56 Anecdotal Evidence p2 (Atheism - Constructing a Logical Argument)
Description
This article is from the Atheism FAQ, by mathew meta@pobox.com with numerous contributions by others.
56 Anecdotal Evidence p2 (Atheism - Constructing a Logical Argument)
Argumentum ad misericordiam
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The
fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of
getting a conclusion accepted. For example:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't
find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."
Argumentum ad populum
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.
You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an
assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of
fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:
"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
"For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the
Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more
evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying
to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"
Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
For example:
"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital
punishment has a noticable deterrent effect. To suggest that it
doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous.
"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid
power, so there must be something to it."
Argumentum ad verecundiam
The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and
win support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument isn't always completely bogus; for example, it
may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a
particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we
can distinguish quite clearly between:
"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an
intelligent computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions
on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so
it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the
subject of machine intelligence.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
"For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ.
It must therefore be a good thing, for it to have persisted all
that time even in the face of persecution."
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the
fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it
is new, or newer than something else.
Argumentum ad crumenam
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness;
that those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite
of Argumentum ad Lazarum.
Argumentum ad lazarum
The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous
than someone who's wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the
Argumentum ad Crumenam.
Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be
true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is
heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant
repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over
again until you're sick of hearing it.
(On Usenet, your argument is often less likely to be heard if you
repeat it over and over again, as people will tend to put you in their
kill files.)
Continue to:
My Books
