that not par for the course?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment of 14:44, 14 May 2013, in the previous section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

reorganize

I would like to reorganize the article a bit.

1. Formal and material fallacies renamed to "Aristotle's Fallacies"
2. Create new section called "Formal Fallacy" that uses Formal fallacy as the main article.
3. Create new section called "Informal Fallacies" that used Informal fallacy as the main article.

It would look very much like this version by me [7], except we would still have that long quote in the section "Aristotle's Fallacies". Any comments or thoughts? R00m c (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest going one step at a time when possible. I think Machine Elf's main concern was making too many changes at once. That's understandable. (BTW, I consider the recent removal of the list of fallacies a good first step.)

At present, the lead divides fallacies into formal and informal, so one possibility is to start work with the formal fallacy section. Another possibility is to start work with Aristotle's organization of fallacies. In that regard, suggest using and explaining Aristotle's terms in dictione and extra dictione for dividing fallacies into two groups, before using substitute terms. There might be some mention of Aristotle in the lead too. Also, the long quote appears to be more about criticizing Whately's division of fallacies into two groups, rather than Aristotle's division, so it may be better to write about the points from the long quote instead of using the large quote verbatim. In general, I think you're on the right track to improving the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I am trying to work more slowly, working about one edit every 12 hours. R00m c (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re the recent edit which included, "He dived them up into two major types, Verbal fallacies and Material fallacies. — The source doesn't seem to support these names for the two types.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your right that the source does not use the exact words. I do not know what sources were used to come up with the words "material" and "Verbal". I got the use of the words from the article itsself. The source says instead, "Fallacies dependent on Language" and "Fallacies outside of language" I took a quick look at "On Sophistical Refutations"[8] and fond: "There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the language used, while some are independent of language.". I assumed the orignal idea of using Verbal was to say the fallacy was dependent on Language and material was everything else. But that is not what we have written in the article. Would you suggest that we change this article's use of the two words? R00m c (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I reread you comment above about "extra dictionem" and "dictione". It looks like these are the latin words that mean "dependent on Language" and "outside of language". I think a normal reader might be confused by the use of the words alone. We could go ahead and drop the use of the words "material" and "Verbal" alltogether and the 3 sentences could just read like this:

• He dived them up into two major types, dictione(dependent on Language) and extra dictionem(outside of language).[2]R00m c (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For now, suggest just changing the one sentence to,

"He divided them up into two major types, those depending on language and those not depending on language.[9] We will call them verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively."

The term "verbal fallacies" seems to be mentioned OK in other sources. Although "material fallacies" was mentioned in other sources, I'm not sure if it was used for one of Aristotle's fallacy types, but rather for a different grouping of fallacies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote

I had to stop in paraphrasing the quote. It seems like this has a lot of negative POV. The first few sentences talk about how Richard Whately dived up Fallacies, but then the rest of the first section criticizes his work. Should we also convay a negative POV to his work? The quote is dived up into 2 sections. I don't see any negative POV in the second section. If no one objects, I think we could droped or remove the rest of the first section of the quote and paraphrase the second part to make a stronger definition of logical and material. R00m c (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the mechanics of approaching the task, you might consider moving what remains of the long quote to this section of the Talk page, leaving in the article only the few lines that you worked on, then adding to the article pieces of info from the long quote as appropriate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to work. Here is the quote:

...[In the class of logical fallacies], the defect of proof lies either in a manifest violation of some of the formal laws of the syllogism--quaternio terminorum, undistributed middle, illicit major, illicit minor, negative premisses, etc., defects which remain even when symbols are substituted for the terms and concepts, and which Aristotle would not regard as sophisms owing to the transparency of the mistake;--or the defect lies in a similar violation masked in ambiguous language. The transparent defects Whately called purely logical, the cloaked defects semi-logical fallacies. The latter he regarded as all alike reducible to ambiguous middle term, including in this class all Aristotle's sophisms except the ignoratio elenchi, the petitio principii, and the non causa pro causa. These three he included in his "material" fallacies, by which he understood mistakes due to assuming false or unproven premisses, or premisses which prove the wrong conclusion. Whately's main distinction--between formally inconclusive arguments, and other sources of error--is sound and intelligible. But his nomenclature is objectionable. It is due to his narrow, nominalistic view of the scope of logic. All fallacies are logical, inasmuch as they are violations of logical principles or canons. Then, although most of Aristotle's sophismata, included in Whately's class of "semi-logical" fallacies, do in fact usually lead to formally invalid syllogisms through ambiguous middle terms, yet this is not clear in regard to some; and they certainly may lead to error otherwise as well. Hence the attempt to group them under such a head is unsatisfactory. Finally, on his own view of the scope of logic, Whately should not have dealt at all with what he called "non-logical" or "material" fallacies.

The distinction between a "formal" fallacy and a "material" fallacy is not fixed or clear--any more than that between "formal" and "material" logic. But at all events in a reasoning process, we can distinguish between the narrower "formal" or "consistency" aspect, which is independent of the truth of the premisses and the meaning of the terms used, and the "material" or "truth" aspect. Now, the formal validity of an inference, in this narrow sense, being independent of the subject-matter, i.e. of the meaning of the concepts and terms employed, it is only when the invalidity persists with the symbols, i.e. when some of the formal laws of reasoning are violated, that the fallacy is a formal one. If the fallacy lies in the language, .i.e. in the meaning of the terms employed, in ambiguitites of meaning, then its source is in the subject-matter, in the things for which the terms stand, and the fallacy is a material fallacy. An ambiguous middle term in a syllogism is, therefore, in this sense a material fallacy: when its two distinct meanings are explicitly substituted for it by two distinct terms, we have immediately the formal fallacy of quaternio terminorum. In this meaning of the expression "material fallacy," all Aristotle's sophismata in dictione are, when they enter into an inference, material fallacies; while some of his fallacies extra dictionem are formal in the sense that they can be represented in sysmbols; so that it is a mistake to confound Aristotle's two lists with Whately's semi-logical and material fallacies, respectively: a mistake into which Jevons seems to have fallen.

— Peter Coffey, The Science of Logic

R00m c (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Ilustration

The banner is quite obviously not intended as a logical argument. It is a joke; it is satire. It is deliberately fallacious to mock all the stupid incorporated in it. Unfortunately it was before the satire font was created for the interwebs. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Was coming here to make the same point. The caption currently states, "A banner compares George Bush, Dick Cheney, the war in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina, as proof that Intelligent Design is a fallacy."

The caption should actually state, "A banner mocks George Bush and Dick Cheney by referencing the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and Intelligent Design." -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, it's a joke, not a fallacy.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy, falsism, or...?

What do we call oft-repeated sentences which are actually wrong. Such as "Before Columbus, everyone thought the Earth was flat", or "The Great Wall is the only man-made object visible from space", or "men think about sex every six seconds", or "don't go out with your hair wet or you'll catch a cold", or whatever, you get the picture. I always thought they were "fallacies", but apparently a fallacy needs to be based on a logical argument which leads to a wrong conclusion, which these examples are not. They're just false assumptions, wrong interpretations of unscientific studies and old wives' tales (which sometimes may have a grain of truth, but if so it's by coincidence or for completely different reasons.) Is there an actual one-word term to describe such "wrong knowledge", which gets repeated by word of mouth, and invariably gets passed around with the words "it's a fact"? BigSteve (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) p.s. I've looked aroundand it doesn't seem to quite be a falsism, axiom, dictum, maxim, aphorism, cliche or any other similar words that I've encountered. BigSteve (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Debate over straw man vs. ad infinitum/slippery slope

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Talk:Straw man#The sunny days example doesn't belong here, for a discussion of whether a particular example used in at straw man actually constitutes a straw man or an ad infinitum + a slippery slope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge Fallacy and Formal fallacy?

This article discusses both formal and informal fallacies, but focuses on the formal. Yet, distinct pages exist for these two subjects. Having three entries (plus a disambiguation page) for related – even duplicated – material confuses the reader. Why not merge fallacy and formal fallacy, leaving disambiguation to clarify the difference? Something needs to be done to clarify this important material. Other suggestions?

MercuriiMaiae (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/PhilosophicalWriting/08a/fallacies.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150602055442/http://www.archive-ilr.com/archives-2008/2008-10/2008-10-article-stein.php to http://www.archive-ilr.com/archives-2008/2008-10/2008-10-article-stein.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061004164921/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It’s time to add our president to this page

It’s time to add our president to this page, in hopes of being a source of knowledge of the different tactics he uses to defend the indefensible. There are enough articles that track these ‘lies’, but a fundamental understanding of why these statements are false on its face is obviously needed. His useage of these tactics is...’unpresidented’ [sic] Factsforhire (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)