historian’s fallacy (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc): 2 events occur at the same time, thus one event has caused the other.

A and B happen simultaneously; therefore A caused B.

gun ownership and violent crime rates have both increased; therefore gun ownership causes violent crimes.  <-- Fallacy - violent crime increasing could be causing the rate of gun ownership to increase due to fearful citizens.

John Dewey, 1896: a historical fallacy is “a set of considerations which hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.” (Reading into a process something which comes about as a result of the process.)

C is comprised of A and B; thus combining A and B makes C.  (B may actually be a result of the process of making C.)

If bread is broken down into it’s basic components, you find wheat and air (among other things).  Thus, wheat and air must be combined to make bread.  <-- Fallacy - air is the result of a process, wheat combined with yeast, in the making of bread.

list of links

logical fallacies

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

http://www.geekpress.com/2006/09/excellent-list-of-logical-fallaciesad.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

critical thinking

http://www.infoshop.org/critical_thinking.html

http://info-pollution.com/

http://skepdic.com/

http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

http://www.crank.net/

i had a conversation with someone tonite that reminded me of a friend’s pet peeve concerning subjectivists and their “perception is reality” line. 

to be honest, i never quite got why it was such a pet peeve.  at least, not at first.  c’mon, how i perceive things is how they are ~to me~!  makes perfect sense.

i can remember him telling me, “hello?!  you might perceive this rock as a feather, but when i hit you in the head with it, you’re going to feel it regardless!” of course, obtuse me: “please don’t throw rocks or feathers at me and it’s not an issue”.  but as ~enthusiastic~ as he could get on the topic, i started paying more attention.  after all, what was the big deal?  what a silly thing to get all excited about .  i ~still~ didn’t really get it. 

i understand now.  sadly.  i wish i had understood it MUCH sooner.  in fact, years sooner.  years and years and year...ok, i’m not that old. 

*anyways*

i can’t rant as effectively on the topic as he could, but don’t doubt my understanding of it and it’s dangers.  it’s the philosophy at the root of it that’s dangerous...or can be.  if perception is reality, then you create your own reality and fulfill it.  sounds great, hey?  i want to be ~successful~, i’ll just go be it!  fairly harmless: we are self-defined, self-created, self-fulfilling.  how empowering!  except...that leaves us with no certainties.  everything is subjective in nature.  it’s “all in our heads”.  it’s all just a “matter of perception”. 

this is inherently flawed, of course.  things DO exist outside of our minds.  to make it perfectly clear: you cannot objectively state that nothing can be stated objectively.  in trying to do so, you disprove your own point. 

read on...