Skip to main content


 


The 10 Commandments of Logic


From an article by Caitlin Johnstone.

those are all gems! i have to use several of them often. begging the question and ad hom are the ones i notice the most. a lot of people can get very far just leaning on those.

I often get resistance when I ask people to give some support for their claims. That's a big red flag.

Can you offer some support for that claim? =))

That’s a big red flag.
And we see it VERY OFTEN in social media venues.

I like using number two and exaggerating things (not in honest debate, but online comments) because it's a fun one to play with...

@Foryouwhynot IB Psychologists have a term for people who like playing with number two. ;-)

I am guilty of #3 from time to time.
#

'
I think Caitlin is fairly clearly a propagandist first and foremost.

And no, that's not an ad hominem fallacy, it's a conclusion about her character from the nature of her output, which is the polar opposite, and not a fallacy at all.

To me, Assange doesn't seem to be worth defending. He seems to be a control-freak who doesn't give a shit about anyone whose name isn't Julian Assange.

I like @Peter Gilbert 's thing, but shouldn't it be longer, and 6 seems flawed. What if something is a dichotomy to begin with?

@Michael Rupp, are you s#itting me!? :-)

Yes. I thought it was obvious.
@Ted

Fact or fiction, on or off, 1 or zero... yes there could be exceptions to number 6... depends on the details.

People mainly love deduction because it allows them to fool themselves.

To actually get things right, we need evidence, and deduction doesn't handle evidence.

@Michael Rupp there are dichotomies that arent false. #6 only refers to false ones. "youre either with us or against us." "take it or leave it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

Right, but the rule is
"6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities."
but should get some rewrite like
"6. Thou shall not spuriously reduce the argument down to two possibilities."
or
"6. Thou shall not reduce complex multifaceted arguments down to two possibilities."
This entry was edited (3 months ago)

@Michael Rupp I agree that #6 is poorly stated. However, to quote Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject matter admits." In general, internet memes do not admit of either absolute precision or exhaustive completeness; this meme (which, as mentioned, I found in an article by Caitlin Johnstone) makes no pretension to either quality.

That's a "drop the mic" reply, Peter. I understand what you mean. The perspective of Shelenn bringing it into her Friendica environment added something to it because a side-project of hers is more ambitious than this meme. She started a thread about steering people towards rigorous sound thinking;

@Peter Gilbert that was awesome.

@Michael Rupp nice! imagine a community of intellectually honest people. it almost sounds like an episode of classic trek. and reinforcing intellectual honesty, rather than just using it as a brand for the groups agenda? even more amazing.

I once tweeted to Leonard Nimoy when he seemed down that I learned my morals as a child by watching their shows. It seemed to get him out of the funk he was in at the time.

ha, i think i learned mine from kirk.

@Trevor Schadt

although it is a constant problem, i try not to be hyperfocused on pointing out individual fallacies, as much as trends and endemics. this is why: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

i dont like to encourage that one. intellectual honesty is an art, and should be encouraged. its extremely difficult to enforce-- particularly in such a narcissistic culture.