+- Pheeds.com (https://pheeds.com/phorum)
+-- Forum: Phorums (https://pheeds.com/phorum/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Forum: Cash Cow Marketing (https://pheeds.com/phorum/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Example of an article written with an AI app about common logical fallacies (/showthread.php?tid=727)
Example of an article written with an AI app about common logical fallacies - Kurt - 08-06-2021
Here's an article I wrote using my favorite AI writer. AI writers are better described as AI "writing assistants" and while they won't create full articles with a single click, they greatly help content creation. This article is about 1375 words, passed a plagiarism check at 100% unique and took me about 20 minutes to create.
I discuss which AI writing app I use and some tips for using it in the private Pheeds Leads Xtreme forum.
Your Invitation to Join the Pheeds Leads Xtreme.
Logical Fallacies Explained in Plain Language
What are Common Logical Fallacies?
There are many fallacies that will make a logical sequence go wrong. From the faulty assumption to the unproven conclusion, these fallacies can get us into trouble in both our personal and professional lives.
Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that can lead to false conclusions. They use poor logic, often for humorous or rhetorical purposes, but they can be very misleading. Fallacies exist on a scale and are not all equal to one another; some are more logical than others and some will be easily spotted while others may be more difficult to spot.
In order to avoid being deceived by logical fallacies, it is important to know what they are so we know how to avoid them when we use them as well as when we think someone else has used them against us."
The Dangers of Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies can be very dangerous in communication. They can lead to a debate that is not productive, and they are more likely to make an argument sound like it has weight when it really doesn't.
Logical fallacies are a major problem in any form of communication. Fallacies can be used intentionally or unintentionally, and they may lead to an argument that is neither productive nor meaningful. Fallacious arguments often seem stronger than they actually are because of the way that they are presented and the emotional appeal that accompanies them.
How to Recognize Logical Fallacy in Everyday Life
Logical fallacies are often present in everyday life, even if we are not consciously aware of them. We see them in commercials, on social media, and even in our own thoughts. In order to be aware of the logical fallacy we are being exposed to, all we need to do is listen more closely to what people say.
Some Common Logical Fallacies (and How to Avoid Them)
Logical fallacies are flaws in logic, and they can lead to faulty conclusions or incorrect inferences.
Some of the most common logical fallacies are:
Hasty Generalization
Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy that occurs when one draws a conclusion from too little information. It's often used in arguments to persuade someone of something, but the thing that is being drawn from is not valid for the argument.
Hasty generalization often comes out during debates when people are making claims based on their opinions, instead of facts.
Ad hominem attack
Ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. It is attacking someone's character or personal traits instead of attacking the argument that they are making. It is one of the most widespread and commonly accepted logical fallacies. There are different types of ad hominem fallacy, but they all share a common quality which is attacking someone's motive instead of attacking their argument or logic.
The first type, in its simplest form, is when an individual argues against another person's argument by attacking their character or motive. For example, "I don't think we should elect Trump as president because he has been accused of sexual misconduct."
The second type, referred to as "tu quoque," translates to "you too," and involves pointing out that someone has done something wrong in order to dismiss their opinion on a topic. This could be using the fact that someone has violated a professional code of ethics or is currently on administrative leave as a way to undermine their opinion on a particular topic.
False Cause Fallacy
The false cause logical fallacy is when someone assumes that one event causes another event to happen.
This fallacy is often a result of a lack of understanding about how complex events are interconnected and how other events can cause the same effect as well. This fallacy is committed when someone assumes that a correlation between two variables means that one variable is the cause of the other.
False Cause Fallacy can be seen in the following example, “At 8:30 am, a huge earthquake shook New York City. Many people reported hearing an airplane flying overhead just minutes before the earthquake struck. There must have been another plane nearby, and it caused this earthquake.”
In this argument, there is no reason to believe that an airplane caused the earthquake. In fact, there are many other possible causes of earthquakes such as tectonic plates grinding against each other or magma shifting below ground which could have caused this event to happen.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy that can be found in both written and spoken communication. It is the faulty cause and effect reasoning that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second event.
This fallacy has many variations, but it always begins with two events that are thought to be related. There are two ways to fall for this type of thinking - either believing that because there is a clear relationship between the events or believing that because there is no clear relationship between the events, there must not be any relationship at all.
When we use this fallacy as writers, we may end up thinking our writing was more persuasive than it was or fail to see how our writing could have been more persuasive in order to write a better essay next time.
Red herring
A red herring fallacy or red herring argument is a diversionary tactic that often involves presenting an idea of one's own devising to divert attention from the original issue. The term originates from a type of smoked fish, which was used to throw dogs off the scent during fox hunting.
The following are some examples of this kind of fallacy:
- When accused by a friend for being in love with their wife, John replies: "I need some new clothes."
- "Can you tell me why you were at work at 9 pm last night?" "I was doing laundry."
Arguments from ignorance
Arguments from ignorance occur when someone makes an argument with no or very little evidence. The person then argues that the lack of evidence means that what they are arguing for is correct.
The argument from ignorance fallacy is when someone argues that something is true because it has not been proven false. This fallacy can be committed in two main ways - it can be claimed that something is true because there is no proof to the contrary, or it can be claimed that something is false because there is no proof to the contrary.
The reason why this fallacy occurs is due to a lack of information. When people do not have enough information, they are more likely to believe the first thing they hear without further investigating. In these cases, the person who does not have enough information will falsely believe in a claim just because there isn't any evidence against it - even if they know very little about what they're discussing and have no expertise on that topic.
The Faulty Assumption
A faulty assumption logical fallacy is when an argument's conclusion is based on a false premise. This fallacy usually occurs when an individual makes an argument by assuming that there is something true and does not provide any evidence to back it up.
The most common example of this fallacy is the "appeal to nature". This type of fallacy tries to prove something by highlighting the natural or innate qualities that it has. For example, "chocolate tastes good because it's natural."
Another example of this would be when someone argues in favor of the theory of evolution by saying "Charles Darwin was a scientist, so he must have been right." They are assuming that just because Charles Darwin was a scientist, then his theories must be correct.
The assumption logical fallacy can also be seen in arguments about racism or sexism. For instance, if someone were to argue against sexist remarks with "you're just being sexist," They are not providing any evidence for their claim, but rather relying on an assumption.
The Unproven Conclusion
This fallacy is characterized by the use of an unsupported statement or conclusion that is presented as true and factual.
This is called the "halo effect" and it's an informal fallacy in which a company can create a false impression of their selling power based on one good quality. For example, in this case, the company would say that they have had 100% success rate with their product while they really haven't sold a single one.