Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
If two incidents or things happen at around the same time does not mean that one thing is the result of the other. Often many things occur at the same time yet are completely unrelated.
A correlation of data, like:
1) Increase in social media usage, and
2) Increase in anxiety and depression
does not mean that one set of data is caused by the other.
“You are either with us or against us!” Oversimplification of options, due to selectively providing a limited set of options and not encompassing other potential options creates a false dichotomy.
Example: Either your name is Ron or your name isn’t Ron is a true dichotomy, as it has two legitimate options. But saying that either your name is Ron, or you are an idiot is a false dichotomy.
This logical fallacy occurs when one’s own assumptions are used to establish their argument and prove it to be true.
Also called circular reasoning, this fallacy leads the person to follow the logic because a certain logic (which may be subjective or even entirely false) is already established.
While engaging in an argument or debate, red herrings are certain statements or points that seem relevant to the core issue but are merely distractions. Red herrings themselves can be logical fallacies due to the factor of correlation and causation.
Example: While arguing about having a vegetarian diet amounting to being ethical, a debater mentions Hitler, an alleged vegetarian, and how he wasn’t ethical.
When a logical argument is not going anywhere, one party can sometimes try to win brownie points by appealing to an outside authority, the majority, or even towards feelings of pity.
Outside influences are a powerful force of nature in these hyper-social times, and most of us want to be part of a high-status community, making this fallacy extremely common.
Example: “The president said it’s true, so it must be true!”.
A common argument tactic online, Ad hominem is when instead of giving a response to the argument, the person is attacked in a personal way, leading to the focus being the kind of person he or she is, rather than the actual content of the (now forgotten) argument.
The Ad Hominem fallacy is can be observed during political debates: candidates routinely utilize it to their advantage and launch personal attacks on opponents.
Many arguments are distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented, sometimes beyond recognition, to mean something else that can be easily attacked.
This is called the “straw man” fallacy because, like replacing a real person with a person made of straw, you’re replacing a stronger argument with a weaker one in order to more easily discredit it.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Winning an argument often comes down to who can go the longest without contradicting themselves and keeping sound logic, not direct persuasion of the other party.
Using a single personal experience as the foundation of your argument or your big piece of evidence.
For example, your phone may have broken right after you bought it, but you can’t use that to argue that those phones are not worth the purchase for others.
A fallacy is the use of faulty reasoning in an argument.
There are formal and informal fallacies:
In this fallacy, someone behaves in a way that negatively affects others but then gets upset when others criticize their behavior. They will reply with a "mind your own business."
For instance, someone who doesn't see a reason to bathe, but then boards a full 10-hour flight.
It happens when someone continues in a course of action, even if evidence shows that it's a mistake.
Common phrase: "We've always done it this way, so we'll keep doing it this way." "I've already invested so much..."
A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of an opinion or viewpoint, designed to be as easy as possible to contradict.
The only purpose is for it to be easy to expose. I...
This is a weak case (similar to the Straw man arguments) attributed to a non-existent group: Someone will fabricate a viewpoint that is easy to contradict, then claim it was made by a group they disagree with. Arguing against an opponent which doesn’t exist is a pretty easy way to win any debate.
People who use hollow man arguments will often use vague, non-specific language without explicitly giving any sources or stating who their opponent is.
It is designed to be resistant to attacks by a defier.There arguments are difficult to avoid because they have a lot of overlap with legitimate debate techniques.
A person using an iron man argument will most likely make their own viewpoint so vague that nothing anyone says about it can weaken it. They’ll use jargon and imprecise terms. This means they can claim anyone who disagrees didn’t understand them, or they’ll rephrase their argument multiple times.