Archive for the ‘Logical Fallacies’ Category

Niche Link Aggregators

Friday, July 18th, 2008

Having just read:…communities

my interest in working on has been rekindled.

I have to admit that my time has been somewhat taken up recently, what with moving to a new country and starting a new job. Any time that I have been able to devote to computers has been spent on Haddock CMS or Oedipus Decision Maker and a couple of other smaller projects.

The plan with the logical fallacies site is to collect examples of Logical Fallacies.

I’m not sure that I agree completely with the author of the article linked to above. There will probably be a shifting focus for the general purpose link aggregator communities. That’s inevitable because the services that is the most popular is by definition is aimed at the lowest common denominator. This means that the functionality of the software has to be the most limited and general.

I don’t want to use existing software for because I want to tailor the site to the problem of identifying logical fallacies. The case may be that there are no specialised needs of this problem and that a generic sollution (like a forum or a wiki) would be a better solution. If that is the case, then I will have wasted my time. I don’t think this will be the case.

Logical Fallacies

Tuesday, May 6th, 2008

Depressed at the thought of wasting time mucking around with wireless on Ubuntu and worried that I was a Talker rather than a doer, I decided to put together a site that I’ve been meaning to write for more than a year:

The aim is to collect as many examples of logical fallacies on the internet as I can and then analyze them.

I’m getting faster at putting the bits together for a basic Haddock CMS site, although it’ll need to be scripted before many people will want to use the framework.

I’ve got a good idea of the DB structure already (the fun part). Hopefully, I’ll get to write that shortly.

Tilda Swinton and Open Marriages

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

I’ve just been listening to the Jeremy Vine show on radio 2 over lunch. They were discussing the love life of the actress Tilda Swinton and her two lovers. Normally, I wouldn’t write about celebrity gossip; I’ve no idea who Tilda Swinton is and I couldn’t care less about her sex life. However, at least one of the listeners’ reactions contained what might be a logical fallacy.

One listener phoned in and said that marriage was a Christian undertaking and that such an arrangement was doomed to failure.

A guest on the show spoke of her experiences as the other woman in a three way marriage. She accused the previous listener of being a Victorian moralist. Who was she to said how people should or should not behave? We’ve moved on and now everything goes. She then went on to talk about how much everyone had ended up being hurt by the affair. She said that we are all emotional beings and that when one considered human emotions behaving this way involved lots of risks.

Doesn’t she rather agree with the previous listener then? Whatever the aims of your morality and that of others may be (e.g. follow the doctrine of the Bible, try to maximise your own happiness, etc.), if you both agree that a type of behaviour is doomed in some way, you should accept and agree with the other person’s opinion. However flawed or mystical Christian morality may be, if your experience of an open marriage was painful, you shouldn’t get upset when a Christian tells you not to get involved in one.

Ad Hominem in article on Chernobyl

Tuesday, December 18th, 2007

Part of my original motivation for starting this blog was to find examples of logical fallacies on the internet. Search engines like Google and so on are great but, as far as I know, humans are still the best at finding logical fallacies in texts.

In an article on wildlife returning to Chernobyl:

Chernobyl: Lost world

the journalist introduces a scientist this way:

But this has cut little ice with Anders Moller, a controversial Danish-born scientist who was once accused of scientific misconduct in his home country.

The journalist doesn’t suggest that the misconduct that the scientist was accused of has any bearing on his current line of enquiry. Or whether the accusations were well grounded. But how can we now take anything that this scientist has to say fairly? This seems to be a form of an argumentum ad hominem