>>8061515
Faulty reasoning. Wikipedia is your friend.

/pol/ mentions it a lot as a counter-measure, to try to hide the fact that they use them in pretty much every post they make.

/lit/ mentions them because constructing philosophical arguments is all they have so errors in their arguments will be commonplace to point out.

Yes, /sci/ also mentions fallacies when they are having a more philosophical rather than scientific argument, and you should be able to construct such an argument and find the errors in others' arguments, if, as a scientist, you consider yourself to be an intellectual.

>>8061515
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Should i respect people who cite fallacies then?

I'm not sure how to feel when someone just lists a bunch of latin words and says fallacy and argument over and over.

>>8061545
Unless you suspect that the person is bullshitting you or is dumb af, the person who is pointing out your fallacies is signalling you to capitulate, because you fucked up.

>>8061545
It is a fallacy to assume that because someone made a fallacy that they are wrong.

>>8061578
While pedantically true, this ignores that a fallacious argument is no better than a lack of one. Worse even.

Only formal fallacies are true fallacies.

>>8061545
It depends.
If you gave a constructive argument and ended it with dickhead and he says "ad hominem" then he is obviously a moron.

>>8061578

The "fallacy fallacy" is saying
>ha, you used ad hominem, thus global warming is fake

If you call out fallacious reasoning and urge them to provide a real argument or evidence, then you are in the right. Basically, call them on their bullshit, but that doesn't prove you right.

>>8061515
>what is a fallacy, why /pol/
you've obviously never even looked at the /pol/ sticky - fuck you, you lazy illiterate shitbag

>>8062992
That doesn't change the fact that it's something only retarded people (i.e. /pol/) cite because they can't into formal logic where these so called fallacies are just obvious false entailments.

>>8063004
the people who come on /sci/ and pretend to know shit when they clearly don't are ALWAYS the ones to start the "hurr ad hominem, bulverism, etc etc" fallacy bullshit.

fuck them

adding a goldie because fuck these people:

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8063010
>he called me a retarded faggot, that means he's wrong.
Lol, whatever, retarded faggot.

>>8061515

Because only debate team kiddies care about that shit.

>>8063020

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8061825
Well, formal fallacies are the only fallacies that are [math] necessarily [/math] wrong, regardless of content. Informal fallacies can be just as wrong, however it depends on what the content of the fallacy was.

>>8061545
Next time, before feeling anything, google it. As someone who studied Latin, I've been known to roll off a few Latin phrases from time to time (here and IRL), although I try to limit myself because I recognize that some people see it as pretentious. Really the point I am trying to get across by referring to something in Latin is that such an argument/exchange/phenomenon has been known for so long as false that I do not need to waste time explaining why.

For example, if someone tries to argue the following: Y happened immediately after X, therefore X caused Y; that's cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Now you can google that phrase and see that it is well documented and has been for thousands of years as fallacious reasoning. I don't have to waste time explaining why because anybody that actually cares about the truth will look into it themselves.

This speeds up the entire process of weeding through bullshit.

>>8063035
it's fucking pretentious and it doesn't speed up shit.

if you want to speed up shit and think it's obvious then say "it's obvious that's wrong". this sounds wrong to you? then explain. it's that simple.