Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...


Welcome! This is the place to ask the community of experts and other fallacyophites (I made up that word) if someone has a committed a fallacy or not. This is a great way to settle a dispute! This is also the home of the "Mastering Logical Fallacies" student support.


Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

  1. It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
  2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
  3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.

Contact Form



Send me a copy of this message
Send Message sending message...

Q&A Home Question

0

votes

image loading...
Yudhistira

Eager Newbie

image loading...

Yudhistira


Eager Newbie

About Yudhistira

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Sun, Nov 11, 2018 - 03:44 AM

If you can't handle this, then you can't handle that

I want to know whether or not this argument contains a logical fallacy: If you can't handle college problems, then you can't handle marriage problems either. So, don't marry anyone until you can handle your college problems.



Quick Comment On This Question (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the question owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

4 Answers

0

votes

image loading...
Abdulazeez Alabbasi

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

Abdulazeez Alabbasi


Seasoned Vet

About Abdulazeez Alabbasi

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Mon, Nov 12, 2018 - 02:00 AM
the say I see it, it either is a weak analogy or a non-sequitur.


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
Bo Bennett, PhD
Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

image loading...

Bo Bennett, PhD

Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

About Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime."  Much of his charitable work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think.  His projects include his book, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, and Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies.  Bo's personal blog is called Relationship With Reason, where he writes about several topics related to critical thinking.  His secular (humanistic) philosophy is detailed at PositiveHumanism.com.
Bo is currently the producer and host of The Humanist Hour, the official broadcast of the American Humanist Association, where he can be heard weekly discussing a variety of humanistic issued, mostly related to science, psychology, philosophy, and critical thinking.

Full bio can be found at http://www.bobennett.com
Print Sun, Nov 11, 2018 - 05:56 AM
It could be a weak analogy, but mostly I would just call it an unsubstantiated claim. It might be the case, but we need to know why this is the case. To any critical thinker, a mere assertion won't do.
Bo Bennett, PhD
Social Scientist, Business Consultant
Coaching / Consulting > https://tinyurl.com/coachingbybo
About My Businesses > http://www.archieboy.com
About Me > http://www.bobennett.com
Books I’ve Written > https://tinyurl.com/bosbooks
Courses I Teach > https://tinyurl.com/boscourses
Podcasts I Host > https://tinyurl.com/bospodcasts


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
skips777

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

skips777


Seasoned Vet

About skips777

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Sun, Nov 11, 2018 - 10:03 PM
Problems here is too ambiguous. One might say that staying faithful to your girlfriend is a college "problem"... It you can't stay faithful in college you can't in a marriage. The reasoning is a parallel but it's not logical to conclude one leads to another. I would say fallacy from ambiguity because "problems" is ambiguous


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
Michael Chase Walker
Screenwriter, producer, mythoclast

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

Michael Chase Walker

Screenwriter, producer, mythoclast

Seasoned Vet

About Michael Chase Walker

Michael Chase Walker is an actor, author, screenwriter, producer, and a former adjunct lecturer for the College of Santa Fe Moving Images Department, and Dreamworks Animation. His first motion picture was the animated classic, The Last Unicorn.
Michael was an in-house television writer for the hit television series: He-Man, She-Ra, Voltron, and V, the Series. In 1985, he was appointed Director of Children's programs for CBS Entertainment where he conceived, shaped and supervised the entire 1985 Saturday Morning line-up: Wildfire, Pee Wee's Playhouse, Galaxy High School, Teen Wolf, and over 10
Print Mon, Nov 12, 2018 - 11:44 AM
Lo and behold, Dr. Bo offers two excellent descriptions of this kind of fallacious reasoning. Pick your poison or perhaps a cocktail? Haha!

Non Sequitur
(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of], non-sequitur)

Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!
Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldn’t flood their houses.

Weak Analogy
(also known as: bad analogy, false analogy, faulty analogy, questionable analogy, argument from spurious similarity, false metaphor)

Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.

Logical Form:

X is like Y.
Y has property P.
Therefore, X has property P.
(but X really is not too much like Y)
Example #1:

Not believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus because the Bible has errors and contradictions, is like denying that the Titanic sank because eye-witnesses did not agree if the ship broke in half before or after it sank.
Explanation: This is an actual analogy used by, I am sorry to say, one of my favorite Christian debaters (one who usually seems to value reason and logic). There are several problems with this analogy, including:

The Titanic sank in recent history
We know for a fact that the testimonies we have are of eye-witnesses
We have physical evidence of the sunken Titanic
Example #2:

Believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus is like believing in the literal existence of zombies.
Explanation: This is a common analogy used by some atheists who argue against Christianity. It is a weak analogy because:

Jesus was said to be alive not just undead
If God is assumed, then God had a reason to bring Jesus (himself) back—no such reason exists for zombies
Zombies eat brains, Jesus did not (as far as we know)
Exception: It is important to note that analogies cannot be “faulty” or “correct”, and even calling them “good” or “bad” is not as accurate as referring to them as either “weak” or “strong”. The use of an analogy is an argument in itself, the strength of which is very subjective. What is weak to one person, is strong to another.

Tip: Analogies are very useful, powerful, and persuasive ways to communicate ideas. Use them -- just make them strong.


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

Registered User Comments



About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2018, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.