{"id":4634,"date":"2011-02-08T20:22:18","date_gmt":"2011-02-09T03:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/?p=4634"},"modified":"2013-10-18T09:11:57","modified_gmt":"2013-10-18T14:11:57","slug":"how-to-think-better-in-97-seconds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/how-to-think-better-in-97-seconds\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Think Better in 97 seconds"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Critically thinking is something we don’t do enough. Thinking better, and making better decisions has everything to do with thinking more clearly and critically.\u00a0A bad argument (aka poor logic) shouldn’t fool us, or convince us. Chances are you’re getting kicked around more than you think.<\/p>\n

(This is supplemental material for my worldviews class.)<\/p>\n

Listen to any radio, talk show, or news program after you understand the following logic issues, and you spot one logical fallacy after another. Now you’ll have the knowledge base to disarm flawed rationalizations and weak assertions.<\/p>\n

So, use the next 97 seconds and pick some fallacies that appeal to you. Then, share something new you learned. Or, visit soon, and tell us the first fallacy you’ve spotted.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Absurdity<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Accident<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Ad nauseam<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argument from ignorance<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argument from silence<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argument to moderation<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argumentum ad populum<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Base rate<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Compound question<\/a> \u00b7Evidence of absence<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Invincible ignorance<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Loaded question<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Moralistic<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Naturalistic<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Non sequitur<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Proof by assertion<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Irrelevant conclusion<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Special pleading<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Straw man<\/a> \u00b7Two wrongs make a right<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Appeals to emotion<\/a><\/td>\nFear<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Flattery<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Nature<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Novelty<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Pity<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Ridicule<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Children’s interests<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Invented Here<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Island mentality<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Not Invented Here<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Repugnance<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Spite<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Genetic fallacies<\/a><\/td>\nAd feminam<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Ad hominem<\/a> (Ad hominem tu quoque<\/a>)\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0Appeal to accomplishment<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to authority<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to etymology<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to motive<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to novelty<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to poverty<\/a> \u00b7Appeals to psychology<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to the stone<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to tradition<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to wealth<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Association<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Bulverism<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Chronological snobbery<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Ipse dixit<\/a> (Ipse-dixitism<\/a>)\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0Poisoning the well<\/a> \u00b7Pro hominem<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Reductio ad Hitlerum<\/a> (Blood libel<\/a>)<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Appeals to consequences<\/a><\/td>\nAppeal to force<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Wishful thinking<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Absence paradox<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Begging the question<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Blind men and an elephant<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Cherry picking<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Complex question<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0False analogy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Fallacy of distribution<\/a> (Composition<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Division<\/a>)\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0Furtive fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Hasty generalization<\/a> \u00b7I’m entitled to my opinion<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Many questions<\/a> (Loaded question<\/a>)\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0McNamara fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Name calling<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Red herring fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Special pleading<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Rationalization (making excuses)<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Slothful induction<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Correlative-based fallacies<\/a><\/td>\nFalse dilemma<\/a> (Perfect solution<\/a>)\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0Denying the correlative<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Suppressed correlative<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Deductive fallacies<\/a><\/td>\nAccident<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Converse accident<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inductive fallacies<\/a><\/td>\nSampling bias<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Conjunction fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0False analogy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Hasty generalization<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Misleading vividness<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Overwhelming exception<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Vagueness<\/a> and\u00a0ambiguity<\/a><\/td>\nAmphibology<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Continuum fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0False precision<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Slippery slope<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Equivocation<\/td>\nEquivocation<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0False attribution<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Fallacy of quoting out of context<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0No true Scotsman<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Reification<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Questionable cause<\/a><\/td>\nAnimistic<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to consequences<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argumentum ad baculum<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Circular cause and consequence<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Correlation does not imply causation (Cum hoc)<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Gambler’s fallacy<\/a> and itsinverse<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Post hoc<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Prescience<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Regression<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Single cause<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Slippery slope<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Texas sharpshooter<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0The Great Magnet<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Unknown Root<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Wrong direction<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Masked man fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Appeal to probability<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Circular reasoning<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fallacy of propositional logic<\/a><\/td>\nAffirming a disjunct<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Affirming the consequent<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Denying the antecedent<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Argument from fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0False dilemma<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fallacy of quantificational logic<\/a><\/td>\nExistential fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Illicit Conversion<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Proof by example<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Quantifier shift<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Syllogistic fallacy<\/a><\/td>\nAccident<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Converse accident<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0A dicto simpliciter<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Exclusive premises<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Existential<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Necessity<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Four-term Fallacy<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Illicit major<\/a> \u00b7Illicit minor<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Negative conclusion from affirmative premises<\/a> \u00b7\u00a0Undistributed middle<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Are there holes in most arguments? Yep, here’s the 411.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5626],"tags":[3,5459,5525,6348,244,293,4985,4242,6223,5811,13,4245,797,813,4237,4243,933,6170,4377,5928,4786,4240,5298,1324,4320,4244,4247,4249,5314,4235,6538,1763,4250,1944,2066,4234,6025,2187,5844,2347,2380,2480,57,2588,2597,2602,2628,6030,5840,2747,4236,4238,2840,4239,4248,2965,2967,2990,5646,4246,3083,4251,3255,3412,85,4241,4303,4075,4970,3657,90,6177],"class_list":["post-4634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-spark-my-muse","tag-fail","tag-accident","tag-analogy","tag-argument","tag-arguments","tag-authority","tag-bad","tag-bad-arguments","tag-bias","tag-calling","tag-christianity","tag-cnn","tag-consequences","tag-conversion","tag-critical-thinking","tag-daily-show","tag-decisions","tag-distribution","tag-do","tag-everything","tag-example","tag-false","tag-following","tag-fool","tag-force","tag-fox-news","tag-glenn-beck","tag-government","tag-how-to","tag-how-to-think","tag-humor","tag-in","tag-jon-stewart","tag-knowledge","tag-logic","tag-logical-fallacies","tag-man","tag-men","tag-negative","tag-news","tag-obama","tag-paradox","tag-philosophy","tag-pleading","tag-politics","tag-poor","tag-poverty","tag-psychology","tag-question","tag-questions","tag-rational-thinking","tag-reasoning","tag-religion","tag-rhetoric","tag-rush-limbaugh","tag-sarah-palin","tag-satire","tag-scotsman","tag-share","tag-shawn-hannity","tag-silence","tag-steven-colbert","tag-stone","tag-the-well","tag-theology","tag-thinking","tag-tradition","tag-true","tag-weak","tag-wealth","tag-worldviews","tag-wrongs"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4634"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4634\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4639,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4634\/revisions\/4639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisadelay.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}