On 6/10/2019 at 10:05 AM, william.scherk said:

I think I am most prone to N1, N4, O4 and O5. 

N1 -- Appeal to Emotion
N4 -- No True Scotsman
O4 -- Black or White
O5 -- Middle Ground

Quote

New cards!

Here is a fallacy bingo example card, from a place that might offer a better game than the ones shared so far. This collaborative effort-hawking website invites putative  'players' to contact them, so I did, in hopes I would get to play the underlying 'learning game' with my own fresh randomly-populated card.

It's a bit of a puzzle what each of those pictographs is denoting. I can pick maybe three, and definitely want to know what O1 means.

On 5/14/2017 at 2:11 PM, jts said:

On 5/14/2017 at 11:43 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

that is quite a list.  add to it one of the most common errors --- confirmation bias, wherein one ignores any evidence contrary to one's supposition and only looks for conforming evidence. It is not exactly a fallacy,  but it is a flaw in one's thinking.

One example of confirmation bias, which in this case you and most people probably would regard as correct thinking, is a case of a woman who got rid of a tumor by a 24 day fast. She went back to the doctor who diagnosed the tumor and he confirmed that the tumor was gone. But he was (like most doctors) opposed to fasting and thought it was a stupid thing to do and refused to believe that the tumor autolyzed. He said it was a mix up.

Here we have a conflict between a fact and a theory. The fact was the tumor autolyzed during the fast. The theory was tumors can't autolyze. Ordinarily facts trump theories; facts rule, theories serve; in any conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong.

Perhaps this was an exception, where the fact was false and the medical theory contrary to the fact was true.

It's really hard to say since this names no names and offers no means to gain further detail of the "case."  Can the woman answer a few questions?

If not, are there any illicit argumentative moves in Jerry's note? 

I hope this isn't some feint of marketing, whereinafter I offer my own nose for the ring.

On 6/10/2019 at 7:01 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Where is the square for being dumb enough to get sucked into spending over two years supporting a conspiracy theory and coup against a duly-elected President of the United States, believing that our Cold War foe had stolen the election?

Something as complicated enough to be named a theory may be rife with fallacies -- especially in the more loony Menshist fringes. The Mueller report indicates what the FBI claims with regard to 'interference' in the 2016 election. A black and white fallacy might be operant in assuming only two poles of possibilities are in play: former foes 'steals' an election versus muh Russia.  

In other words, given some details we can pick the hell out of weird leftist fantasies. I've cited Mike Rothschild and QAnon Anonymous for explorations of a few details of the lurid crap imagined by the out-there theorists. What cite ye?  

-- here is another 'get "random" bingo card' for Fallacy Bingo. This one lets you add to the short-list of fallacies (and offers a place to add notes in the spreadsheet, definitions and examples and so on). It also lets you print each fresh Bingo Card for the process. 

I am showing the steps in images but anyone can go visit and get their own card or cards. These might be handy in the CC/GW 'how the fuck did we get here?' thread ...

The website URL from which you download the Excel-document spreadsheet is http://perplexedorder.blogspot.com/p/fallacy-bingo.html

Example sheet I opened with my open-source OpenOffice spreadsheet reader. Most everyone will have a native Windows ability to open and edit the list of fallacies, which triggers a change in the random draw for the card.

I answered Peter's lighthearted misunderstanding, but forgot to credit Tony ...

On 6/10/2019 at 9:05 AM, anthony said:

On 6/9/2019 at 10:27 AM, Peter said:

"Friends and foes" is a logical fallacy. You can't be a friend and a foe at the same time. "Friends or foes" makes more sense. And 

I really like the poem I guess this comes from:

"My candle burns at both ends,

It will not last the night;

But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--

It gives a lovely light!"

Edna St. Vincent Millay 1892-1950

(Saw GHS once mention it favorably, too)

My usage is pretty much descriptive, perhaps historical in retrospect. The sliding volume-mixer style control of language means that somewhere in between absolute Foe and absolute Friend and the nullity of absolutely Disinterested is a nice ratio.

But I actually meant where friendly-ish forum members in social terms (as we once were, more or less, on OL) can be mild to Louisiana-hot-sauce fierce foes in terms of stance, advocacy, argument, philosophy, politics, mores, 'Oughts' and so on. One can have a mixed group, some friends, some foes, some in alliance, some not, some neutral-ish, some less-so. Least fallacies, most reason?

And then that dang near invisible cohort, the Silent Reader.  I once in a while wonder just who the heck are all these OL guest visitors and what they might each think of the day-to-day, year-to-year they have witnessed.

Just a benign example of 'voices in my head.'  If you can't have an argument with yourself, who can you have an argument with?

--I printed this one out, and am going to print out another after I add some of my own bad-habit fallacy fails from the recent past (>2015), with perhaps a drag or trawl net for more aged-in-emotion examples of WSS doing the things he latterly professes to 'hate.'  Could be dire, could be fun.