i often wonder why humans common use logical fallicies in how we think as if it is part of how our brains work

Many logical fallacies are a failure to think critically but to make assumptions that work a lot of the time in daily life.

For example, many people confuse correlation with causation. They assume that if, when A happens, B often happens, then A must cause B, or vice-versa. This is especially true when B usually happens after A; it is easy to assume that A caused B. A lot of the time, such assumptions are useful in the absence of other information, but critical thinkers are trained to be wary of where there might be a correlation but no causation.

Another common fallacy is argument from authority. We often have to rely on experts, since nobody can be an expert in everything. But not everything experts say is true. Even experts can make mistakes. So, critical thinkers are trained to be wary of pronouncements about disputable "facts" made by experts, especially where the experts might have a vested interest in have one "fact" rather than another.

Category:Logical Fallacies

there is God

what fallacy is that?

there is God

what fallacy is that?
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.


The problem with that statement is that it usually fails to define God. Something which cannot be defined cannot be tested and, therefore, cannot be scientifically verified.

Take it to the Religion forum, draqon.

Take it to the Religion forum, draqon.

gush...I just asked a question and I am already being escorted. I for one thing see that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence since no evidence can satisfy the presence of what is under question.

or what am I moving the goalposts here?

i often wonder why humans common use logical fallicies in how we think as if it is part of how our brains work
Many logical fallacies are a failure to think critically but to make assumptions that work a lot of the time in daily life.

For example, many people confuse correlation with causation. They assume that if, when A happens, B often happens, then A must cause B, or vice-versa. This is especially true when B usually happens after A; it is easy to assume that A caused B. A lot of the time, such assumptions are useful in the absence of other information, but critical thinkers are trained to be wary of where there might be a correlation but no causation.

Another common fallacy is argument from authority. We often have to rely on experts, since nobody can be an expert in everything. But not everything experts say is true. Even experts can make mistakes. So, critical thinkers are trained to be wary of pronouncements about disputable "facts" made by experts, especially where the experts might have a vested interest in have one "fact" rather than another.

Category:Logical Fallacies
I bump into those everyday. It's soooooo frustrating.

I think the reason why fallacies exist is that our brains are not programmed to function in a logical manner - it has learned to do so. Everytime you mix emotions in the brain, it seems like logic flies out of the window.

But here's the deal. Logical fallacies are not illogical. They are perfectly logical. Take for instance confusing correlation with causation. It is completely logical to presume that if B follows A, then A causes B. The problem is that this is not always the case! It is possible that A does not cause B if A comes before B. In some situations, that is appearent, but in many, it isn't. Most people are unaware of the connection they are making and, thus, miss the fallacy when it happens. The problem is mainly that people are unaware of the logical deductions they make due to a habits they developed over their lives. Logical habits which we develop in childhood.

gush...I just asked a question and I am already being escorted. I for one thing see that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence since no evidence can satisfy the presence of what is under question.
Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Typical atheistic phallacy. :m:

Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Typical atheistic phallacy. :m:

ignorance of what?

I am stating that God does not exist because there is nothing that can proof God existing.

You didn't read the link, did you? :rolleyes:

gush...I just asked a question and I am already being escorted. I for one thing see that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence since no evidence can satisfy the presence of what is under question.

or what am I moving the goalposts here?

at least you know why your statement is illogical

at least you know why your statement is illogical

logical fallacies are not illogical.

logical fallacies are not illogical.

would it been better had i said invalid?

would it been better had i said invalid?

better? certainly more valid. :p

better? certainly more valid. :p

i like you man any one your kind of sense of humor is a treasure in my view

i often wonder why humans common use logical fallicies in how we think as if it is part of how our brains work

Its common sense.