PARSING THE PARTISANS

PARSING THE PARTISANS

Karl Straub Logical Fallacy Project. 

What is a logical fallacy? Here is a partial explanation, taken from the book  “Nonsense: A Handbook Of Logical Fallacies,”  by Robert J. Gula. 

“A fallacy is an error in thinking or reasoning. Strictly speaking, it is not an error in fact or belief. It involves thought process, therefore, it pertains to conclusions, not to the statements that form those conclusions. Furthermore, the word fallacy usually applies to conclusions that appear sound and that are often convincing but are, in fact, incorrect.” 

I’m more interested in collecting arguments that are fallacious even though they are proceeding from premises that are wholly or partially accurate. I’m less interested in arguments that are fallacious because they proceed from premises that are themselves suspect. 

EXAMPLES. 

Fallacious argument proceeding from accurate premise. This is what I’m looking for. 

1. Brett Kavanaugh was really angry in his testimony. Thus, he’s innocent. 

2. Brett Kavanaugh was really angry in his testimony. Thus, he’s guilty. 

I’ve heard both of these arguments. The initial premise (Kavanaugh was angry) is a fact, disputed by nobody. The two conclusions assume you can determine a person’s guilt or innocence by his emotional reaction to allegations. You can’t. (And it’s damn lucky for lawyers that you can’t.)

Fallacious argument proceeding from inaccurate statement. I’m not as interested in this. 

1. Cops are all assholes. Joe is a cop. Thus, Joe is an asshole. 

Initial premise is an opinion, not a fact. 

2. Cops are all heroes. Joe is a cop. Thus, Joe is a hero. 

Initial premise is an opinion, not a fact. 

Incidentally, a conclusion can be, in fact, correct, though a fallacious argument is used to justify it. This happens constantly. I’m trying to demonstrate that fallacious arguments are used by Americans all over the political spectrum. Extra points to any of you who can provide an example of a conclusion you agree with that (in the example given) was supported with a fallacious argument. 

  If you can do this—and it’s not as easy as it may sound— pat yourself on the back. You’re probably already patting yourself on the back for being liberal, or for being conservative, or in extreme cases, for being a centrist. Why not congratulate yourself for your reasoning, rather than for the way you feel about something?

I’m looking for submissions. 

WHAT I DO WANT

Facebook posts, comments, or memes, containing logical fallacies. 

Please include a quote (screenshot is good, so I know you’re quoting accurately. Tagging me in a comment right on the thread is good for same reason), and your explanation of what you perceive as a logical fallacy, and why. 

WHAT I DON’T WANT 

links to articles with no explanation of why you’re sending them to me. (I don’t really want to be sent articles at all, but if you feel the article is germane, send it, but please include your explanation.) 

Long quotes with no explanation of why you’re sending them to me. 

Screen shots or quoted material that you’ve posted in a comment on one of my threads. (Please send in private message.) 

Your opinion about what the conclusion should be. 

Quotes from public figures, esp the president. 

Things you didn’t find on Facebook. (At some point, I may widen my net, but for now I’m trying to find this stuff on Facebook.) 

Your opinion about why my project is stupid, or wrongheaded. If you provide me with this, I’ll look for logical fallacies in your argument, and it may go right into the archive. I’ll probably stick it right next to a quote from a flat earth believer. 

(I know I’ll get all of the above, and I appreciate your submission regardless. Thanks for the effort! This isn’t so easy to do, and anyone participating gets my appreciation.) 

Special thanks to my diligent Facebook friends who already sent me stuff, and received my pedantic explanation of why it didn’t fit my criteria, which I had not yet laid out. You guys helped me figure out what my criteria were, and that was enormously helpful. 

SOME WORDS ABOUT MEMES

I hate memes, as I’ve said many times, and the logical fallacies that often sink them are part of the reason. Another reason is that a significant part of their content is non-verbal. It’s hard enough to call people on their bullshit when they express it in words. When pictures are used to indicate a premise, or a conclusion, the memer can later deny whatever I assume they meant. 

Memes are defined variously, to my annoyance. For the purposes of this project, a meme should be understood to be a picture with words on it, where the two are supposed to be working together to present a premise, argument, and conclusion. 

Example.

This meme shows that astronauts got haircuts while in space. The implied conclusion is that the space program is fraudulent. The implied premise is that astronauts can’t use scissors. (Note the clever wordplay of “astronots,” used by flat earthers because they believe astronauts are actors who are pretending they’ve been in space.) 

To be fair, I must point out that even some flat earthers identified the logical fallacy here. They continued to believe that astronauts are frauds, but they were relying on a mountain of other logical fallacies.