Here’s something that I came across while searching online for something else.
[Yes, I allow myself to get off-topic while doing research online. Life is not always a straight path, people. And I tend to find the best things when I’m not looking for them.]
I find this chart fascinating because I know that these sorts of fallacies have been used against me– and that I have used these sorts of fallacies against others.
We’re not all saints, are we?
• • •
{ source: yourlogicalfallacyis.com }
• • •
Reading through these fallacies I realized that two of them stood out to me as a blogger. First there is ad hominem*, which also might be called The Troll Manifesto.
And second there is anecdotal**, which might be in reality, The Personal Blogger Mission Statement. Especially that part about dismissing statistics! 😉
• • •
* Ad hominem is defined here as: “Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.”
** Anecdotal is defined here as: “Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.”
THE SPECTACLED BEAN 
Very cool. I like “Personal Incredulity: “Saying that because one finds something difficut to understand that it’s therefore not true.”
LikeLike
Z-D, that’s a good one. It’s the basis for anti-intellectualism– and lazy thinking. If only I could have used it to get out of high school geometry!
LikeLike
It is fascinating.
Could this please be printed on the back of every campaign speech/piece?
Wander more – great stuff found
LikeLike
philmouse, excellent idea. We could turn it into a drinking game as well. Think of the fun!
LikeLike
No one likes real statistics! Personal stories are so much more fun. What would us bloggers do without them?
LikeLike
kate, you sound like you understand the key to good blogging. Forget the numbers and go for the fun. Very logical.
LikeLike
The two you cited sound like two of my major complaints about Facebook. I have to take myself out of conversations when they happen.
LikeLike
Margaret, really? That sort of crap is going on over there? I can see why you exit the convo if the ppl who claim to be your friends are being stupidly illogical. How tedious for you.
LikeLike
You take me back to the old, dark days of forums. I don’t hang out on forums at all anymore (except my gaming guild) because of these… I remember one particularly acerbic forum member who would scream ad hominem the moment someone disagreed with him and then proceed to tear apart the character of the person who disagreed. My personal favorite (?) was the appeal to authority. You can find an authority who will support any argument, no matter how stupid. Oh, the horrifying memories…
LikeLike
Zazzy, in the late-90s I’d go into chat rooms to talk about TV shows or books. The ones that I went to weren’t all that hostile, but I remember one crazy woman who accused anyone who disagreed with her of being drunk. How she knew this was never made clear, but SHE KNEW. While not as annoying as your appeal to authority, it was so weird. Perhaps it needs to be on this chart too? I think that I’ll call it the Bacchus fallacy!
LikeLike
All of these abound in the Comments section of anything on the Interwebs. One of my favorite things to do is to read the most innocuous article I can find over at Yahoo!, and click to read comments. They are hilarious. it doesn’t matter if the article is about cheap hair gels, it doesn’t take more than four comments before it becomes political or religious or downright stupid. We all know They’re out there, and They all comment at Yahoo!.
LikeLike
nance, what a fun idea. I rarely read comments on any news sites, but now I think that I will [occasionally]. Bet this chart will come in handy as I learn to identify all these fallacies. I know that they’re out there, but have never known what to call them. Now I do.
LikeLike
Oh, so true. And the list doesn’t include Godwin’s Law – but I suppose that’s not a logical fallacy per se.
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″
LikeLike
Oh dear, while trying to be sure I defined Godwin’s Law correctly, I ran across this: the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent’s view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. So can we officially add it to the fallacy list?
LikeLike
Zazzy, yes I think we have to add this to the list. I knew of Godwin’s Law but not this “fancy” way of saying it. It’s amazing what you can stumble upon while researching online, isn’t it?
LikeLike