The Logical Fallacy PSYOPS Agents

The Logical Fallacy Agents

Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one.

A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion).

An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Lawyers learn about the logical fallacies in law school. Since Aristotle is seen as the “father of logic” most philosophy classes include training about logical fallacies. Nowadays logic classes are about as rare as civics classes but some undergraduate curriculums still include a basic logic class. Following logical thinking guidelines are especially important as we make decisions that are going to affect our nation and our posterity.

Logic is a tool to help people arrive at dependable conclusions. Logic is related to such disciplines as epistemological protocol, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Many people are surprised to find out that there are rules for thinking. Aristotle aimed to unify all of these rules into a coherent system of thought by developing a common methodology that would serve equally well as the procedure for learning about any discipline.

Like most tools, logic can be used for good or evil. Lawyers will sometimes use what they learned about logical fallacies to create false impressions rather than reveal the truth. Propagandists and PSYOPS agents are very skilled at using logical fallacies to influence “target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior”.

How do they twist the truth and attempt to pollute your mind?

Let’s start with some simple examples and work our way up the list of classical logical fallacies complete with Latin names.

The false syllogism
A syllogism ("conclusion," "inference"), (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form. An example of an accurate syllogism is:

Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

One of my favorite examples of a false syllogism is tinged with humor. A cartoon says across the top of the panel:

“Penguins Walk Funny”

A few more examples of logical fallacies with a humorous intent:

God is Love.
Love is blind.
Steve Wonder is blind.
Conclusion: Steve Wonder is God!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'm nothing.
Nothing is perfect.
God is Perfect.
So, I'm God !
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If Steve Wonder is God,
I'm Steve Wonder.
Oh my God!...I'm going blind!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On the serious side, learning to recognize a bad argument when it comes your way and learning how to respond properly is a major part of what the study of logic is about – self defense. You might consult an article on this blog entitled, Spot false arguments and make strong ones

False syllogisms permeate Leftist thinking. See if you can demonstrate to yourself why the below syllogisms are false.

Slavery was work and slavery was evil, therefore all work is evil. It is more moral to be on welfare.

Vietnam War was a bad war, therefore all wars are bad wars.

Because people have killed in God’s name, religion is evil and should be abolished.

A really great short course on logic and how to disagreeis written by Paul Graham.

Fortunately, most Logical fallacy PSYOPS agents aren’t very skillful.
The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of online people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. 

Often the best tactic is to ignore such low class debate tactics and simply say your piece without bothering to interact with ignorance and rudeness. Sometimes when posters use name calling or ridicule as a response to me I have this prepared post as a retort to their irrational rants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at this link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?

In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.Have you had a logic class yet?

You might take a look at this site:http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html

LOL is a form of Ridicule - Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument." This line of “reasoning" has the following form: LOL or tinfoil hat idea, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! "That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a real tin foil hat idea"

LOL = Logic Obviously Lacking?