Category talk:Fallacies

message: Hi,
I suggest that "fan death" be removed from this list, as it is not a type of logical fallacy, but rather an instance (and a stretch at that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.71.189 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 June 2005
:Correct, and it was removed at some point.
:To remove an article from a category: edit the article that contains the category, you'll see :Category:Logical fallacies near the end of the wikitext, and delete the line. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan death 

message: Doublethink is a type of logical fallacy if anyone complains remove it--Acebrock 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: alright how do i add it?--Acebrock 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a category: edit the article that contains the category, near the end of the wikitext you'll see a bunch of categories listed, and add :Category:Logical fallacies. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doublethink 

message: Why isn't this called simply :Category:Fallacies like the article and the list? There's a potential ambiguity in the name "logical fallacy" because it can either mean "formal fallacy" (common in older books; see Google Books search for PD logic books) or "fallacy" (as Wikipedia uses it). —Mrwojo (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Logical fallacies

message: Please see Talk:Fallacy#Fallacy_vs_logical_fallacy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a fallacy category? 

message: Is there a specific name for the fallacy a person commits when they attempt to refute an argument by asking a question beginning with the words "what about"? For example, Person A argues that suspected terrorists should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Person B responds, "But what about the victims of terrorist attacks?". The problem is two-fold. First of all, Person B's question is phrased in such a way that no straightforward answer can be given. Secondly, it doesn't logically refute Person A's original argument, but is instead an appeal to emotion. This particular fallacy could simply be categorized as both a red herring and an appeal to emotion, but it's committed so frequently, especially in political and ethical debates, that I'd be genuinely surprised if it didn't have a unique name. Steohawk (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, the problem with this question is that it isn't the "What about..." part of the response that makes a response a fallacy or not a fallacy. Asking "What about..." is a perfectly legitimate, and logically sound thing to do. Sometimes the question is material and of consequence for the preceding claim because it is an example of a contradiction, and sometimes it is not. You give some examples above which are different types of those cases where there is no contradiction. So, I don't think there is a "'What about...?' fallacy." Greg Bard (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, "what about" can be a fallacy. "Joe Doaks, you are charged with being a thief." "But what about Bill Stickers? He's a thief." Bill's being (or not being) a thief is wholly irrelevant to Joe's guilt or innocence. It's a form of the Red Herring. JHobson3 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What about...?" fallacy 

message: I would like to know if we could either create subcategories here for organizing the 72+ fallacies in the category by the century/decade they were first recorded in, or perhaps as an alternative, we could create an article which organizes the fallacies in chronological order in terms of our earliest recorded reference to their usage and recognition in history.
This would help to map out the thinking process of the human race, because prior to the recognition of a fallacy and it's popularization, people would fail to recognize it as a fallacy, which would influence how people reached decisions in times past.
It also helps to convey the lack of finality in fallacy recognition. Some people claim "I know all the fallacies" or "I was taught and memorized all the fallacies in college". This of course can't be true since fallacies are constantly discovered, defined, and popularized as more become aware of them.
Wikipedia is a tool in that, but I believe a chronological list would establish the historicity of these fallacies. Ranze (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would give the false impression that somehow certain arguments were valid at one time, and invalid at another time. That would be extremely unhelpful. Greg Bard (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallacies by date