Talk:Common logical fallacies

This article is a first attempt to catalog some of the common named logical fallacies used in the community. The idea is to have a single reference point for when someone says, "That's the bait fallacy," or, "You're drawing the line at your own heels," newcomers will have a place to go to receive a bit more information about what exactly the argument is. It should also help to make certain common discussions more brief by providing a shorthand way to refer to points already known to the community.

I focused primarily on arguments which I either use frequently or coined myself, since obviously, I'll be more acquainted with those. My hope is that other people will step in and add other common named arguments to the list. My intention is that we not use an article of this kind to actually coin new arguments, but merely to catalog those which are already in common use in the community, but obviously, the Wiki editors as a whole will have to determine what direction the article will ultimately take.

On a side note, especially on the names I coined, there are specific posts in which those expressions were first used and it would be a good idea to eventually link to those posts. At the moment, due to my ongoing access issues, I can't find them easily, but hopefully with time we'll be able to locate all of them, as well as references for any new ones which are added.

out of context?

You got me a bit confused with the "Attack of the X-Year-Olds" which involves, a)"a generalized statement" combined with, b) an "absurdly young age" and c) an "out-of-context act". You bring two examples to illustrate this fallacy:

• a) allowing gifted children to enter the university at early ages

with

• b) four-year-olds
• c) to perform at a university level

and

• a) lowering or elimination of the age of consent

with

• b) two-year-olds
• c) having anal sex

I don't see however how in both examples (and especially in the first) c) is an "out-of-context" act in connection with a). I argue that performing at a university level is very much in context with allowing someone to enter university and a sex act (anal sex is still a sex act like many others) is very much in context with allowing someone to legally have sex.

Perhaps you could explain why you label these acts as "out-of-context" acts? Kes 04:20, 26 October 2006 (EST)

"Out of context" with respect to a specific argument, not necessarily with respect to the concept as a whole. In other words, if I take someone's statement that he wishes to lower the age of consent and respond that he wants two-year-olds to have anal sex, I'm taking him out of context: there is no demonstrable correlation between an age of consent law and two-year-olds having anal sex. One would assume that there are many other reasons why two-year-olds wouldn't have anal sex that have nothing to do with the age of consent law. The same applies to allowing gifted children to enter college: eliminating a minimum age for university attendence is not very likely to result in four-year-olds in freshman courses because there are many other reasons why a four-year-old would not likely end up enrolled. To take a single act combined with a single age and use that as a refutation of a larger argument is taking it out of context; the original argument was never about four-year-olds (or two-year-olds) doing those acts but instead about the larger framework in which children of any age may or may not be able to do those acts.

I realize that this is probably not made very clear from my original characterization, but I was going for brevity with some abstract concepts, never a good idea. Feel free to help me out on clarification if a better wording occurs to you. --Dylan Thomas 14:47, 27 October 2006 (EST)

My point did not consider the use of b) but the use of c). Using extremely young ages as examples is a good way to discredit an argument, I agree, but I argue that c) seen alone and without the b) is very much in context and in relevance and in correlation with a). If you make laws that would let boys of any age to enter the university many will do make use of these laws. They might not be two year olds but many many boys will do. In both examples c) is a direct consequence of a) so, taken b) apart, I don't see how they are "out of context". Kes 04:00, 28 October 2006 (EST)