Polemic Attach Catetories

[Freedom]

Specifically referring to false claims, I would be interested in a list of common tactics. For example:

1) Straw Man Argument - making a false claim and then tearing it down

2) argument from silence - making a claim on absence of evidence

3) Ad Hominem - insulting the individual rather than addresing the topic

4) Red Herring - misleading or distracting from argument

5) Cherry Picking - the fallacy of incomplete evidence

6) Formal Fallacy - error in logic such as an appeal to probability or an argument from fallacy

7) Non sequiturs - the conclusion does not follow from the premise

8 ) Shifting the burden of proof - guilty until proven innocent.

9) Circular Reasoning - beginning with the end

10) begging the question - a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion

​11) False Dilemma - allowing only one or two options when more are possible

12) Kettle Logic - using many inconsistent or contradictory arguments as a defense

13) Moving the Goal posts - always asking for more evidence

14) Slipper slope - one small action will lead to a series of other events culminating in disaster

I'm sure there are hundreds of other types of tactics, but these are the ones I see most often. I assume my definitions are correct and accurate.

What is it called when someone response with 'you know you are wrong, you know you are not a christian', thereby attributing a belief to you as a defense rather than responding to the question? Are there other common methods that should be added? I have found it useful when responding to a critic to be able to identify the tactic, and thereby refocus the discussion.

(for some reason I cannot get rid of that emoticon, it is supposed to be the #

ugh, I cannot seem to put an 'eight' in there. the numeral turns into a face. strange.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Freedom

[Nathair/|\]

Specifically referring to false claims, I would be interested in a list of common tactics. For example:

1) Straw Man Argument - making a false claim and then tearing it down

2) argument from silence - making a claim on absence of evidence

3) Ad Hominem - insulting the individual rather than addresing the topic

4) Red Herring - misleading or distracting from argument

5) Cherry Picking - the fallacy of incomplete evidence

6) Formal Fallacy - error in logic such as an appeal to probability or an argument from fallacy

7) Non sequiturs - the conclusion does not follow from the premise

Shifting the burden of proof - guilty until proven innocent.

9) Circular Reasoning - beginning with the end

10) begging the question - a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion

​11) False Dilemma - allowing only one or two options when more are possible

12) Kettle Logic - using many inconsistent or contradictory arguments as a defense

13) Moving the Goal posts - always asking for more evidence

I'm sure there are hundreds of other types of tactics, but these are the ones I see most often. I assume my definitions are correct and accurate.

What is it called when someone response with 'you know you are wrong, you know you are not a christian', thereby attributing a belief to you as a defense rather than responding to the question? Are there other common methods that should be added? I have found it useful when responding to a critic to be able to identify the tactic, and thereby refocus the discussion.

Based on the examples in your op, this may be a good place to start.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Logical_fallacies/Page_1

[TAO]

Innocent until proven guilty is actually a shifting of proof as well though. Techinchally, a no-shift means neither guilty nor innocent until somethign is said otherwise, right? ;-).

[blackstrap]

Thanks ,Nathair and Freedom. The list should be required reading and thoughtfully applied to all critics and apologists .

[rongo]

Innocent until proven guilty is actually a shifting of proof as well though. Techinchally, a no-shift means neither guilty nor innocent until somethign is said otherwise, right? ;-).

Hugh Nibley made a good case that "innocent until proven guilty" is the *only* way to actually test controversial issues (like court cases, or apologetics). I mentioned this in a paper I wrote about infallibility, blind obedience, and personal revelation:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous (footnotes 45-46; about halfway into the paper)

Assuming that something is true, as Hugh Nibley pointed out, is actually the only fair and reliable way to truly investigate anything and get to the bottom of it, even if one wishes to prove it wrong. While this seems paradoxical, one must assume that something is true or valid as a starting point if one truly wants to subject it to an objective investigation. Nibley applied forgery expert Friedrich Blass’s principles for detecting forgeries to investigating the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. His analysis of the assumptions that unfriendly critics or doubters begin with in investigating it is applicable to the assumptions unfriendly critics or doubters begin with in “objectively investigating” the Church:

One can hear the screams of protest: “How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!” . . . It is equally biased to accept or reject [the Church] at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress . . . An open mind is not a mind devoid of opinions, but one that is willing to change opinions in the face of new evidence. If we must assume something about the authenticity of the [Church] at the outset, why not assume that it is false, as its critics regularly do? Because, says Friedrich Blass, once you assume that [it] is a fake, no arguments and no evidence to the end of time can ever vindicate it, even if it is absolutely genuine. Why is that? Because “there can be no such thing as an absolutely positive proof.” The only possible certainty lies in the negative; for example, if we know for sure that a crime has been committed by a woman, the negative fact that a suspect is not a woman completely exonerates him; but on the other hand the fact that one is a woman proves neither guilt nor innocence. Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the [Church] is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.

This principle forms the basis and rationale for the American legal doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty,” and logically applies to doubts or concerns people might have about Church doctrine, history, practices, etc. If one truly wants to find the truth about their concerns, they must begin by assuming that what they seek an answer for is true, or they aren’t really allowing it to be truly tested and investigated.*

*This was reinforced for me during my first (and thus far, only) experience with jury duty. The judge told the 48 potential jurors that, in his experience, potential jurors come to a trial with one of three mindsets, and he wanted us to indicate by a show of hands which of these three represented our personal attitude. The first was that the defendant was arrested and indicted by recognized authority, and was therefore probably guilty, pending evidence to the contrary (a few hands went up). The second was that we hadn’t heard anything yet, and would assume neither guilt nor innocence until we heard evidence (most hands, including mine, went up). The third was that the defendant was probably innocent (almost no hands went up). He then gently scolded us and told us that all of us should have raised our hands for the third mindset, and that the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” was not just a nice-sounding phrase, but represents the key to our legal system.

[Freedom]

Based on the examples in your op, this may be a good place to start.

http://en.fairmormon...allacies/Page_1

Thanks, I did a search at fair to no success but clearly lack skill.

[Nathair/|\]

Thanks, I did a search at fair to no success but clearly lack skill.

I've known about that page for quite a while. Don't ask me how I found it, `cause I don't remember. Otherwise, I might not have known what to look for.

[Vance]

Your problem with is that it is an 8 followed by an )

One of my favorites is one that goes like this.

I don't know what 1 Cor 15:29 means but it does NOT mean what Mormons think it means.

This follows a pattern

I don't know what ___________ means BUT Mormons are wrong.

[california boy]

Good list. Maybe you can edit your original post to add others that are pointed out.

You forgot Slippery Slope arguments. I find them on this board all the time.

[Calm]

Your problem with is that it is an 8.....

One can solve it by putting a space between the 8 and the ), like this "8 )". Doesn't look as good, also disabling emoticons should work.

[Freedom]

Your problem with is that it is an 8 followed by an )

One of my favorites is one that goes like this.

I don't know what 1 Cor 15:29 means but it does NOT mean what Mormons think it means.

This follows a pattern

I don't know what ___________ means BUT Mormons are wrong.

thanks for the tip. How, I get this criticism a lot, what would you call this type of logical fallacy?

[Freedom]

Good list. Maybe you can edit your original post to add others that are pointed out.

You forgot Slippery Slope arguments. I find them on this board all the time.

sure, I can do that.

[Freedom]

Innocent until proven guilty is actually a shifting of proof as well though. Techinchally, a no-shift means neither guilty nor innocent until somethign is said otherwise, right? ;-).

The problem is that it is not possible to be neither innocent nor guilty. You must be one or the other. You either killed the man or you did not.

[TAO]

The problem is that it is not possible to be neither innocent nor guilty. You must be one or the other. You either killed the man or you did not.

But it is not appropriate to assume innocence or guilt before a conclusion. Instead, one must consider both at the same time.

[TAO]

Hugh Nibley made a good case that "innocent until proven guilty" is the *only* way to actually test controversial issues (like court cases, or apologetics). I mentioned this in a paper I wrote about infallibility, blind obedience, and personal revelation:

http://www.fairlds.o...gh-as-dangerous (footnotes 45-46; about halfway into the paper)

I'd digress with Nibley then on that account, sorry to say. You have to look at things through both an innocence and guilty lens at the same time =).

[Freedom]

But it is not appropriate to assume innocence or guilt before a conclusion. Instead, one must consider both at the same time.

You lost me - we are to assume someone is both guilty and innocent The point is to consider something innocent until evidence proves otherwise. If not, I will have to assume you are a murderer, a suicide bomber, a kleptomaniac, a jew, a catholic, a mormon, a hindu, a glue maker, clockmaker, legal secretary.....

My point is, there is an infinite number of accusations you can make so the accusation is meaningless until evidence is presented.

[TAO]

You lost me - we are to assume someone is both guilty and innocent.

Not someone... something. Ideas are treated differently in logic than people are in law.

The point is to consider something innocent until evidence proves otherwise.

Not in logic, no. In logic you are supposed to judge something neither correct nor incorrect until shown otherwise. Of course there are ethical reasons to believe in things without showing, or to not believe in things without showing, but you aren't supposed to come in with a preconceived notion of innocence or correctness any more than you are of guilt or wrongness.

If not, I will have to assume you are a murderer, a suicide bomber, a kleptomaniac, a jew, a catholic, a mormon, a hindu, a glue maker, clockmaker, legal secretary.....

That's law. Not logic.

My point is, there is an infinite number of accusations you can make so the accusation is meaningless until evidence is presented.

Not particularly. You see, you are making just as much of an assertion (that you are right) as they are (that you are wrong). To give you an idea, yes, you cold provide an infinite number of accusations, but so could you also provide an infinite number of truth claims. Either such path holds to such problems.

[Calm]

Why make any assumption at all?

[TAO]

Why make any assumption at all?

Well generally, the assumptions are there so that way we can live our life. For example, we assume our senses portray reality correctly. In this case however, we realize that a decision (in the case of religion) is critical, so rather than not assume, we assume both a critical and an anti-critical state, and then slowly reach our way to equilibrium on the issue. Or at least that's how I oftentimes do things =).