Lessons in logic and reasoning for our liberal buds.

anon.

[TASMANIANRED]

Bad Conclusions ================

Below are a few examples of bad reasoning causing bad conclusions.

Though humorous, the principles are based in truth.

IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON: Example: Sure, the experts say you shouldn't ride a bicycle in the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS: Example: Uncle Horace says eating pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me.

REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION: Example: My car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION: Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IMPORTANT: Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION MUST BE CORRECT): Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes. (maybe?)

INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES: Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: they were good singers.

PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE: Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.

BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS: Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.

BLAMING THE TOOL: Example: I bought an encyclopedia, but I'm still stupid.

TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping your limbs off.

JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS: Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.

[TASMANIANRED]

The left cannot determine why they lost the election because they cannot ask the correct questions.

Please add other examples of bad conclusions and an example.

[BenLurkin]

Wait a minute . . . I realized now that it was rogue clowns who stole my spark plugs.

[OhMike]

Occam's is pretty darn useful. The example about the moon landings actually supports it.

To argue that we really went to the moon merely requires that we accept that an advanced society can develop relatively-primitive rocket propulsion, guidance, and life-support technology.

To argue that the moon landings were a hoax is to argue that it's been possible to maintain a conspiracy over 35 years that involves thousands of people without the truth ever leaking out.

Occam's Razor would lead us to think the actual landing is the simpler explanation and therefore right.

[Squawk 8888]

1. Train a frog to jump when you ring a bell.
2. Cut off its legs.
3. Ring a bell.
Conclusion: Since the frog doesn't jump at the sound of a bell, its ears must be in its legs.

Most of the hype over global warming and other enviro ills use similar reason.

[Trainfish]

Excellent post. It has been fascinating watching the libs and their powers of elite logic.

[kevkrom]

In a similar vein... Conversational Terrorism: How NOT To Talk! is a wonderful primer on cutting through spin and bluster.

[tacticalogic]

1. The federal government can regulate interstate commerce.

2. The federal government can regulate the actions of interstate carriers that affect interstate commerce, including any intrastate commerce involved.

3. The federal government can regulate intrastate commerce.

[najida]

My feelings are as important as fact- I feel Kerry should have won, so he won. He only could have lost via a conspiracy.

[kevkrom]

OVERGENERALIZATION: Everyone I know voted for Kerry, so logically, no one voted for Bush.

CASCADING FALSE PREMISES: Therefore, since nobody really voted for Bush, all of those votes must have been from Republican fraud.

[dirtboy]

THE SOLUTION TO FAILURE IS NOT TO DO MORE OF WHAT IS FAILING: "We need more money for public skools."

YOU CANNOT INVEST WHAT YOU HAVEN'T SAVED: "Only anti-government nuts think that the Social Security Trust Fund is fake."

[TASMANIANRED]

This is harder than it looks.

Give me a hand working the specifics out.

1)Calling names is not a reasoned argument.
2)Relying on a discredited authority does not support your case.
3)Repitition of a falsehood does not make it true.

[Our man in washington]

Here's one I heard from a leftist recently: "The people in John Kerry's unit who said war crimes weren't committed had an incentive to say that war crimes weren't committed. Therefore, they are lying, and war crimes were committed."

I responded by saying that if someone ran down the streets yelling "Everyone who lives in Alexandria, Virginia is a murderer!" I would have an incentive to say he was lying, as would everyone else in Alexandria, Virginia. Therefore, according to my friend's logic, everyone would be lying but the guy running down the street. We would thus have to conclude that everyone who lives in Alexandria Virginia is a murderer.

[APFel]

False conclusion based on misunderstanding the lexicon or vernacular or failure to recognize that words have two meanings. Example: Steve eats salt. Salt eats cars. Therefore, John eats cars.

APf

[APFel]

Err. John eats salt. Salt eats cars. Therefore, John eats cars.

Can't keep the example name straight... Haw.

APf