To: All Msg #128, May2593 06:22AM Subject: A few more fallacies. I've recently finished Da

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Jim Perry To: All Msg #128, May-25-93 06:22AM Subject: A few more fallacies... Organization: Decision Support Inc. From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) Message-ID: <1tta2oINNrlv@bozo.dsinc.com> Newsgroups: alt.atheism I've recently finished David Hackett Fischer's _Historians' Fallacies_ (long on my reading list but only recently got around to it). This book is essentially a long catalogue of fallacies, specifically addressed at historians (the subtitle is "Toward a Logic of Historical Thought"). While there are plenty of fallacy lists out there, there comes a point of diminishing returns in compiling lists of identified, named fallacies. Fischer discusses about 120, all interesting, but most either already covered in the FAQ or relatively specific to historiography (to the extent that history is a discussed here, the principles are sound and worth a read though). The final section of the book lists more general fallacies (ad hominem, etc.), and three of them caught my eye wrt alt.atheism, and I thought them worth proposing for the FAQ, or at least posting. Two are endemic in this newsgroup, and the third is to keep us honest. Aside from the capitalized headings in the style of the FAQ, these are quoted from Fischer. I have in mind examples for each of these, but have for now just posted the bare description. FALLACY OF QUIBBLING The *fallacy of quibbling* is a form of equivocation which involves two or more people in a single argumentative exchange. It occurs whenever the meaning of a term is changed as it changes hands, with a resultant argumentative distortion. BLACK-OR-WHITE FALLACY The *black-or-white fallacy* is a form of error which occurs in the misconstruction of vague terms--i.e. terms such as hot and cold, light and dark, good and bad, free and unfree, and right-wing and left-wing. There is no firm and fixed criterion for distinguishing between hot and cold, no sharp line which separates these two words, but an area of doubt between them. FALLACIST'S FALLACY The *fallacist's fallacy* consists in any of the following false propositions: 1. An argument which is structurally fallacious in some respect is therefore structurally fallacious in all respects. 2. An argument which is structurally false in some respect, or even in every respect, is therefore substantively false in its conclusion. 3. The appearance of a fallacy in an argument is an external sign of its author's depravity. 4. Sound thinking is merely thinking which is not fallacious. 5. Fallacies exist independent of particular purposes and assumptions. -- Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank