The 42 Fallacies on Castanet - Read at your own risk!

[Glacier]

Fallacy #45: The Nirvana Fallacy

This fallacy compares actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The fallacy leaves us aiming for perfection while the good slips away.

Some examples:

• These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
  
  I'm not going to vote in the up coming federal election because all the political parties have flaws.
  
  Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car wrecks.
  
  The HST is better than the old system, but without all the exemptions I would like, I will be voting against it in the upcoming referendum.

[steven lloyd]

I can't trust the politicians to represent our best interests so we should adopt the system of direct democracy.

[I Think]

Have you skipped the god fallacy which is number 46?

As in god help us,
god damnit,
fer gods sake,
lord liftin jaysus,
in god we truss, (the builders fallacy)
And its corollary,
Heavens to betsy.

[Glacier]

Fallacy # 46: No true Scotsman

This is an intentional logical fallacy that modifies the subject of someone's claim by excluding the specific case or others like it. This term was advanced by philospher Antony Flew:

• Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Closer to home, this fallacy is widespread on Castanet:

• Glacier: All Castanetters are boneheads.
  Captain Awesome: Well, I'm a castanetter, and I'm no bonehead.
  Glacier: Well, all TRUE castanetters are boneheads.

How often have we seen this one?

• "Those rioters are not true Canucks fans."

Or something like this?

• Strwbrrydvl: Everyone from Butland is a criminal.
  Lady tehMa: Well, I'm from Rutland, and I'm no lawbreaker.
  Strwbrrydvl: Ya, but you're not a true Rutlander.

Or this?

• Captain Awesome: Woman cannot be both beautiful and intelligent.
  Queen K: What about Glacier's wife?
  Captain Awesome: She's not a real woman.

Once again, completely fallicous.

[Bsuds]

Two hockey fans are having a conversation.

The first fan says... Anyone from Quebec is either a Hockey player or a Hooker.

The second fan says....Hey my Wife is from Quebec!

The first fan says.....Oh ya, what position does she play?


:127:

[Queen K]

NormaM: "There is no way one can be both handsome and geeky."
Me, QK: "but but but what about Glace?"
NormaM: "Is he the standard deviation?"

[steven lloyd]

NormaM: "Is he the standard deviation?"

Is that like Mr. S.D.

I sure hope his middle name isn't Tom.

[Queen K]

Who's Mr. S.D.?

[Glacier]

Fallacy #47: The Broken Window Fallacy.

This fallacy is also known as the "why stimulus doesn't get people out of poverty", and "why government susidies to the arts doesn't generate net jobs and wealth."

• Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
  
  Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
  Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
  
  But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
  It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

[French Castanut]

My god this is worse than the army. :skyisfalling:

[steven lloyd]

My god this is worse than the army.

:137: Mon Dieu. They let French people serve in the army ???

[Glacier]

#48

The fallacy of the transposed conditional is a common logical error when attempting to draw conclusions based on experimental data. Essentially it is confusing the difference between the probability of a set of data given a hypothesis, and the probability of a hypothesis given a set of data.

It is usually easiest to understand through analogy. If our hypothesis is that it is raining we can be almost certain that we will observe clouds in the sky, however if we observe clouds in the sky we cannot say that it is almost certainly raining. So the probability of our data (observing clouds) is nearly 100 percent given our hypothesis (that it is raining), but our hypothesis (that it is raining) is not a 100 percent given only our data (observing clouds).

In order to relate the probability of our data given our hypothesis, to the probability of the hypothesis itself we require additional information. We need to know the probability of our hypothesis compared to alternative hypotheses before the data was collected. We can then use our observations to update the probability of our main hypothesis. Bayesian statistics and Bayes' equation is the main method of doing this, however, most statistical analysis is usually frequentist and so any attempt to relate the calculated probabilities to the original hypothesis is a fallacy of the transposed conditional.

[zensiert]

Okay, now I wish we had a 'like' feature, lol.

If we can learn anything from Facebook, a "like" feature would cause you to go insane because you would be inundated with hundreds of unrelenting requests demands for a "dislike" feature. My guess is at least 5 threads would be started simultaneously to decry Castanet's discriminatory favoritism.

And yet, we now have a "like" function. I want my "dis-like" function!!

[Captain Awesome]

They let French people serve in the army ???

[Woodenhead]

It's a great list of fallacies; however, one of the greatest problems exists in people misidentifying some of these in debates. It's not hard to semantically lever one of these in to fit an argument when it is really a misrepresentation.

tl;dr = words suck