Talk:Logical fallacy

From RationalWiki

This article seems to be nothing more than a list. On a slightly related note, there seems to be some overlap between the categories:Evaluating arguments, False arguments, and Assessing Pseudoscience. Also, it's unclear to me why some articles go in one category and not the other. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:58, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a direct result of the mobocracy structure. There's nothing to stop anyone creating a category: " things I wanna put in this category". Equally thee's nothing to stop anyone deleting/reassigning it.Susan^{talk to me} 11:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a good list though - when should a list be made a category? Susan^{talk to me} 12:34, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I would like to see a portal for debunking that makes it easy to go through the various articles, including Baloney detection and Log. Fall. Perhaps a merging of cats, etc?--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 09:43, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a good idea, I think. The overlap is as follows:

Between Evaluating arguments and False arguments:Ad hominem, Willful ignorance.

Between Evaluating arguments and Assessing pseudoscience:Argument from authority, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Quote Mining, Syllogism, The Fine Art of Baloney detection.

Some of the ones in Assessing Pseudoscience belong there, such as the essays and the side-by-sides. The only things that really belong in False arguments are the banana, bumblebee, and peanut butter argument. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:32, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Arghh...this is going to be a pain in the bum.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 10:45, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'd like to make Category:Assessing pseudoscience the clearinghouse.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 11:05, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps do away with Category:Evaluating arguments, or making it a subcat--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 11:06, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Category:False arguments should probably go into the dust bin of history.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 11:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Um, actually there are means of evaluating arguments that have nothing to do with logical fallacies. IMHO, logical fallacies should be a sub-cat of evaluating arguments.

I always saw "evaluating arguments" as means of evaluating arguments, whereas "assessing pseudoscience" was more assessments of pseudoscience. And, there could be a uber-article (apart from a category) about logical fallacies; it probably should be expanded. VirileSterile^yawn! 13:03, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

ok,ok but can we but together some sort of portal for debuking??--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 13:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

How about something like a super category of assessing pseudoscience of something like it, with sub cats of "eval arugments", "log fals", etc? Maybe for starters all work on that uber-art you suggested.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 13:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Sure--sounds good. Unfortunately, I don't know how much help I'll be--I'm still swamped with work... VirileSterile^yawn! 13:35, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Keep in mind that the cat structure does not have to be "tree like". At the extreme, two major categories could be in each other in order to create a strong, useful cross refernce (like, PS and logic could be members of each other). The goal is not for it to minimal, neat and tidy, but for it to be useful. human^{be in} 18:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Grouping?

As the list is getting a bit long, I thought grouping them would work to tidy the page up a bit. Trouble is, defining the groups. Some are easy, the correllation ones could go under a statistics heading and a few others can be general bad thinking (Referring to the title of a chapter in Tricks of the Mind). It's just a good page and could do with some care. ArmondikoV^{...I'll bless your extension cord!} 13:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)