Fallacies - errors, fallacies.

[Julie]

As promised, here I will try to translate and post information on errors.
To begin with, I suggest watching this video, it is in English. But gradually in this thread I will disassemble everything in parts.

What are Fallacies? This definition was deduced by Michael Labossiere. He defines this when part of the information in any statement does not match or is not supported by the rest of the statement. There are more than 150 of them. But usually people use about 40. Someone not specifically, but with the aim of maintaining a conversation. And someone specifically, I suppose, for the purpose of manipulation.

 

[Георгий Ахенко]

Re: Fallachi - errors, errors.

It will be interesting to see your information: ugeek:: ugeek:: ugeek:

 

[Турабян Владимир]

ME SOMETIMES LEARNED TO READ STATEMENTS BY STATE HEADS THROUGH LINE, THANKS, I WILL WAIT FOR YOUR COMMENT!

 

[Hikaru]

Arigatougozaimasu !!!

 

[Селебрити]

Re: Fallachi - errors, errors.

Arigatougozaimasu !!!

This is what? Translate

 

[Julie]

Celebrity
Arigato, sort of like Japanese "thank you", but that’s what I know ..: D

Red Herring (Distraction)
An attempt to take the opponent to the other side. They say that this expression came from the admission to knock a dog off the track, throwing her a rather furry fish. Example. "There is an increased level of mercury in seafood, but how then will fishermen support their families?" In this case, the second part of the statement is an attempt to divert the conversation from "environmental protection" on the topic of economics.
By the way, ladies use this technique. Alan Pease wrote about this in the book that when a man doesn’t want to tell the truth, they usually keep silent, while women when they don’t want to tell the truth try to load other information.

Ad Hominem (Attack personally)
It usually happens when a debate attacks not the affirmation, but the person himself.
Example “I'm not interested in Edward’s opinion about education; he’s an idiot!”

Slippery Slope
When it is assumed that a small action will inevitably lead to extreme situations.
Example "First they will allow gays to marry, then what? Will they allow people to marry dogs?"

Straw Man (straw scarecrow)
When a part of the opponent’s argument is taken, it is distorted and attacked.
Example. Position A - “Abortion must be prohibited because babies in the womb have the right to live as well as those born”
Position B - "Both the born and the unborn die due to various reasons. Medical indicators, or the bad habits of the mother. And if A decided to consider the problem of killings, then let him stop the war in Afghanistan or the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Another example. Wife comes home in the evening, husband at home
- where were you?
- I met Natasha. She has such a terrific new coat, she gave Lesha. But you won’t expect anything from you, soon we’ll go all over the world with a bag.
- And you listen more to your Natasha, she is a fool. She will not even sing to you, she would work for the radio-la-la, and you hung up your ears.
And what do we have? The answer to the question “where” did not sound. But then there was a successful attempt to lead her husband away from the question (a distracting maneuver). Plus attack personally. Plus (slippery slope). And the husband’s response is the same attack (personal) on the argument put forward - Natasha and (the stuffed straw) about the radio.

 

[Московский партнёр]

Thank!

 

[JR Security Consulting Group]

Julie, I studied these moments in psychology, they were designated by us as “black rhetoric”, but by the way it works perfectly, and people often use this rhetoric. Thanks you.

 

[Julie]

Re: Fallachi - errors, errors.

Julie, I studied these moments in psychology, they were designated by us as “black rhetoric”, but by the way it works perfectly, and people often use this rhetoric. Thanks you.

You're right. There is a science called liberal arts. Seven free sciences. One of which is called Trivium. The trivium consists of three parts - grammar, logic and rhetoric. And only in this order, and nothing else. The grammar answers the questions "who," "what," "where," "when." The logic is “how.” Rhetoric is “why.” I know that the masses have been teaching their children this since childhood. Why am I even writing about this here? Because this knowledge helps me in my work, to immediately recognize “errors”, to return the conversation to the right direction and this in order to get as much information as possible in the shortest possible time. Based on the example of my experience, not all people can write reports or reports. I mean, I constantly have to return reports of the guards for revision. Sometimes, instead of a report, it’s literally a script they write for Hollywood, and what’s at the heart of the detective’s profession is to "sell" our report to a client. Beautiful with pictures, clear and understandable, packed in the correct form.
The client doesn’t care how you gathered the information. They don’t care if you’ve been freezing in the car all day or, on the contrary, roasting in it. They don’t care how you collect information at all. And I like it, I don’t like it, or I believe - I don’t believe it. We have to communicate with people in order to somehow cling to something in order to pull out the entire chain. And in most, we hear rhetoric.
Gradually I will continue the list. I hope this is useful to someone.

 

[Плотников Юрий Михайлович]

Thank!