Straying Logic
1. Argumentum ad Hominem abusive
Arguments are directed to attack human beings directly, without any logical relevance. Logic size (justification) on misguided thought this kind of argumentum ad hominem is a personal condition and personal characteristics that involve: gender, physical properties, and psychology.
Example:
Acceptance of the new Terms cpns minimum height is 165 cm.
* Heresy: a success rate of employment of civil servants is not determined by height.
2. Argumentum ad Hominem sirkumstansial contrast of argumentum ad hominem abusive, ad hominem Sirkmstansial generally indicates the mindset that focused on prioritizing personal interests, for example: like-dislike, not the self-interest of the group, and matters relating to SARA.
Example:
1. Indonesia will never advance as long as the leader of the tribe still Java.
2. People should not be an educator atheist being immoral.
3. Muslims are people retarded because no one who won the Nobel
3. Argumentum ad populum
(Latin: populus means the people or masses) Argumentum ad populum argument is considered that the statement is true because something shared by many people.
Example:
1. 7 out of 10 women in Indonesia using shampoo x, then the product must be good.
2. The majority of scholars justifies x, then x definitely kosher.
3. Islam is the religion of the majority of Indonesian people embraced religion, then Islam must be true
4. Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Is misguided thought that the value determined by the skill of reasoning or authority of those who bring it. So the idea is accepted as true simply because the idea of the idea put forward by a well-known because of his expertise.
Assume the truth is not something that stands alone (autonomous), and not based reasoning as it should be, but depending on who says it (the authority of a person).
Example:
1. Polygamy is sunnah scholars apostle because x says so
2. God does not exist because stephen hawking says so.
3. officials of x must be true because he was chaplain at the same time a very pious person.
5. Argumentum ad ignoratiam
Error is happening in a statement that declared righteous because of his guilt was not proven wrong, or said something was wrong because the truth is not proven to exist.
Example:
1. As long as there is no proof that God exists, then God must not exist.
2. Official corruption x is not possible because there was no evidence of corruption will follow.
6. Petitio principii
Is a fallacy that occurs in the conclusion or statement of justification which is used as a premise in it and vice versa conclusions, conclusions made premise. So although the formula (text / sentences) are used differently, actually having the same meaning.
Example:
God is a God that religion X is true because the Bible has to say so, and the evidence of the truth of the Bible is that God revealed by religion x.
7. Non causa pro causa (post hoc ergo propter hoc / false cause)
Error was due to causal inference based only on two events that occur in sequence.
Example:
Budi a village treasurer suddenly fell ill and died after being forced to perform pocong oath over allegations of corruption in his hometown, summed favor oath pocongnya died and he was the perpetrator of corruption.
* Heresy: states favor doctor's diagnosis died of kidney illness for 10 years, and it turns cash in his hometown of corruption by the village head.
8. Argumentum ad baculum.
(Latin: baculus means stick or baton) is an argument urging a person to receive a threat truth value conclusion for reasons which caused harm if he did not accept that conclusion, not based relevance through logical argument.
Example:
Religion x is definitely true, do not question the truth anymore or you will receive disasters in the world and sin in the afterlife.
9. Ignoratio elenchi / red herring.
Is a fallacy that occurs when one draws conclusions that are not relevant to the premise.
generally motivated prejudice subjective.
Example:
1. Church organizations provide assistance to victims of Aceh, it is definitely intend Christianization.
2. X Officials recently bought a luxury home, surely he's a grafter.
10. Novitatem and Argumentum ad argumentum ad Antiquatem.
This fallacy arises when something is said is true and better because it is a new thing (novitatem)
or something said to be true and better because it is something that has been trusted and used for a long time (antiquatem).
Novitatem example:
"Among the three Semitic religions, Islam is the Newest and revise all previous religions, Islam is most certainly true."
Antiquatem example:
"Since thousands of years ago Christianity believe in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, because it is able to withstand the challenges of time for that."
No comments:
Post a Comment