Logical Fallacy

[Canoro Philipp]

i found a website today ( http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com ) that it might be very useful for some, we may be manipulated with these logical fallacies, or we may use those logical fallacies without realizing, so im gonna share with you here this information for the ones who prefer not to click outside the forums.

-----------------------------------------------

A logical fallacy is usually what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It's a flaw in reasoning. They're like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people.

 

STRAWMAN

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one's own position because it brings your credibility into question - if you're willing to misrepresent your opponent's argument in the negative, might you also be willing to exaggerate your own in the positive?

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

 

FALSE CAUSE

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

One such mistake in thinking is the '**bleep** hoc ergo propter hoc' (with this, therefore because of this) fallacy in which someone presumes that because things are happening together that one thing is therefore the cause of the other. The mistake lies in ignoring the possibility that there may be a common cause to both things happening, or, as per the example below, that the two things in question have no causal relationship at all, and their apparent connection is just a coincidence. Another common variation is the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy in which a causal connection is assumed because one thing happens prior to another thing happening, therefore the second thing must be caused by the first thing.

Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.

 

APPEAL TO EMOTION

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.

Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all.

 

THE FALLACY FALLACY

Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.

There are few things more frustrating than watching someone poorly argue a position one holds. Much of the time a debate is won not because the victor is right, but because s/he is better at debating than their opponent. If we're to be honest and rational, we must be mindful to not jump to the conclusion that just because someone made a mistake in their defence of an argument, it doesn't necessarily follow that the argument itself is wrong.

Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because it was popular, Alyse resolved to eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

 

SLIPPERY SLOPE

You made out like if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and Bonobo monkeys.

 

AD HOMINEM

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes. The desired result of an ad hom attack is to undermine one's opponent without actually having to engage with their argument or present a compelling argument of one's own.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

 

TU QUOQUE

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off the accused having to defend themselves and shifts the focus back onto the accuser themselves. The implication is that if one's opponent also does the thing that they are accused of, then their opponent is a hypocrite. Irrespective of whether this might be true or not, the problem lies in the fact that it is effectively a tactic to avoid recognising and responding to the criticism of one's argument - by turning it back on the accuser, the accused doesn't need to answer the accusation.

Example: The blue candidate accused the red candidate of committing the tu quoque fallacy. The red candidate responded by accusing the blue candidate of the same, after which ensued an hour of back and forth criticism with not much progress.

 

PERSONAL INCREDULITY

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.

Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

 

SPECIAL PLEADING

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.

Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his 'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

 

LOADED QUESTION

You asked a question that had an assumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.

Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot. Not only is this fallacy a kind of appeal to emotion, it also insidiously frames the argument in a misleading way, like a pre-emptive strawman fallacy.

Example: Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a drug habit.

 

BURDEN OF PROOF

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

 

AMBIGUITY

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

 

THE GAMBLER´S FALLACY

You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.

This commonly believed fallacy can be fairly said to have created an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a 'big run' happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren't influenced by what happened before.

Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering a kind of economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.

 

BANDWAGON

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate people's popular belief.

Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they're only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.

 

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

You used the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument.

It is important to note with this fallacy that authorities in given fields may very well have valid arguments, and that one should not dismiss another's experience and expertise; however, to form an argument one must defend it on its merits i.e. know why the person in authority holds the particular position that they do. It is, of course, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority may be entirely wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing with regard to whether something they say is true or not.

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).

 

COMPOSITION/DIVISION

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

 

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

 

GENETIC

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

 

BLACK-OR-WHITE

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens' rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.

 

BEGGING THE QUESTION

You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. The problem with this way of thinking is that it is internally inconsistent: circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

 

APPEAL TO NATURE

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, or ideal.

Just because something is natural does not mean that it's good. For instance murder is very natural, but most of us agree that we don't think it's a very good thing to be doing, nor does its 'naturalness' constitute any kind of justification for it. Similarly human beings have naturally lived for around 30-40 years of age for most of history, but thanks to modern medicine, hygiene, and better understanding of the world around us, we now live for approximately twice as long in developed countries.

Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics.

 

ANECDOTAL

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

 

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER

You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

This 'false cause' fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it look appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship.

Example: The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.

 

MIDDLE GROUND

You made out like a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.

Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.

Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that maybe vaccinations cause some autism, just not all autism.

[Alazarin Mondrian]

Thanks... I copied it into a text file for reference. And you'd be surprised at how often they turn up in everyday discussion!

[Medhue Simoni]

Kudos Canoro! If people were taught these things in school, we'd have many less morons in the world. Plus, alot less corruption, as almost all majorly corrupted entities use these fallacies to take advantage of people and to cover up their crimes.

 

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that maybe vaccinations cause some autism, just not all autism.

---

 OMG, your last example is soo very bad tho. For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I.

Another thing to add would be that autism is only a diagnoses of a set of symptoms. The difference between 2 autistic people can be extremely different, hence it is more like guessing and has very little actual provable science that some1 is or is not autistic. When you see it for all of it's attributes, it would be extremely easy to "semi prove" almost anything about autism. This is not science, it is blind men searching for reasons to make themselves feel better about their flawed science.

This is the tricky thing about science. You can't just read the paper and believe what the headline says. You have to dig, and look at the study. Most of these studies that "prove" this or that about autism have serious flaws that any real scientist would easily see. The public doesn't look that deep, and generally think themselves are too dumb to understand it anyways. The first things you have to look at with any study is how big the group was, then you have to see who funded the study.

It is also worth noting that Thimerisol, which is a preservative for vaccines, was removed voluntarily by the drug companies. Many hosptial and clinics stocked vaccines by the thousands and even today, you can still find Thimerisol in vaccines. All injectable flu vaccines still use thimerisol, as these are so mass produced and distributed around the world that the drug companies would lose way too much money to remove it from those. If you dig deep into even public disclosures, when Thimerisol was first tested and used, you will have little doubt about the adverse side effects of that poison and it's connection to autism.

[Canoro Philipp]

you are right that autism is a set of characteristics in different percentages making every autist different from the other, and maybe the array of characteristics must be studied separately, in many cases that set of characteristics shows together, maybe thats the reason that they included them in a single package called "autism".

i dont believe much that autism is caused by a vaccine, if that were so, there would be no reports of people having autism before the chemical was introduced, and also, if the growth of the number of autists increased at the same time than the use of the chemical, it doesnt prove that theres a connection, autism could have been caused by other factor, it may be have been a casuality that both increased, as many things increased too, like the use of cars.

[Medhue Simoni]

Well, autism is an extremely wide spectrum, which is really unprecidented in medicine. Pervasive Developmental Disorder(PSD) is just 1 in the wide spectrum that I'm most familiar with. And, actually, as I said before, there is no provable test that any1 is autistic. So, based on this, all accounts of numbers going up or down is not science at all. Including those made by the people that think vaccine causes it. Also, this being without any doubt true, it would be impossible to say that any1 is or was accurately diagnosed as autistic before thimerisol was introduced. I'm around autistics every single day, which most are obviously extremely similar in all their actions and problems. I have yet to see any person older than the people I see everyday acting anything close to how these people act. Of course, this is only my observation, but it also coincides with every single things I've ever studied about this. So, saying that there were autistics before, is extremely misleading.

I do not discount that there are other factors at play. What every individual needs to understand is that there are serious consequences to being injected with what is in vaccines. These are rarely ever discussed. Injecting things into your body is very unnatural to your body and avoids many of the obstacles that your body has in place for any other kind of delivery system. Many of these consequences can be avoided by doing simple tests, which are never done, unless you ask for it and pay for it.

Anytime you bring things to light that destroys some1's current paradyme, there will be a push back, I only ask that people do as much research as they can about the subject and keep an open mind that what you been told all your life can very easily, not be true. Especially when you learn it from the TV, which is strictly a propaganda machine, hence why the shows are called programs.

[Medhue Simoni]

I apologize for turning your otherwise great thread into a breif autism debate. There are many very good videos on Youtube that will illustrate some of my points.

 

This next doctor has the most extensive video that I've ever scene on autism and mercury. It was a conference he gave. I could not find that video, but here is a short video of him talking about the blood brain barrier.

 

 

[VRprofessor]

Sadly many of the logical fallacies that we experience are pretty well hard wired into the brain. Even folks who study decision making and understand these fallacies more deeply than most find themselves making many of them at one time or another.

Gerd Gigerenzer why our brains tend to work that way in Gut Feelings, which is highly readable.

 Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is a nice introduction to how our brains actually think (not rationally) and discusses some of the resulting problems.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Hiya, Medhue:

I won't have time to watch all of the first video you linked, but let me give my impression of the first few minutes of it.

At 3:59 there is a chart showing the rise of Autism, which has skyrocketed since 1990 (I recall seeing 1990 mentioned as a pivot point in other discussions of this topic). If mercury is to blame, why did it wait until 1990 to start having a pronounced effect on the population? We've been injecting it since the 1930s. If one wishes to argue that mercury is responsible for the ramp from 1990 to 2000 (what's happened since?) the devil in me wants to suggest that's also an argument for mercury's sentience ;-).

At 4:22 "And these are disorders which COULD  be due to Mercury" and then the Dr. goes on to list a panoply of things which are biologically plausible effects of mercury exposure, not things which have been shown to result from mercury exposure. He then says "And the quoted numbers are an underestimation by perhaps as much as 2/3". All this is offered glibly, without proof, as if the sheer size of the numbers is proof that mercury is to blame.

At 5:00 there is a list of "acceptible" mercury levels from other sources, such as water, fish and toxic waste. The safe level for water is listed as 2ppb. The average person drinks about 15,000 gallons of water over a lifetime and by age six, maybe 250 gallons or about 1000Kg. The "safe" mercury level for fish is around 1000 ppb and the average person eats 8kg/year. Kids probably eat much less, lets say 250g/yr (half a pound)  for a kid who'll eat those icky fish sticks).

The average thimersosal preserved vaccine dose is 0.5cc and the typical six year old gets 21 shots by that age.

So the total mercury load for a six year old, consuming from the listed sources is...

Water
1000Kg x 2ppb = 2mg

Fish
250g x 6 yrs x 1000ppb) = 3mg

Vaccines
0.5g x 21 x 50,000ppb =  1.05mg

He then goes on to compare the transient mercury loads of vaccines to the EPA chronic exposure limits. Perhaps the doctor is suggesting that transient mercury loads are relatively more toxic than chronic loads, but the research says otherwise. Even ignoring that research, the total loads for various sources are MUCH closer in magnitude than the doctor suggests.

By ignoring the magnitudes of the ingested quantities of various sources and listing only the PPB numbers (which are intended to elicit gasps from the audience), the doctor exposes his own innumeracy. By ignoring the differences between transient and chronic exposure, the doctor ignores a great deal of research that shows the effects are not the same.

I don't suppose the first few minutes of that first video has given me any appreciation for the good doctor's motives, but his statistics and logic are flawed. It is so very easy for us to fool ourselves. Our brains are wired to find patterns and causes, whether they exist or not. When life was as simple as avoiding predators and outwitting prey, that wiring worked well enough. As we dig deeper into the complexities of nature, that wiring becomes an obstacle to understanding.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Ahh, philosophy, time for me to stick my oar in then.  Apologies Medhue, but I'm going to use your posts as examples of how easy it is to commit these errors.  Please note that I'm not conducting an ad hominem attack on you or using the fallacy fallacy to discredit your arguments.

 

• STRAWMAN - OMG, your last example is soo very bad tho [Except that it isn't how it's used]
• FALSE CAUSE - accurately diagnosed as autistic before thimerisol was introduced [Or afterwards, so you say]
• APPEAL TO EMOTION - there are serious consequences to being injected [like not getting a fatal disease]
• THE FALLACY FALLACY - This is not science, it is blind men [but, but, but ...]
• AD HOMINEM - the drug companies would lose way too much money [As well as ...]
• PERSONAL INCREDULITY - I have yet to see [Have a look]
• SPECIAL PLEADING - I'm around autistics every single day [i know what you mean, but you've just been saying there's no definition of 'autistic']
• BURDEN OF PROOF - For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked [Can't prove a negative]
• AMBIGUITY - hence why the shows are called programs [i laughed with you at that one]
• APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - There are many very good videos on Youtube [Without relevance or explanation]
• NO TRUE SCOTSMAN - all credible science [so any contrary science is not credible]
• GENETIC - Especially when you learn it from the TV [Fas est et ab hoste doceri (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ovid)]
• BEGGING THE QUESTION - the adverse side effects of that poison [Digitalis is a poison, it is legitimately used in medicine]
• APPEAL TO NATURE - Injecting things into your body is very unnatural [so is surgery]
• ANECDOTAL - Of course, this is only my observation [My observation differs]
• MIDDLE GROUND - there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out [Either the link is vaccines or it isn't]

More to come

[PeterCanessa Oh]

The reason fallacies are important - apart from the pure logic of the thing, of course - is that they make it very hard to see what the arguments are, let alone the validity of any evidence for or against.  This is why they are used deliberately by 'professional liars' such as lawyers and politicians.  We think of them as 'liars' (generally) because they are paid to put a particular case and, when the evidence fails to prove their point, they descend to the fallacies to make things appear more convinving.

Here is what I believe Medhue was saying put in the best light I can manage: "A very wide range of symptoms is included under the term 'autism' but there is no general agreement on a definitive diagnosis of 'autistic'.  Studies and beliefs which claim to apply to all autism are therefore at best deeply flawed.  It is important when considering such studies to look at both the size and selection of the group studied and what the 'scientists' were being paid to prove.  Amongst the group that I have studied, none were diagnosed before thimerisol was used as a preservative for vaccines.  I do not doubt the poisonous effects of this chemical and believe it is linked to some of the symptoms displayed by my group.  Despite being withdrawn from a number of products thimerisol is, however, still widely used by hospitals and clinics."

In contrast:

Here is the anti-science rant, for Luddites: "Blind men feeling bad about their flawed science make up lies about vaccines causing autism even though they don't even know what 'autism' means.  I do because I work with autistic people and they all got it because of the unnatural, poisonous, thimerisol which was injected into their bodies to make money for the drug companies.  Anyone who doesn't agree has been brainwashed by the TV".  [NB:  I stress this is NOT what I think Medhue said, just how it could be interpreted thanks to the fallacies]

Here is the pro-thimerisol argument for politicians: "That vaccines cause autism is a lie.  Any science that appears to show a link has depended on other factors.  Non-scientists have mis-used the wide spectrum of symptoms known as 'autism' to make claims which do not take all the attributes into account.  In particular hospitals, clinics and drug companies all agree that vaccines can prevent fatal diseases.  Completely withdrawing the use of thimerisol, a presevative, would be expensive and pointless." [Most definitely not what I think Medhue meant]

And the logical suicide note, for fun: "You'd have to be mad to believe a science paper because the people who wrote them are all liars.  I'm mad so I believe some of them.  You'd have to be mad to say you know something about 'autism' because there isn't even a definition of what it is.  I'm mad so I know something about it.  One of the things I know about it is that the TV told me thimerisol causes autism, and all the people I work with agree.  Hospitals don't, but they're mad because I've spoken to them (the buidlings, not the people)."

etc.

It is very hard to write a totally logical piece of text.  Any illogical text can be misunderstood or attacked.  Join us in scripting :-)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Ahh, philosophy, time for me to stick my oar in then.  Apologies Medhue, but I'm going to use your posts as examples of how easy it is to commit these errors.  Please note that I'm not conducting an ad hominem attack on you or using the fallacy fallacy to discredit your arguments.

 

• STRAWMAN - 
  OMG, your last example is soo very bad tho [Except that it isn't how it's used]
• FALSE CAUSE - a
  ccurately diagnosed as autistic before thimerisol was introduced [Or afterwards, so you say]
• APPEAL TO EMOTION - 
  there are serious consequences to being injected [like not getting a fatal disease]
• THE FALLACY FALLACY - 
  This is not science, it is blind men [but, but, but ...]
• AD HOMINEM - the drug companies would lose way too much money [As well as ...]
• PERSONAL INCREDULITY - 
  I have yet to see [Have a look]
• SPECIAL PLEADING - 
  I'm around autistics every single day
  [i know what you mean, but you've just been saying there's no definition of 'autistic']
• BURDEN OF PROOF - For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked [Can't prove a negative]
• AMBIGUITY - 
  hence why the shows are called programs
  [i laughed with you at that one]
• APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - There are many very good videos on Youtube [Without relevance or explanation]
• NO TRUE SCOTSMAN - all credible science [so any contrary science is not credible]
• GENETIC - 
  Especially when you learn it from the TV
  [
  Fas est et ab hoste doceri (
  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ovid
  )
  ]
• BEGGING THE QUESTION - the adverse side effects of that poison [Digitalis is a poison, it is legitimately used in medicine]
• APPEAL TO NATURE - 
  Injecting things into your body is very unnatural [so is surgery]
• ANECDOTAL - 
  Of course, this is only my observation [My observation differs]
• MIDDLE GROUND - there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out [Either the link is vaccines or it isn't]

More to come

---

Peter, I have been blessed (in the non supernatural sense of the word ;-) with a facility for remembering numbers, or at least the general scales of them. I actually do have some understanding of million, billion, etc (within varying contexts). I also have a crude, but serviceable understanding of the basic sciences and some handy numbers, such as world population, etc. As a result of this, I am unable to get through a day without feeling assaulted by the most glaring logical inconsistencies.

Twenty years ago, my girlfriends went on a minor rampage dissing California's "valley girls" when it was reported in the local newspaper that Californians were the recipients of 10% of US breast implants. It was illuminating to see the reaction when, immediately upon hearing this, I replied that the number seemed extraordinary, as California was home to more than 10% of American women. Most of my friends dismissed my rebuttal and continued to accuse valley girls of vanity, even though the statistic there were citing as proof (which was likely wrong) proved the opposite.

That remains one of my most memorable examples of how strongly we cling to our misconceptions. I am certain I am not immune.

ETA: I am usually delighted when my misconceptions are revealed to me... usually.

[Innula Zenovka]

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

...10% of US breast implants. It was illuminating to see the reaction when, immediately upon hearing this, I replied that the number seemed extraordinary, as California was home to

more

than 10% of American women...

---

Excellent example :-)  A couple of years ago my daughter was chosen for a 'critical thinking' class and we'd spend the evenings happily ripping-apart the statements of politicians (including activists' who consider themselves anti-politicians), lawyers, advertisers and PR people.  Oh how we laughed.  Oh how we cried at how few people even cared about the meaning of what people said, let alone the truth of what they meant.

And for yours - In companies working Monday to Friday, 40% of sick days are taken immediately before or after a weekend.

[ETA: Innula - also perfect :-)]

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

It is very hard to write a totally logical piece of text.  Any illogical text can be misunderstood or attacked.  Join us in scripting :-)

---

Yep, I can't write totally logical text. It's difficult and not much fun. For better or worse, I tend to form opinions slowly. On subjects such as global warming or mercury in vaccines, I understand that the discussion is complex scientifically, economically and politically. So I apply various (flawed, I presume) filters to the myriad bits of information that come my way over time, in an attempt to get at the underlying truth of the thing.

I have, for the last week, been writing absurd entries in Hippies "What happened in History on this date..." thread. I'd hoped for fawning adulation for my sense of humor, but it hasn't come. Upon prodding a few friends for some appreciation, I was told they thought I was serious and skimmed over me. So, while writing totally logical text is difficult, it's hardly necessary if you simply wish to be taken seriously.

;-)

[Ann Otoole]

Great ref. Everyone should read. Sadly trolls cannot actually comprehend higher level writings and, since they cannot be taught, the problems continue into infinity.

[Medhue Simoni]

I'll cover your 1st question/statement. Around 1991, many vaccines were combined into 1 vaccine. What was not taken into account was the total amount of mercury this added up to. So, with 1 doze, infants were getting more than 5 times the doze they would have gotten with 1 vaccine. I posted the video so that I don't have to explain all the things you are pointing out. Even if you had watched 5 minutes more, most of your points would be covered. This is not 1 guy making these conclusions. It's dozens and dozens of accredited scientists and doctors. I could post dozens of videos at conferences around the world, all referencing the same data.

I asked people to keep an open mind and investigate for yourself. Autism is not the only problem associated with vaccines. If you count all the major screw ups, like accidently sending thousands of vaccines to Europe with the live bird flu virus, or how about when they shipped vaccines to Africa with the aids virus in them. OOPs, sorry, right? Thank god there are actually good scientists out there  doing their jobs. This will be my last post on the subject. I'm not the kind of person that feels the need to prove anything to any1. I only need to prove things to myself, which is an extremely high standard.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

...I'm not the kind of person that feels the need to prove anything to any1...

---

Good call, and thanks for not taking my posts the wrong way.  They really are there to show how hard it is to avoid the fallacies.  Apart from the rhetorical devices (eg; ad hominem) which appear simply dishonest, "epistemology makes it impossible to support almost any assertion anyway." <-- An assertion I've made anyway.  You may all feel free to attack it.

As examples - showing videos of acknowledged experts is "appealing to authority".  Looking at why they say what they do is "generalising the specific".  Saying "No x is y" requires an examination of every single possible x, which is usually impossible (which is why it is impossible to prove that no vaccine ever has caused or will cause any symptom that someone might call 'autism').

The only arguments, and therefore texts, which can be proven are those from axioms.  So, for instance, it is true that '2 + 2 = 4' by the very definitions of '2', '+', '=' and '4' (and a whole bunch of other stuff about how maths is written).  I rather like "quia dicere" as an argument but "ergo sum potentior" being ex-Army and would reply "huc si tu parum putas".

I shall point out the logical error in trying to prove a statement any other way :-) This is a challenge :-)

[Jennifer Boyle]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Kudos Canoro! If people were taught these things in school, we'd have many less morons in the world. Plus, alot less corruption, as almost all majorly corrupted entities use these fallacies to take advantage of people and to cover up their crimes.

 

---

 

OMG, your last example is soo very bad tho. For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out. Believe me, there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I.

---

Can you please provide citations from the biomedical literature for the studies that demomstrate that there is such a link?  That should be pretty easy if all credible science says there is one.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

I'll cover your 1st question/statement. Around 1991, many vaccines were combined into 1 vaccine. What was not taken into account was the total amount of mercury this added up to. So, with 1 doze, infants were getting more than 5 times the doze they would have gotten with 1 vaccine. 

---

As thiomersal is an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal preservative, the amount of it used is a function of the volume of continaminable liquid being preserved, not the vaccine compounds also in suspension. So, I imagine that combining five different vaccines into one dose actually reduces the mercury load by a factor of five as compared to delivering the five vaccines in five different doses, each containing enough thiomersal to preserve the dose.

Do you have a link to some explanation that the mercury concentration is more than inversely proportional to total dose volume? I'll also add that mercury clears from the system over time and that, if its deleterious effects stem from chronic exposure (I don't know, but I've seen that suggested), that reducing the frequency of transient events at the expense of increasing their magnitude may well be beneficial overall.

---

I asked people to keep an open mind and investigate for yourself. This will be my last post on the subject. I'm not the kind of person that feels the need to prove anything to any1. I only need to prove things to myself, which is an extremely high standard.

---

I also don't try to prove things to others, as that's too difficult. It's easier to disprove. Being lazy, I take the path of least resistance. Curiously, proving things to myself is effortless, so the height of my standards may be immaterial.

I've bookmarked the video and will try to watch more of it.

[Innominatus Blackheart]

So, people and companies sometimes twist and manipulate things. Ummm, yeah, most of us already have enough common sense to figure that out. Although, what's sad is that we often ignore it.

It is, however, interesting to read how its been broken down into different subcategories.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

 vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out. 

---

 Hmm.   That will come as news to the British Medical Association, at least: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

[Medhue Simoni]

Ok, if people want to not look beyond the propaganda machines cause they make you feel better and allow you to be lazy, fine, I don't actually care. Do your own research or just blow me off. I've already stated that I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on autism. If you feel ok with injecting foreign substances, and poison into your baby, you go for it.

I think it is kind of funny how 1 seemingly bunk study somehow disproves all the other real science around what actually causes autism. Yet, on the other side, numerous studies have come out directly from the vaccine manufacturer that are completely discredited, and then others that show the link to autism. But hey, we have the MMR studies that you should be paying attention to, right? If you can't take the time to watch the video that I took the time to find for you, don't respond to me, please. If I can find the other conference from the second doctor that I posted, I will post that, cause I feel it was the most comprehensive video I've every seen on the subject of autism and the blood/brain barrier. Plus, I really want to find that video.

 

[161488303349]

jejejejjejee (:

 

[Jennifer Boyle]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Ok, if people want to not look beyond the propaganda machines cause they make you feel better and allow you to be lazy, fine, I don't actually care. Do your own research or just blow me off. I've already stated that I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on autism. If you feel ok with injecting foreign substances, and poison into your baby, you go for it.

 

I asked you once, and I'll ask you again, please cite the studies that support your position.  If you don't/can't, I assume that you don't know of any.  In scientific discussions, you don't just state stuff, you give references.  If you can't/won't give any, then it is obvious that you are just making stuff up, or quoting others who are making stuff up.

[Melita Magic]

This is just my opinion based on things I have read on both sides of this argument, which is a huge controversy and neither side wishes to budge on their opinions (which is not real science. A scientist is open to any development.)

I am going to talk about Big Pharma and its 'reputation' in general.

1. Big Pharma has a vested interest in people believing everything they make is safe. 

2. There is plenty of evidence to refute everything Big Pharma makes is safe. Like, their own side effect sheets (the real ones - not the ones the patients, sometimes, get.) Like the late night lawyers' ads. And much more.

3. The public does not know what is really in what they are being shot up with.

3B. Testing methods have come under fire for being: faked, rushed, doctored, non existent, in the past, on various products.

4. Anything that can damage the central nervous system or has damaged the central nervous system can cause the symptoms of what we call autism.

5. Various Big Pharma products including vaccines (such as the Lyme disease vaccine) can damage the central nervous system.

6. You will never prove any of this to satisfy some, since there really is no way to prove it. Period. For one thing we do not understand enough about the human body (precisely why no one should rule it out yet, either.) Cellular medicine is in its infancy. Prescriptions are usually one size fits all, but each body is unique, which is why some people react badly and others do not, to any pharmaceutical product.

6B. In most cases they have no idea why some people react badly and others do not, and if that does happen they have no clue what to do to redress it.

7. No one on the internet ever changed anyone else's mind about big topics such as health or health care, religion, or politics. Of course, that's a subjective opinion, but have you ever seen it happen? So this topic is going to go in circles.

8. Mandating vaccines (to anyone), or giving vaccines to infants should be criminal, and is certainly anti democratic.

That's all I am going to say on this topic.

 

ETA to: add a comma.