 | Logical Fallacies And it's about damned time I finished it! *And no, Christopher Hitchens is not an alcoholic. You have to go to meetings to be an alcoholic. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ The "Confusing Association with Causation" fallacy is also called "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" but I'd already recorded the audio and didn't want to do it again. Also, it may be important to note that I took the liberty of naming the "House of Cards" fallacy myself. It may have another, more formal name elsewhere. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/driveout.html |
 | Logical Fallacies: Part 2 A second video of Logical fallacies that have been used in comments or Personal Messages. Everyone can do it. *Can God Create a Rock so Big that He cannot lift it? God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. - Matt Slick |
 | 500th Video - Logical Fallacies For more logical fallacies: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm |
 | Logical Fallacies AP English Project...Either-Or Choices & Ad Hominem |
 | Informal Logical Fallacies Here is a brief look at some common informal fallacies. The text sections are in 15-second durations. If that isn't enough time for easy reading, then you can download a PDF of the original slide-show at the following address: http://www.lessgovernment.com/files/BAD-LOGIC_informal_fallacies.pdf Alternatively, you might be better served by visiting some of the source sites below. SOURCES: The Fallacy Files http://www.fallacyfiles.org Miscellaneous Wikipedia Articles http://www.wikipedia.org The Autonomist - Logical Fallacies http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php The Ayn Rand Lexicon http://www.aynrandlexicon.com Bored Zhwazi's "Argument from Apocalypse" http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/08/statist-apocalypse.html MUSIC: "Strayaway Child" by the Chieftains "Rob Roy" by the Chieftains "In Death - Is Life" by Meshuggah |
 | An Argument of Logical Fallacies An Argument Comprised of Logical Fallacies |
 | Argumentation: The Language of Truth I think there's something for everyone in this. Here's the link to the pdf article on presuppositionalism: http://grove.ufl.edu/~aasa/witmer%20talk%201.pdf EDIT: I'm including another link on The New Rhetoric and Chaim Perelman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Perelman |
 | Refuting Theist Arguments - Begging the Question Refuting Theist Arguments -- Begging the Question One common argument used by many fundamentalist theists to try to prove the existence of their deity, or to try to prove that their holy book is the word of their deity, is a fallacy known as begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. For example, a Christian might say: "It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God's word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist." The problem with this argument is obvious to those of us who are familiar with basic principles of logic. The conclusion is that god exists, but to arrive at that conclusion the Christian already assumed that the bible is the word of god (i.e. assumed that god exists). Clearly this is a circular line of reasoning. Some reasons why many theists do not see the flaws in their reasoning are: -They have been indoctrinated into only believing their religion (i.e. they are blinded by their absolute conviction in their religion) -They are arguing from emotion and desire rather than an objective, logical position -They have been taught to believe in the word of their holy texts over logic, science, and reason (i.e. they have been brainwashed into thinking that logic cannot be trusted) To theists who try to prove the existence of their deity using their holy texts, or who try to prove that their holy texts are the word of their deity because the texts say so, now you know why your logic is fallacious and circular. |
 | Logical Fallacies five different logical fallacies and when to use them |
 | Rocketboom on Fallacies Evolution vs. peanut butter, Evolution vs. bananas, Laraque vs Ivanans, Bush vs. all people, Bush standing vs Bush standing, Don Imus vs. black people, Geraldo vs. Oreilly, mother vs. son, Rumsfield vs. evidence, Newt vs. all spanish people, list of logical fallacies from The Art of Reason, post hoc, appeal to majority, appeal to force, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, begging the question, diversion, non sequiter, subjectivism, straw man, false alternative, ad hominem, tu quoque, poisoning the well, appeal to ignorance, complex question |
| Oceanfrontier Hideaway | |
| Sheraton Suites Philadelphia Airport | |
| The Boulders Resort and Golden Door Spa | |
| Coral Beach Club |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
