Review of 'Bad Arguments'

This Rant was brought about my great & dispiriting disappointment with this book : An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments —

Which provided ‘another’ springboard for me to rant about my long held & exhaustively considered pet contention that ‘Logic is Bunk’.

Unfortunately; This Missive, like all previous Expositions on this Topic quickly becomes hopelessly Muddled as i am unable to constrain my compulsive habit to digress into tangental insights.

sigh.

Also; My Writing Style has been Criticized by many patient Readers as nearly incomprehensible for a variety of reasons.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

A Review With Extensive Critical Analysis of :

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments

Learn The Lost Art of Making Sense

by : Ali Almossawi  /  CopyLeft 2013

Illustrations by : Alejandro Giraldo

[ This review may actually be longer than The Book Itself ( ! ) ? ]

Contents :

Who is this Book For ?

Preface

Introductory Hierarchy

All Fallacies are Broken down into Either Informals, Red Herrings, or Formal Reasoning.

Informals are Questionable Paths to Reasonable Conclusions

 - No True Scotsman / Ambiguity

 - Equivocation / Ambiguity

 - Slippery Slope / Casual or Careless Thinking

 - Not A Cause for A Cause / Casual or Careless Thinking

 - False Dilemma / UnWarranted Assumption

 - Composition & Division / UnWarranted Assumption

 - Circular Reasoning / Begging The Question

 - Hasty Generalization / UnRepresentative Sample or Weak Analogy

 - Appeal to Ignorance / Missing or Suppressed Evidence

Red Herrings are simply Distractions from The Momentum of The Argument

 - Appeal to The Bandwagon / Peer Pressure or Cultural Expectations

 - Appeal to Fear / Emotional Presumptions

 - Argument from Consequences / Precognitive Assumption

 - Guilt by Association / Gratuitous Assumptions pertaining to Alliances

 - Straw Man / Innocent or Devious Summarization of A Position

 - Genetic Fallacy / Chronological or Regional Bias

 - Ad Hominem / Character Assassination

 - Appeal to Hypocrisy / Ad Hominem

 - Appeal to Irrelevant Authority / Fallacy of An Assumed Authority

 - & Pertaining to Formal Reasoning / Affirming The Consequent

Considered Fallacies :

Argument from Consequences

Straw Man

Appeal to Irrelevant Authority

Equivocation

False Dilemma

Not a Cause for A Cause

Appeal to Fear

Hasty Generalization

Appeal to Ignorance

No True Scotsman

Generic Fallacy

Guilt by Association

Affirming The Consequent

Appeal to Hypocrisy

Slippery Slope

Appeal to The Bandwagon

Ad Hominem

Circular Reasoning

Composition & Division

Final Remarks

Notes

Bibliography

About The Author & Illustrator

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

It should be noted that this is an Infinitesimally Tiny Sampling of Both Unique, Generic and Subtle Variations from The Gigantic Warehouse of Enumerated Fallacies.

It’s a Popular Pastime of idle Philosophers, Logicians & Epistemologists to Create New Lists of Cleverly Contrived Fallacies & Providing them with Esoteric Labels; That are Derived from A New Fad, Movie, Popular Children’s Literature or Political Conspiracy.

The Following Analysis of Each of The Fallacies that The Book Considered was Added here to show that ( or Suggest that ) Every Fallacy has a Dark Twin, Its Opposite, which is also a Fallacy !
The Correct Approach would be to Find the Middle Ground, The Peach Pit, The Clean White Sheet under The Soiled Quilt, which may itself be A Fallacy of Some Sort, If Attacked by a Clever Enough Logician or Epistemologist ! ( ! )

Argument from Consequences /

or : What is The Functionality of If: Then.

This is Apparently A Fallacy that Ali Invented or Discovered himself. The Nearest Cataloged Fallacy is: Affirming The Consequent, which is very different from Ali’s Argument from Consequences, Which is very odd. He seems to be arguing that if an Assertion is Accurate & The Following Consequences do indeed conform to The Causality of The Assertion; But given that These Consequences are UnFavorable; Then The Original Assertion may be Either True or False ( ? ) Although The Consequences of An Assertion are Accurately Portrayed; It is; According to this ‘Fallacy’; Irrelevant.

Obviously; If A Consequence of An Assertion does Not Follow from it, Then this is an Entirely Different Fallacy— So i’m Not sure what Ali’s Argument from Consequences is itself Asserting.

It seems to defy The Elemental Function of IFT ( If : Then ) Which is A Foundational Building Block of Propositional Logic.

It seems to be saying that if you don’t like where an Argument is headed, you can simply dismiss The Argument ( or Not )— Which is Apparently The Fallacy that he’s asserting.

This First ‘Chapter’ Illustrates The Weakness of this Book in which A Subtle Idea would be Greatly Amplified by The Addition of Numerous Humorous & Well Drawn Illustrations; As The Title Promises, But Fails to Deliver !

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Straw Man / Or : Doing your Opponent’s Job

It’s been suggested that The Difference Between an Adequate Teacher & A Good Teacher is that The Adequate Teacher will Accurately Answer all of her Student’s Questions; While The Superior Teacher will Answer The Questions that Their Student’s Intended to Ask !

A Strawmyn Argument may be an innocent or devious summarization or encapsulation of your Opponent’s Argument & then Finding Flaws in this Faux Submission.

Alternatively; Your ReStatement of your Opponents Already Sloppy Argument may be a Stronger One than The One Presented; With The Intent that you wish to Draw Attention to The Truly Fallacious Reasoning in this Strongest Advocation for your Opponents Agenda ( ! )

Such that A Strawmyn Argument may be either Weaker or Stronger than your  Opponent’s Stated Argument.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Appeal to Irrelevant Authority /

or : The Fallacy of an Appeal to Any Authority

The Idea is very Straight forward; If you ask an Imminent Authority of North African Camel Mating Habits what their Learned Opinion is on The Topic of What is The Best Orange Juice to Buy at The Supermarket; Their Response may be no better than anyone else’s.

The Anti-Thesis of This Fallacy is that it seems to Imply that The Learned Opinions of An Imminent Authority on The Topic of Goat Dander will provide you with The Best Answers to Questions of Goat Dander.

This is Not Entirely Accurate. While you may reasonably Seek out someone that is an Authority on Goat Dander to finds your Answers to Questions concerning Goat Dander; You may be allowing yourself to Fall into The Trap of Confusing Learned Opinion with Topical Accuracy. That is; Experts will invariably have their own pet theories & opinions within their own disciplines, which are Not founded on rigorous ‘scientific’ or Epistemological principles.

It is ‘Wiser’ to Seek out your Answers to any Given Question from a Variety of ‘Interested’ Parties, & Asking The Simple Followup Question; Why do you think that?

This Approach is based on my own observations that Amateurs or Hobbyists often have a much greater & -Enthusiastic- Understanding of some Area of Expertise, Than The Overpaid Institutionalized Professors at A Given University or Questionable Pedigree.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Equivocation / or : The Subtle Fallacy of Consistency ( ! )

Equivocation is The Ambiguous Use of Language; Something that Everyone & Poets do Routinely with Complete Innocence; As it is usually apparent what The Underlying Meaning or Intent is—

But Devious Logicians may use a Word or Phrase Several Times in An Argument with The Tacit Understanding that The Meaning of The Word or Phrase Remains Constant; While it is actually used in Different ‘Senses’. 

Which has more Legs, a Horse or No Horse?

A Horse usually has Four Legs

No Horse has Six Legs

No Horse has More Legs.

Alternatively; When A Logician Uses all of their Words Accurately & Consistently; They may still construct a DisIngenuous Argument by Contextually Misplacing A Word that Should mean Something Else, But The Audience Assumes that It is Being Used Consistently. ( ! )

[ Example Required ]

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

False Dilemma / or : Understanding The Spirit of The Argument

Formalized Propositional Logic is all About The Antecedent (p & The Succedent (q, being either True or False, with no allowances for Fractional Truth Values which may reflect Uncertainty or A Fluctuating Set of Circumstances.

Fractional Propositional Logic Allows for this; But is Sorely Neglected for Some Reason ( ! )

Still— Ordinary Language may be used to Assert that there are only Two or A Insincerely Small Number of Choices in A Spectral Continuum of Alternatives.

You’re Either With Us or Against Us— Disallows The Option of Neutrality or Indifference; But The Underlying Truth of The Assertion is That in a Crisis Situation; Neutrality will allow The Crisis to Overwhelm Those that Oppose It & The Disinterested Bystanders alike, Such as Allowing Radical Environmentalists to Save The Forests; Forcing us all to live in houses made from Discarded Pepsi Bottles.

By calling this Form of Argument A Fallacy, you have Committed The Fallacy of Pimple Picking; Which fails to Comprehend The Intention of The Assertion.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Not a Cause for A Cause /

or : Grasping The Holistic Relationships of An Argument

Very often; A Fallacy will have a Latin or Clever Appellation when A Simpler one will Do Much Better;

The Groundless Casualty Fallacy may be a more obvious Title for this,

or Not ( ? )

This Intended Confusion or Obscurity of Meaning is Intended to Differentiate The Inskies from The Outskies, Which may relate to Job Security, or they may simply be marking their Territories by pissing on your lawn.

This Fallacy is intended to denote a form of very bad reasoning in which The Causality of Something is Wholly Unjustified. This normally Occurs when you see something unfailingly preceding something else, Causing you to believe that The Preceding Article Somehow Caused The Latter Event. This may be entirely reasonable, or Not. It is better to understand The underlying principles before making a Final Judgement on such matters.

Falling Snowflakes do Not cause Faux Santas to appear in Shopping Malls.

The Sun does Not chase The Moon from The Night Sky.

Hamburgers left out on The BackPorch Do Not Generate Spontaneous Fly Larva To Appear.

Alternatively; Getting all The Causal Relationships Correct may lead to Fallacious Thinking in that The Argument Uses The Wrong Agencies as The Significant Ones for The Desired Outcome or Conclusion. There is always some nearly insignificant detail that may be misunderstood, misplaced or neglected when trying to understand a complex issue. As Well as allowing Clever Anthropologists, Sociologists or dweebish Philosophers to provide lengthy expositions on how unrelated circumstances & cultural practices influence & induce or suppress one another.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Appeal to Fear / or : Can Credible Consequences be Predicted?

The Importance of The Appeal to Fear as Relevant to A Fallacy is that The Orator is Promoting An Unrealistic Fear; & in Many Cases, It’s Deeply Questionable whether or Not that Fear is Excessively Pessimistic or Not ( ! ) ( ? ) 

Very often; The Orator will lose their Opportunity to Sway The Damp Masses, Allowing their Worst Fears to Become Actualized, & their prognostications of The End Times will Not be Realized, Strongly Suggesting that they were Full of BeanDip The Whole Time—

But This : Is another Fallacy.

Maybe The Reason that World Famine & Plagues of Weevils came to naught was because The Relevant Agencies that had The Power to Prevent these things, Took heed to his warnings & Stepped in behind The Scenes & Saved The World. ( ? )

How would you, how could you determine with reasonable, logical certainty that a given Dire Warning of A Coming Holocaust is The Hysterical Ranting of A Louisianan Senator or The Measured Concerns of A Well Read Clairvoyant? If it were ‘Obvious’ then The Ominous Premonitions of National Ruination would fail to Turn The Heads of The Nearly Illiterate Damp Masses.

Very Often; The Razor’s Edge Between Sound Horse Sense & Declaring that A Common Fallacy is Being Perpetrated; Is nothing more than A Mother’s Intuition. 

A Surly Logician may insist that Any Attempts to Predict The Future has no Place in a Cautiously Assembled Logical Argument; But Predicting & Planning for The Future is a Foundational Feature of Any Progressive Civilization. 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Hasty Generalization / or : How Permissible are Mindful Deductions

“One Uses Inductive Reasoning to Prove that Flying Saucers are Real,

And Deductive Reasoning to Prove that They’re Nonsense.”

Inductive Reasoning : Considers The Grand Mountain of Anecdotal Evidence.

There is a Common Refrain used by DeBunkers; Which Claims that Anecdotes are Not Data; But The Historical Quote that they are Citing actually Says —

“The Plural of Anecdote is Data.”

     Raymond Wolfinger

The Dismissal of Data by ‘Outskies’ is A Common Fallacy which claims that only ’True Scientists’ can Collect Data for Analysis. This is a Slight Variation on The True Scotsmyn Fallacy.

Deductive Reasoning : Considers The Oddness of Each Anecdote as Compared with Established Facts & Consistent Logical Assumptions.

A Well Understood Foundation of Knowledge is Used to make predictions about a newly discovered Event or Observation.

A Dog is observed with it’s leg raised in The vicinity of a fire hydrant;

Deductive Reasoning predicts that The Dog will begin Urinating in short order.

This may be Wrong; The Dog may only be stretching his leg & The Proximity of The Fire Hydrant is Irrelevant.

Inductive Reasoning

Particular Cases, Which may be Anecdotal in Nature, are Noted & Filed away, Then General Principles are Derived from The Patterns Observed from these General Accounts.

A myn observes several dogs in his neighborhood, as well as squirrels. Whenever there is a combination of Dogs & Squirrels in The Same Vicinity; The Dogs will chase The Squirrel(s.

Inductive Reasoning Postulates that Dogs like to Chase Squirrels.

This may be Wrong; The Dogs may be chasing something that is unseen by The observer, in order to protect The squirrels from it. Or The Observer may have made this inference from watching only a few dogs chasing what appeared to be squirrels.

Abductive Reasoning / Inference

The Inverse of Deductive Reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning makes The Observation of A, which usually or always leads to B.

Abductive Reasoning suggests that The Causality of B is Always or Nearly always A,

So that if B is Observed, Then A must have occurred at some prior time, when The Observer was in The bathroom.

A Womyn notices that her friend is getting fatter, Thus she infers via Abductive Reasoning that her Friend has Recently had surgery to implant packets of fat into her abdomen, as this explanation is commonly used by her circle of friends to explain weight gain.

This is Sherlock Holmes Reasoning; In The Sherlock Holmes Universe, All Caused Events have one & Only one Cause; & All Causality Events result in Only One Causal Result.

In The ‘Real’ World; Single Causal Events, when done properly, will result in The Desired Outcome, But any slight deviation of Circumstances or Variables, may result in a very unexpected Result— & nearly all Observed Effects may have any number of Causal Circumstances which prompted them to become actualized.

ProInductive Reasoning / Contrivance

A General Principle comes into Popular Acceptance,

Either through Common Inductive Reasoning or Folklore.

From this General Principle;

Various Expected, But UnObserved, Individual Cases are Devised which fit all The Facts of The General Principle.

A Dog Breeder has a Clear Understanding of how Dogs may be Bred to Create any number of Novel Types of Dogs;

And by using ProInductive Contrivance; Predicts that A Number of Breeds that he has never seen, will be discovered or Created in The Near Future.

There is No Empirical Evidence for these UnSeen Stocks, but ProInductive Invention Allows them to Exist Tentatively, or Forever, Since Their Non-Existence would have to be Demonstrated as Defying The General Principle’s Constraints. Until then; Their Existence would remain ‘Possible’ according to this line of Logical Prediction.

Poetic Deduction

A Shadow forms The Figure of Christ / A Shaft a Light points The way to another Clue / An Overheard snippet of Conversation on a Bus is Misinterpreted to Mean that An Overlooked Suspect must be reconsidered / A Book is opened to a Randomly chosen page, then with your eyes closed, you point to a line which is interpreted to fit an ongoing argument /

DADA Supposition

A Magazine is cut into small pieces, then rearranged with The help of dice, to make a poem that describes What The Creator is Looking for.

Guerilla  Averment

An Argument is won through Intimidation & Violence.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Appeal to Ignorance / or :

As Appeal to Ignorance is Usually Applied; It pokes a Cruel Finger into The Eyes of Careless Fringe Science Promoters that like to Wildly Assume Things from a Foundation of ‘What Else could it be?’

This lack of imagination is often laughable; Such as when they assume that The Pyramids must have been built by Giant Fallen Angels; such as The Rephaim, Because The presumed ( by sounder minds ) Methods used by Ancient Egyptian Engineers remain unknown.

( There is currently a very curious theory that claims that The mysterious Ramps that have always been assumed to be Absolutely Necessary; Were incorporated into The Pyramid(s itself, winding around The parameter as it climbed upwards. )

Alternatively though; Appeal to Ignorance may be misapplied when applied to The Arguments pertaining to A Reasonably Intelligent Creator which Uses A Logical Application called : Irreducible Complexity. While this in itself is often misused; Such as when applied to The Evolution of The Eye, There are many other Features which Defy An Ready Explanation of how they could have Evolved without Equally Harebrained Speculation to Contradict them.

What is very annoying about The Evolutionists is that they refute one of ‘Science’s’ bedrock assumptions; Which is that any given theory must be Disprovable. Evolutionists absolutely refuse to accept any Alternative Explanation to Essentially Random Darwinian Evolution, No Matter how improbable Some or All of The Assumed Paths of Evolution must take, For fear that by giving an inch, they are acknowledging The possibility of Jehovah & Creationism. Never mind that The Reasonably Intelligent Creator Argument Refutes Jehovah just as Vehemently. The Reasonably Intelligent Creator is more akin to The First Technological Civilization in The Milkyway Galaxy that went on to Colonize The Entire Milkyway Galaxy in only a few hundreds of Millions of Years, even without WarpDrive ( ! ), & Seeded many Worlds with Life, such as our own, & then went on to oversee our continuing Development.

This is all Deeply Applicable to The Appeal to Ignorance— As there is no ‘Direct’ Evidence for it; Aside from The Very Improbably Details of Evolution. Evolution looks great from The Hilltops, but examination of any of its necessary details invariably exposes countless problems with The Darwinian Paradigm.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

No True Scotsman

No True Scotsman in A Slight Variation on The Moving Goalposts Fallacy ( Nearly all Fallacies have several Alternative Names ! ) Which refers to Changing The Rules of a Developing Argument when a Deal Killing Piece of Evidence is Introduced.

In its purest Form; A Scotsman is accused of a Crime that was previously unimaginable that a Scotsman would do such a Thing; So that The Defenders of Scottish Moral Superiority insist that No True Scotsman would have committed such A Crime, Inferring that The Accused Scotsman’s Grandfather was Irish or Norwegian.

Of Course; This Shouldn’t Dissuade a Logician from Changing their Argument if it’s determined to have Weaknesses or An Attack on it demonstrates that its definitions are incomplete. Every Argument is a Work in Progress, Even if they seem ‘Irrefutable’ at any given point in time ( ! )

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Genetic Fallacy / Chronological or Regional Bias

This seems to be A Variation of an Ad Hominem in that The Promoter of The Argument is Evaluated for Various Attributes & these irrelevant traits are used to Determine The Value of Their Argument.

We shouldn’t believe that Opponents of Northwest Forest Harvesting are Genuinely Concerned for Ecological Inhabitants of The Forest, Which includes The Trees themselves, as well as The Full Spectrum of Fauna & Those Publicity Whores; The Spotted Owls— Because this Group of Environmentalists were born in authentic Log Cabins.

We Can’t believe anything George W. Bush says because he’s a Member of The Skull & Bones Cult.

The Chronological or Regional Bias may provide Sincere Critics of An Argument with a Stepping off Point to ‘Follow The Money’, But standing alone; It’s a feeble & duplicitous Attack.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Guilt by Association

A Very Simple & Common Fallacy is to View A Logician’s Position from The Company that they Keep.

i’ve often thought that a terrifically devious political campaign strategy would be to run Television Ads FOR your Opponent, Such that they would be Endorsed by The Most Disreputable People you could find; Such as Filthy, Disheveled Motorcycle Gang Members, Methamphetamine Addicts in Opium Dens, Small Fidgety Children with ADHD, Wild Eyed Schizophrenics holding Assault Rifles, Criminals in Prison— & so on.

The Curious thing about many ‘Logical Fallacies’ is that they seem ‘Intuitively’ to be Examples of Sound Reasoning. Surely if A Political Candidate really is, Genuinely Supported by Bedraggled Foreign Suicide Bombers; That should give you pause in considering their qualifications as A State Senator ( ? )

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Affirming The Consequent

This The Flipped Version of Modus Ponens ( !!! )

Which takes The Generally Assumed to Be A Valid Propsitional Logical Function of :

If A Then C. If A is True; Then C is also True.

The Fractional Propositional Version of this; Algebraically is :

MAX (( 1-p ), q )

Which means that if you’ve given The Likelihood of your Antecedent (p of being True as 83% ( .83 ) & The Likelihood of your Consequent (q of being True of 67% ( .67 ); Then The Logical Function of these Observed Variables yields a Validity Value of :
MAX ( .17, .67 ) = .67 Valid.  ( ? )

The Less True your Antecedent is, Compared to The Consequent, The More True your Function is. What does this Mean ?

This is The Problem with Propositional Logic, Either Binary or Fractional,

It’s just crazy. The Truth Tables seem to ‘Make Sense’ but no one has ever figured out a way to use these tools to apply them to Real World Arguments or Reasoning !

The Most Glaring Demonstration of this is That All Internet Search Engines work by looking up Key Words or Phrases. None have any success at actually parsing a sentence & determining what The Inquiry is Actually seeking ( ! )

Oh ! Sorry, i got distracted !

Affirming The Consequent means that The Logician is Attempting to Persuade his Audience that IF (p Then (q, & (q is shown to be True, Then (p must be True as Well.

This may also be Called The SherlockHolmes Fallacy, In that in The Sherlock Holmes Reality, Every Causal Agent has One & only One Effect & Consequently; Every Caused Effect has One & only One Causal Agent.

Of course; In The Actual World; Even if we allow that Every Causal Agent has a Highly Predictable Outcome— Which is somewhat Dubious ( ? ) In that in Real World Scenarios, There are always so many Peripheral Variants that The Outcome of any Causal Effect is Merely Probable at Best. But Even if we allow for that; Any Given Consequential Effect may in fact be The Result of many different Causal Agencies.

2 + 2 = 4 : Therefore 1 + 3 = 4 must be false.

Sadly; i can Not think of a better example than this; For this to be genuinely applicable; The Source Function of IF (p THEN (q should rigorous true without exceptions ! All of The Examples in The Book do Not meet this greater standard, & amazingly; i can’t find a plain english example in any of my logic books !!!

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Appeal to Hypocrisy / or : Questioning The Sincerity of Ones Motives

This is simply a Distraction ( Red Herring ) Method that is typically used in The Form of ; ‘Oh Yeah! Say’s You!’

Or ‘If You’re The Queen of The Universe; Why do you Still chew your Fingernails !’

The Bible addressed this Fallacy with The Parable of The Woman About to Be Stoned for Adultery or Shoplifting, or Something like Changing her Socks in Public. So Jesus comes along & Quips, ‘Oh, So you’ll all so High & Mighty, Let s’he who is without Gravy Stains on their lobster bib cast ( throw ) The First Stone!’ & there was a awkward pause before someone stepped forward & began heaving old loafs of bread at The Woman.

There is also The Story regarding regarding a dust mote in The Eye of A Philistine, while The Street Beggar had an unruly hair tuff that he couldn’t comb down. For some reason Jesus spent an entire afternoon ranting about this. ( ? )

It seems to me that it should be entirely reasonable to point out The flaws or foibles in others, while falling far short of The Fashion Acumen that only Hollywood Media Whores possess. Is it Not entirely Desirable that a homeless beggar, urine stained with an embarrassing haircut that went out of style 20 years ago; Make The Constructive Observation that you have a Very Noticeable Booger hanging from your nose as you prepare to meet an attractive Prostitute on a well illuminated Corner? Wouldn’t this be a commendable Gesture of Humility & Empathy with his Caste Superior? Yes; It would be !

Likewise; Might it be Logically Reasonable to Question The Sincerity of Someone whose own Willful Eagerness to Sin before The Lord of Gravity & Queen of Magnetism, When they are maliciously pointing out your own itty-bitty social faux pas in front of your new girl friend? Might they be attempting to perpetrate a Tangental Agenda that is incidental to your own Venial Indiscretions?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Slippery Slope /

or : When do Credible Speculations cease to be Pragmatic Conjectures?

If you allow Girls to Wear Pants, They’ll next want to put on Suits, Take our Manly Jobs & Then Grow Their own Penis’.

Slippery Slope is Usually only an Egregious Fallacy when The Logician allows their Reasonable Concerns to Cascade into Unrestrained Schizophrenic Delusions of Apocalyptic Barbarity &/or Allowing Naked Red Skinned Daemons to use your bathroom.

It may be allowable to permit your opponent to speculate within plausible constraints, But it is too commonly revealed that if these idle musings are Not gathering The desired hysteria from The Ramble Throng, They may choose to Escalate their Visceral Ancestral Phobias of Snakes, Grass Fires, Itchy Rashes or Acid Rain to become unwarranted features of their Argument. This is Wrong.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Appeal to The Bandwagon /

or : Adherence to Cultural Values are What Define A Stable Civilization

Cultures & Societies Are Defined by Classes of The Damp Masses Sharing Ethical Values, Dietary Preferences, Fashion Restrictions, Technological Boundaries, Judicial Extremism, Sexual Perversions, Library Book Preferences & Skin Color.

But Everyone is Expected to Chose their own Shoes, Bathroom Towels & Personal Vernaculars, within Reason.

Appeal to The Bandwagon is A Logical Tool that Attempts to Superimpose Gratuitous Predilections to your Private Behaviours, which are usually made to make The Unshorn Lambs easier to Slaughter on Cold Autumn Mornings.

Highschool Peer Pressure is A Curious Example of A Class of Subhumans that fancy themselves to be The Most Individualistic & Radical in their Thoughts & Fashions— Yet as a Spectral Caste, They adhere to a Standard of Internal Conformity that horrifies Adults 25 to 40 years old.

Most New Ideas are Widely & Silently Suppressed by The Notion of Validation, Which Requires that Any New Fashion Trend, IceCream Flavor, Car Model or Celebrity to Be Validated by An Authoritative Source before it can be Accepted or Taken Seriously.

It has been long suggested that Science; The Hallmark of Earnest & Sober Analytical Progress, Advances haltingly, One Funeral at a Time.

This may be why African’s fell so far behind The Social, Artistic & Technological Advances of their Progeny on Other Continents, It Was that they Somehow Lacked The Media or Communal Validation Sources which would have allowed New Ideas to Propagate. 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Ad Hominem /

or : “…Reason is, & ought only to be The Slave of The Passions,

& can Never pretend to any other office than to serve & obey them.”

David Hume 1739

Ad Hominem; ( To The Person )

or The’ Hey— Stinky! Get out of My Chair!’ Fallacy

When Attacking your Opponents Rational Arguments or Position, Draw Attention to Their Cultural Illiteracy, Large Feet, Gnawed away Fingernails, Funny Looking Ears or Odd UnIdentifiable Body Odor.

Would it be Wrong though to mention that your Political Opponent excessively uses The Phrases; ‘Don’t cha know’ & ’Smokin’ Tatties’ ?

What may be Relevant about their Personal Habits or Sexual Preferences, If those inclinations might result in prosecutions that would interfere with their parliamentary duties?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Circular Reasoning /

or : Considering The Cyclical Complexion of The Natural World

We know that The Bible is Infallible & Wholly Accurate because it Says So. 

More often; Small inexpensive Dictionaries use The Word being defined, in The Definition.

Circular Reasoning is hard to defend, But Isn’t Nature Itself Circular in it’s Seasonal Rhythms, Planetary Orbits, The Laws of Chemistry & The Repetition of Historical Motifs?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Composition & Division / or : The Holistic Relevance of Form & Fabric

This Fallacy is Concerned with The Confusion Relating to Things & Their Parts.

A Marginally Attentive Waitress is Considered Alive, & her Individual Cells are alive, But are her Molecules Alive? Some of them, All of them or None of Them? Are Atoms Alive?

An Ant Colony or Bee Hive Expresses Directed Activities, But do The Individual Insects possess an Awareness of Goal Oriented Behaviours?

A Brain can Think, But do Neurons Think?

Each M&M has a Candy Shell, Does a Bag of M&Ms have a Candy Shell?

The Gaian Model of The Earth claims that it’s Ecological Biosphere Possess all The Attributes of a Living Cell, Is The Earth an Autonomous Living Entity?

It’s usually pretty obvious that The Attributes of A Thing are Different than it’s Parts, & Vice Versa; But occasionally it Is Confusing :

What’s made of Wood, Yet can’t be Sawed?

What gets Wetter The More it Dries?

a) What is full of holes, but is excellent for holding water ?

b) How many lines does it take to make a drawing?

c) How can you ruin Garbage? ( Lynda Barry )

d) i am greater than gawd

and more evil than The devil

The poor have it in abundance

yet The rich desperately desire it

and if you eat it, you will surely die

what am i?

e) The More you take away, The Bigger it becomes.

f) The more you take, The more you leave behind.

If Everyone in a Family is Happy, Is it Entirely Reasonable to Assume that The Family is Happy?

Books have Meaning & are made up of Words; Words have Meaning & are Made up of Letters; Letters have Meaning, What are They Made up of?

- - -

Answers :

Sawdust, A Towel, A Sponge, Nothing, A Hole, Footsteps

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Mine Own Favorite Fallacies :

The Fallacy of The Elegant Solution

Very often; Historically & Contemporaneously; Learned Myn have Sought out Solutions or ‘Explanations’ for Observed Phenomena & been Sorely Frustrated by Their Inability to Understand That Given Marvel of Nature— So they Resort to Simply attaching Labels to their observed particulars & meticulous measurements, Without ever revealing The Underlying Principles of Causality.

The Worser Case is when The Learned Professor Contrives An Elegant Solution or Explanation, Which; To be Polite & Delicate; Does Not withstand The Diligence of Future 5th Grade Text Books. 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

The Fallacy of The UnIntelligible Response

This simply refers to The Response given to you by a Learned Professor or Crazy Lunatic in The Park; Which is UnIntelligible to you. There is Really No Way for you to Know or Assume that The Answer that they’ve provided is Either ‘Over your Head’ or ‘Mere Gibberish’. 

Further Inquiries will be required.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

The Fallacy of The Too Long Proof

It may well be that A Genuinely Sound & Stringently Logical Argument may require numerous carefully laid steps toward its desired elucidation; But one must always be Suspicious of Proofs or Arguments that are ‘Too Long’. 

Contrarily; A Very Short & ‘Elegant’ Proof or Argument may Contain a Single, Very Cleverly placed Miss-Step, Which may confound even The Harshest Critic into Accepting its Validity. ( ! )

Keep in mind that many ‘Statements’ or ‘Sentences’ that Seem to Be Entirely Reasonable, or Sensible, are Not— They are merely artful Gibberish. 

Consider The Many Well Acknowledged Paradoxes for Examples.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

The Two for The Price of One Fallacy

This Line of Reasoning is often used by The American Airforce when refuting claims made by The Advocates of Flying Saucers, & was first Suggested, as a Fallacy, by either Stanton Friedman or J. Allen Hynek ( ? ).

When The Advocates of The Flying Saucer Crash at Roswell, New Mexico; Insisted that Alien Bodies were Recovered from The Crash Site; As Attested to by numerous witnesses; The Airforce first Suggested one Theory to account for what was seen, & then if you don’t like that one; They offered a different contradictory Theory.

This Same Phenomena is Rampant with The 911 Fiasco. There are Innumerable Theories as to what ‘Really’ happened, But unfortunately; While each of these Theories has it’s own wondrous evidence; They are collectively Completely incompatible with one another.

The use of this Fallacy in Any Given Argument tends to Introduce additional DisInformation & Severely Muddle The Search for a Greater Truth.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

MisUse of An Analogy, Simile, Metaphor or Trope

Sarah Palin says that she’s a Pitbull with Lipstick— i don’t mind The Lipstick, but Do you really want a State Governor, or Vice President with Four Legs?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

xxx

Commentary

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

xxx

Commentary

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

⫸ 𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄐⩎𝄑⩏𝄐⩎𝄑⩏𝄐⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄐⩎𝄑 ⨵ ⊙

Review :

Firstly; Thinking Clearly is Amazingly Difficult.

Good or Sound Reasoning is Fraught with so many maddeningly frustrating & Confusing Particulars as to Render The Functionality of ‘Logic’ Nearly Pointless. If we allow that The Purpose of Sound Logical Thinking is to Provide Certainty to our Conclusions & Decisions, Then Logic is Bunk. Never mind that any Decision that you make & Translated into Action is Confronted with The Dilemma that you have No Idea how that Decision & Action will ‘Play Out’ an hour, a day or two weeks from now; Which may result it Events & Consequences that are Exactly The Opposite of your Desired Outcome.

The Most you can ever reasonably hope for; Is to avoid making stupefyingly boneheaded or genuinely suicidal Decisions.

The Problem with Identifying & Avoiding Catalogued Fallacies is that this often leads Directly to Committing New Fallacies, Since The Fallacy that you’ve Identified may well be A Red Herring to The Gist of The Argument. ( ! ) Are you looking for The Truth, or merely picking at pimples ( ? )

Secondly; Calling this Book an Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments is Astonishingly Disingenuous. The Illustrations Do Not in any way provide useful expositions of The Fallacies Inventoried.

Perhaps i would committing The Fallacy of UnNecessary Cruelty by mentioning that these Illustrations feature an Timeworn method of depicting stylized Eyes in a Somewhat Novel & Caricatured Manner which i found Disturbing & Confusing ! It took me several minutes to make sense of What i was looking at; Such that with a Cursory Examination; The Animals appear to have Double Pupils in their Eyes ( ? ) Perhaps if The ‘Reflection Wedge’ were used more Consistently, This wouldn’t be so Disconcerting.

The Cover Illustration is about 40% better than The Interiour Doodles, of which there are very few, & pertain only fleetingly to The Topic of Each Chapter, which Consists of Dense Formal Prose that provides A Superficial Examination of The Fallacy being considered.

The Cover seems to Suggest that The Book is for Young Readers, But The Commentary of Each Chapter is Written for College Level Sophomores, which often includes fallacious Reasoning & Poorly Considered Examples to Support The Fallacies Themselves.

i was hoping for a Clever Collection of Short Narratives which involved The Two Characters depicted on The Cover, Investigating Benign & Curious Mysteries in their Forest, which invariably lead them to disclose The Poor & Careless Thinking Habits of Their Neighbors.

What would have been Additionally Interesting & Enlightening, would be; If After Exposing A Particularly Egregious Example of Irresponsible Cognition; It’s latter revealed that The Conclusions of this Thinking was Spot On ! This Unexpected Discordance is then Examined Further.

This was The Very Anti-Thesis of My Expectations that The Cover & Title Lead me to Believe was The Content of This Book.

If i were to Assert that Proposition (x is True by some brief line of reasoning, & The Author would then point out that i have committed some indelible Fallacy with A Latin Epithet— The Assumption may well be that my Original Assertion is Wrong; Which itself is A Fallacy !

The Search for Truth has to Transcend merely memorizing Volumes of Catalogued Fallacies, Each of Which will undoubtedly possess a Mirror Fallacy which Calls into Question Each of them.

The Opposite of a Strawmyn Argument may be A Fallacy of Accurately Recalling your Opponents Position; As Stated, But Failing to Consider its Spiritually Intended Consequences; Such that The Truly Appropriate Attack of your Opponent’s Argument would be to State Their Policy in its Strongest Form, & Then Show how that Approach is Ill Considered.

The Rival of A Slippery Slope would be to Consider only The Immediate Consequences of your Opponents Strategy; While The more Pertinent Analysis would be to Provide A Full & Exhaustive Spectrum of Possible Ramifications of their Bone-Headed Plan, Pointing out The Disastrous Consequences of Each Facet.

The Point Being; That A Clever Logician Can Find Fault & Fallacy in Any Perfectly Reasonable Logical Approach. That is The Nature of Plain English Discourse.

i prefer to think of ‘Assertions’ or ‘Arguments’ as either; Strong or Thin.

If you Discover that An Argument is ‘Weak’; Then it is entirely reasonable to suspect that The Conclusion(s are Flawed, but that in itself is Fallacious Thinking.

It may be The Conclusions are True; But The Argument is Imperfect.

One of The Most Clever & Devious Ways to Argue for A Given Point, Is to Argue Badly for your Opponents Position, Which will hopefully lead your Audience to ‘Make up their Own Mind’ that ‘your’ Argument must be Strong Evidence for your Actual ( UnSpoken ) True Position ( !!! )

⫸ 𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄐⩎𝄑⩏𝄐⩎𝄑⩏𝄐⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄑⩎𝄐⩏𝄐⩎𝄑 ⨵ ⊙

The Principle Reasons that Thinking Clearly is So Difficult, Is that One must first have an entrenched Desire to Discover The Truth through Careful Reasoning.

A Structured Argument is The Opposite of That. 

The Purpose of The Argument is to Convince your Audience that Whatever Crazy things you Believe to Be True, Are in Fact; True.

Everyone Believes Crazy Things. The Smartest or Dumbest, The Most Well Read or Illiterate, Bright or Dull, Gentleman or Lady, Young or Old all have Beliefs which they’ve come to hold dear & will tenacious defend them from Assaults by Cunning Scholars.

The Reason that we Observe some People as being Smarter than others; Is that The Smart Ones are Able to Provide Ingenious Arguments to Demonstrate That their Crazy Beliefs are Accurate.

To Construct A Well Meaning Argument to Provide Certainty of Some Ludicrous Belief that you Possess :

Establish A Set of Axioms to Jump off From. These are Assertions that you & your Culturally Specific, Particular Religiously Oriented or Given Scientific Discipline, Believes to be True without Question. These Axioms are So True that your Audience Can’t imagine them to be Not True.

Unfortunately; Because Axioms are UnProved, They Tend to have an Equally Fanatical Audience that Believes Exactly The Opposite.

How Sure are you of Elemental Aspects of your Reality?

How Sure are you that There are Elephants in Africa?

Do you Completely Discount The Thousands of First Person Accounts of Faeries, Flying Saucers, BigFeet or Regional Disparities of The ‘Others’ ?

Do you only Believe People in Positions of Authority? Of a Particular Political Party?

Do you Believe your own Eyes? Your own memories from your Childhood?

After you’ve selected some Axioms;

You then have to Add some Propositions which may or may Not come with Sound Reasons for Why they’re True.

 But how True is True. Propositional Logic only allows that Something is True or False. But Most everything we Believe is True or False has Some Doubt Associate with it. Shouldn’t we Allow that Things are Fractionally True?

Might it be Reasonable to Allow that There are Elephants in Africa to Be 98% True; While that There were once Unicorns in Europe to Be 32% True. There is Certainly a lot of Evidence for Both. How would go about Determining The Fractional Truth Value for Most Assertions ?

Then; You’ve got to Arrange your Axioms & Propositions within a Well Structured Logical Framework that is Consistent & Free of Fallacies. The Shorter & More Elegant, The Better.

You should always be very skeptical of Any Argument that goes on & on for pages & pages, Becoming more & more Convoluted.

But it is also very easy for a very Short Argument to Contain A Confusing Paradoxical Element or Simply A NonSensical Statement that sounds like A Well Meaning Sentence, But is in fact Pure Gibberish!

Every Unsolved Paradox is Evidence that There is Something Seriously Wrong with our Ability to Know What is ‘Reasonable’.

There are many Long Standing Historical Paradoxes that Still Confound Logicians & Philosophers.

Many People are easily lead astray by A Statement that seems perfectly ‘logical’; But Actually doesn’t make any sense at all. ( ! )

This book completely Fails to Address The Greater Problems of Good Thinking. It is merely a very superficial listing of common Fallacies, & utterly neglects to consider their true complexity, which actually leads to a greater degree of muddled thinking & a significantly better chance of Arguing Badly.

This Book Teaches Bad Thinking.

& It is just barely Illustrated.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

One would think/believe that if There really was this Thing Called ‘Smartness’, It would Exist in a Uniform Manner throughout Human Civilizations.

But it does not. ( Apparently )

One might believe that if you simply took all The Smartest People from around The World, & Asked them a series of Very Simple Questions; They would all Readily Agree as to what The Correct Answers would be.

And without going into Examples here;

If this Thought-Experiment could actually be Performed; Someone would have performed it by now, & it would be Transparently Clear that Smart People Consistently Agree on Elemental & Complex Issues, & Therefore; It would be Extremely Obvious that The Smartest People should be Running The Governments of The World.

But that is not The Way things Work Either.

Why is this ?

The Smartest People in The World Do Not Agree on The Simplest Issues.

The Apologist may argue that they Do Agree on many things, But Even So;

They would Vehemently Disagree about many simple/Axiomatic Issues.

And Much More So; Hysterically DisAgree about many, only Slightly more so, Complex Issues or Items Relating to Any ‘Vested’ Beliefs. 

Suggested Film :

Resurrect Dead : The Mystery of The Toynbee Tiles / Jon Foy / © 2011/ This is a truly amazing film in that it so very clearly shows how one may be mislead with fallacious thinking into believing with  very strong certainty that (x is True, when it isn’t ( !!! )

My Glossary :

Jiggery-Pokery |ˈjigərē ˈpōkərē|

noun informal chiefly Brit.

deceitful or dishonest, disingenuous or devious thinking, reasoning or behavior.

Batman/Riddler Logic                   Form of Jiggery Pokery

Riddle & Joke Logic                     Form of Jiggery Pokery

Partisan Logic                                Form of Jiggery Pokery

Folk Wisdom                                 Form of Jiggery Pokery

Laity Common Sense                    Form of Jiggery Pokery

Judicial Law                                  Form of Jiggery Pokery

Psychiatry Diagnostics                  Form of Jiggery Pokery

Sherlock Holmes Universe            Form of Jiggery Pokery

Socratic Wilisms                            Form of Jiggery Pokery

Inspector Columbo Investigative Methods / Form of Jiggery Pokery

Fallacy Promulgation                    Form of Jiggery Pokery

Paradoxes                                                                Form of Jiggery Pokery

Infinities                                                                  Form of Jiggery Pokery

Dissimulated Definitions               Form of Jiggery Pokery

Overwrought Proofs                       Form of Jiggery Pokery

Convenient Orthodoxies                Form of Jiggery Pokery

Convenient Dogmas                      Form of Jiggery Pokery

Logical Taboos                              Form of Jiggery Pokery

Arguments by Authority                Form of Jiggery Pokery

Darwinian Proclamations              Form of Jiggery Pokery

Einsteinian Proclamations             Form of Jiggery Pokery

Hawkingian Proclamations / Form of Jiggery Pokery

Failures to Acknowledge               Form of Jiggery Pokery

Improbable Expectations               Form of Jiggery Pokery

Inconvenient Feasibilities             Form of Jiggery Pokery

Disagreeable Prospects                  Form of Jiggery Pokery

Horses have an Even Number of Legs.

Behind They have Two Legs

& in The Front, they have ForeLegs

That is Six Legs

But this is an Odd number of Legs for a Horse

The Only Number that is Both Even & Odd

Is Infinity

Such that; A Horse has an Infinite Number of Legs

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Which has more Legs, a Horse or No Horse?

A Horse usually has Four Legs

No Horse has Six Legs

No Horse has More Legs.

- - -

A Baby is Not Worth Two Cents.

A Baby is a Crier.

A Crier is someone that Speaks The News.

The News is that which makes Sense.

One Sense is not Two Cents.

Therefore A Baby is Not Worth Two Cents.

- - -

A Baby is Not Worth Two Cents.

A Baby is A Crier.

A Crier is A Messenger.

A Messenger is One Sent.

One Cent is Not Worth Two Cents.

Therefore : A Baby is Not Worth Two Cents.

While These Examples of Joke Logic ( Jiggery Pokery ) are intended to be Humorous, Most Exercises of Jiggery Pokery are Contrived to Genuinely Mislead, Confuse or Befuddle The Damp Masses into Believing Patently False Things as Irrefutably True.

The Very Quirky Thing about Jiggery Pokery ‘Logic’ is that you Can use it to ‘Prove’ Anything, & If your Jiggery Pokery Argument is Determined to Be Flawed in Someway, It is quite easy to Extend & Supplement it to Bring it back to a State of Invulnerability.

Real & True Logic can only Prove True Things, & While a Flawed True Logical Argument may be ‘Fixed’, It is Invariably restricted by Whether or Not The Desired Conclusion is in Fact True or Not.

Mind you; The Purpose of True & Genuine Logic & Reasoning is to Provide The Epistemologist with A Degree of Certainty that their Beliefs are True, & Not merely Crazy Notions that are Common amoung Small Children & Republicans.

But — Since Jiggery Pokery Arguments can often Feign The Seriousness & Solemn Presentation of A True Logical Approach, This Certainty that True Logic Promises is Severely Compromised. That is; You can Never really be Certain that A Given Argument is Logically Sound or Calamitously Disingenuous.

One might only peruse The History of Scientific, Philosophical, Medical, Ethical or Socially Judicious Arguments & Well Considered Beliefs to Reveal that our Recent Ancestors Commonly Believed with All Sincerity, All sorts of perfectly Ludicrous Things.

Ergo : Logic is Bunk.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Tautology                      A Statement which is True by It’s Own Definition

Axiom                           A Truth So Elemental as to Be Self-Evident

Obiter Dictum               An Authoritative Pronouncement

Apophthegm                  A Popular Maxim of Pragmatic Wisdom

Predicate                       Statement of an Irrefutable Description of (x

Premise                          A Proposition used as an Antecedent or Succedent

Proposition                    A Statement that Ascertains a Subjective Judgement

Assumption                   An Obvious Statement Presented & Accepted without Proof

Postulate                        An Agreeable Statement of Reasonable Truth

Conjecture                     An Ill Formed Postulate that is Hopefully True

Inference                       A Conclusion Arrived at from Facts & Reasoning

Deduction                      An Inference Derived from An Established Principle

Belief                             An Accepted Statement acquired from Sound Judgement

Conviction                     A Belief Held in Faith adopted from UnDisciplined Hope

Dogma                           An Authoritative Principle which is Incontrovertibly True

Creed                             A Systematic Collection of Ideological Convictions

Fact                                A Thing which is True

Factoid                          A Concise Aphorism of Something Believed to Be True

Assertion                       A Confident Declaration of Subjective Truth

Axiom                                                                     An Unproven Assumption

Antecedent                                                              p Principle Variable

Consequent                                                             q Variable in an IF THEN Conditional

Succedent                                                                q Variable in an AND or OR Binary Operator

There Exists                                          ∃

There Exists One Unique Case            ∃!

x is an Element of Set y                        ∈ ( x,y )

The Set x contains y                             ∋ ( x, y )

x is in Subset of y                                 ⊂ ( x,y )

x is in a Superset of y                           ⊃ ( x,y )

Intersection of x & y                            ∩ ( x,y )

Union of x & y                                      ∪ ( x,y )

Therefore                                                                                               ∴

Series Product of Multiplication          ∏

Series Summation of Addition             ∑

x is Proportional to y                            ∝ ( x,y )                                                               ∶ ∷

Infinity                                                                                                  ∞

Asymptotically Equal                                                       ≃     ≅      ≈ ≊

End of Proof                                         ∎

{ } [] «»                                          Sets

§ §                                                  Section

⇢                                                    Follows

+ &                                                 Addition / Inclusion

<                                                     Less Than

= ≡                                                 Equivalent / Identical

≈ ≅ ≓                                             Almost            

≃                                                    Asymptotically Equal / Becomes Equal at Infinity

≠ ≢ ≉                                             Not Equal / Not Identical

¬ ⊖ ~                                              Not

≐                                                    Approaching The Limit

≓ ⊷                                                Image of          

∨                                                      Or

∧                                                     And

⊻                                                    XOR

∀                                                     Tautology / For All Cases

∅                                                     Null / Empty Set

⊼                                                    NAND             

⊂                                                     Subset of         

∈                                                     Element of

⊃                                                     Superset of      

∩                                                      Intersection     

∪                                                     Union              

∴                                                     Therefore        

∵                                                    Because           

∶                                                    Ratio               

∷                                                    Proportion       

⁂                                                    This is Important

>                                                     Greater Than

∍                                                     Contains as a Member

∃                                                     There Exists

∄                                                    There Does Not Exist

∎                                                    End of Proof

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

                     The theorem that in any sufficiently powerful, logically consistent formulation of logic or mathematics there must be true formulas that are neither provable nor disprovable. The theorem entails the corollary that the consistency of a logical system cannot be proved within that system.

Gödel Sentence                          A Sentence which asserts its own unprovable.

Henkin Sentence                        A Sentence which asserts its own provability.

Explicit Henkin S-                     A Sentence which asserts its own provability and contains within it, that proof.

Axiom:                                       Axiom

Premise:                                     Premise

Assumption:                               Assumption

Postulate:                                    Postulate

Conjecture:                                 Conjecture

Inference:                                   Extrapolation

Wild UnFounded Belief:            Belief

Proposition:                                Proposition

Assertion:                                   Assertion

Therefore: ∴                               Intermediate Conclusion

Conclusion:                                Conclusion

Peroration:                                  Concluding RabbleRousing

Synthesis:                                   Synthesis Compromise Resolution

Predicate                                    Axiomatic Assumption

Antecedent                                 p

Succedent                                   q

Syllogism                                   A is Somehow B & B is Sort of C ∴ A is Vaguely C

Deduction                                   The Principle of Q Suggests That A & B are True

Induction                                    Facts A, B, C, D & E Allows the Induction of S

Dialectic                                     Aufhebung / Sublation / OverComing / Relever /

Kantian Dialectic                       Thesis - AntiThesis - Synthesis

Hegelian Dialectic                     Abstract - Negative - Concrete

Hegelian Alternate                     Immediate - Mediated - Concrete

Polemic                                      Diatribe /Invective / Rant / Tirade / Harangue / Rebuke