To start us off...maybe we can start thinking for ourselves a bit????
[b]Argumentum ad populum (Bandwagon Fallacy)[/b] The bandwagon fallacy works by having someone conform beliefs that are based on the popularity of their position. People who use this fallacy will attribute the popularity of their belief to also be validation to its truthfulness. Instead of conforming their belief based on evidence, they will instead be convinced that if the majority of people believe something to be true, then it must therefore be true.
Example: Sam: Why are you a Christian?
Julian: Well, there are over 2 billion Christians in the world. How can all those people be wrong? I'd rather side with the majority than with a fringe group of nonbelievers.
(Disclaimer: there is NO argument about any faith, including Christianity, this is not a slight on the Faith, just an example used: Justreplace with Muslim or Atheist or Jewish...thanks)
[quote]The bandwagon fallacy works by having someone conform beliefs that are based on the popularity of their position[/quote]So true in many ways. I see it here often as well. I think it must be easier for most humans to go with the flow versus standing independent and holding to their own convictions. Plus they want to be liked and accepted by who/what they perceive as popular.
The man made climate change has to be near the top of the list, another is the "woke" crowd. Who doesnt want to be "awake", right? Believe all that we tell you and we will consider you..."awoken". Ha ha ha ha...but back to the climate thing. You'll hear some say "Its proven science"...really? According to the "top scientists" we were entering an ice age a few years ago? Earth was 77,000 years old, then a few million, then a few hundred million, then 3 or 4 billion. It was flat at one time according to the "experts". The universe revolved around the Earth. The Milky Way was the universe...and on and on. Hey, everyone gets it wrong once in a while, but you have to admit it when you are. When you're a lemming, it may be in your own best interest to look around and think for yourself. "Awoke"...ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha...
Then, one of my favorites, used ALL the time, really muddies up the conversation and used to NOT discuss any evidence or accept testimony of those who do not wish to share their evidence...just criticism and attempt at intimidation.
[b] The Tu quoque Fallacy[/b] The tu quoque fallacy (Latin for "you also") is [b]an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism -- but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim. [/b]
In the example below, Lola makes a claim. Instead of presenting evidence against Lola's claim, [u]John levels a claim against Lola.[/u] This attack doesn't actually help John succeed in proving Lola wrong, since [u]he doesn't address her original claim in any capacity.[/u]
Example: Lola: I don't think John would be a good fit to manage this project, because he doesn't have a lot of experience with project management.
John: But you don't have a lot of experience in project management either!
And at the same time a scientific consensus bases on data vetted by peer review is not the same as the masses agreeing on something because it seems everyone else is agreeing.
Group think applies to any group of 2 or more. Proven fact, because I don’t have a degree or a want to be the boss people assume I haven’t read and studied various things. Doesn’t mean I haven’t read several books that include the topic
Unfortunately, on the Internet, logical fallacies have become cards that get played fallaciously. Some people treat them like a legalistic way to effortlessly shutdown critics, like if you invoke the name of a fallacy, curtly omitting any justification for that invocation, you win the argument.
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP You had the first part right...🤭 I'm only trying to point out the FAILED ATTEMPTS to communicate with the logical fallacies (and there are many) that have been identified.
The only logical thing to do is to dissect the "logical fallacy" and not fall into the trap of using one, like Ad Hominem to criticize me for bringing up the topic.
I don't see winning or losing an argument. I do see that if one doesn't enter the conversation then criticizes it anyway, they are the loser. [b] NO ONE wins, unless EVERY ONE WINS.[/b]
