Politically related fallacies

[Lynx]

In which forum can we discuss various fallacies?
(posted in OI, text copied from Wikipedia)

Package-deal fallacy
The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.

It is particularly common in political arguments: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those four positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in American politics, there is really no reason that one cannot believe in one "conservative" idea but not another.

The package deal fallacy refers to misuse of the and operator. For misuse of the or operator, see false dilemma.

False dilemma
The informal fallacy of false dilemma also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exists one or more other options which have not been considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Holden Caulfield]

American 'liberals' (we all know they are still right wing but they dont see it in themselves) supporting building a wall along their borders,

[Jazzratt]

American 'liberals' (we all know they are still right wing but they dont see it in themselves) supporting building a wall along their borders,

What the fuck has this got to do with the topic?

Anyway: I don't mind the fallacies topic being in here but it would probably do better in Learning or Philosophy (depending on how deeply you want to explore fallacies and which ones you want to explore.).

Anyway, on I've always found interesting and that gets used quite often here (closely related to the false dichotomy) is affirming the disjunct. (Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct)

[mikelepore]

"Affirming a disjunct" is a confusing name for a failure to be consistent about whether one is using the inclusive-or the exclusive-or. The wikipedia writer just makes it more confusing, as usual.

[Jazzratt]

"Affirming a disjunct" is a confusing name for a failure to be consistent about whether one is using the inclusive-or the exclusive-or. The wikipedia writer just makes it more confusing, as usual.

Affirming a disjunct is just the phrase for it, it's not an exclusive "wikipedia word".

[jake williams]

Package-deal fallacy
The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.

It is particularly common in political arguments: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those four positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in American politics, there is really no reason that one cannot believe in one "conservative" idea but not another.
This whole phenomenon is one I'm quite interested in, and not just for totally academic reasons, it's quite important. I've come to the conclusion that it's probably a quite complex arrangement of psychological, sociological and historical factors that lead to this sort of dichotomy - and we have to acknowledge that there are broad trends towards this sort of bifurcation in American politics, which lead to the popular perception of "two possible political opinions" being, while wildly incorrect, still nevertheless based in some fact.


Affirming a disjunct is just the phrase for it, it's not an exclusive "wikipedia word".
Yeah this stuff is all from what's called the study of logic. These things have quite formal definitions. Admittedly, Wiki articles on various technical subjects are as good as inaccessible to most of the population, but this is a tricky issue not easily solved.

[pusher robot]

Point of order: is this thread for listing our "favorite" fallacies or for discussion of the specific fallacies listed in the OP?

[mikelepore]

One thing that I find so interesting -- organized religion seems to be a combination of every available fallacy. This proposition must be true because it says so in an old book (authority); this proposition must be true because it would be comforting if it were true (consequences); this proposition must be true because you can't prove that it's untrue (ad ignorantiam); this proposition must be true because those who say it's untrue will be punished (ad baculum), etc. Religion almost seems to have the appearance of someone having packaged together every available way that a person might think incorrectly and then calling their result What We Believe!

[jake williams]

Point of order: is this thread for listing our "favorite" fallacies or for discussion of the specific fallacies listed in the OP?
Strictly speaking I think it's asking where we can discuss these things.

[mikelepore]

I didn't mean to imply that the wikipedia writer made up the name, only that I was confused by the way it was described there. But it's really a simple idea. It's a special case of the fallacy of ambiguity, where the word that one is being ambiguous about happens to be "or".

[Lynx]

Point of order: is this thread for listing our "favorite" fallacies or for discussion of the specific fallacies listed in the OP?
It would be to discuss specific fallacies that affect the development of political movements. The two I mentioned are ones that first come to mind, based on observation of these and other forums.

[mikelepore]

Here's a magazine article that I wrote in 1990, on the subject of fallacies used by defenders of capitalism, critics of socialism.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=ar000001

[Dean]

Anyway, on I've always found interesting and that gets used quite often here (closely related to the false dichotomy) is affirming the disjunct. (Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct)

I think that's very interesting, because it deals solely with the definition of the term "or." I don't think it is usually wrong to assume mutual exclusivity, because it is usually the case that mutually exclusive cases are obvious, and those which are not mutually exclusive are explained as such.

For instance, "I know that dean or john will be at work today" implies that both possibilities can occur at once, whereas "it will snow or it will rain here" implies exclusivity. Furthermore, most ambiguous cases are given a modifier which explains if it is exlusive or not: "I will be either late or early" / "I will be sad and / or melancholy." While the former, strictly speaking, doesn't literally stipulate mutual exclusivity, it implies it in a well-understood phrase.

So my point is that the "fallacy" is more a case of linguistic literalism than it is referencing any real thought fallacies. It is almost always clear what someone is saying when they use "or," and when it's not, it is usually not relevant to the point.

[mikelepore]

The other binary operator, "and", can also be ambiguous. For example, the 8th amendment of the U.S. constitution says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Does a punishment have to be both cruel and unusual to be prohibited, or does the article prohibit cruel punishments and also prohibit unusual punishments? That's is unclear. Lawyers have argued one side or the other in court. Sentences of community service instead of prison seemed more more humane, but some people initially said that it wouldn't be permitted because it was unusual. Eventually allowing it meant that being one or the other, being cruel or unusual, wasn't enough to prohibit a court from use of a penalty, that a penalty would only be prohibited if it was both cruel and also unusual. But that produces more problems. It also implies that a traditional punishment that people later come to realize is cruel can't be banned on that basis alone; someone would say that it's allowed because it's also usual.

[Tungsten]

Here's a magazine article that I wrote in 1990, on the subject of fallacies used by defenders of capitalism, critics of socialism.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=ar000001

This may have had some relevence, were it not for the fact that socialism and socialists are guilty of using pretty much all of the fallacies listed there.

[Jazzratt]

This may have had some relevence, were it not for the fact that socialism and socialists are guilty of using pretty much all of the fallacies listed there.

Stop making troll posts and fuck off. I liked this site without you.

[Tungsten]

Stop making troll posts and fuck off.
Speak for yourself. What exactly have you added to the debate?

If you have a problem with what I've just said, post a counter argument like everyone else.