• for your late night enjoyment: old chili sauce. http://tinyurl.com/32xk3j you know you want some. #
• Trader Joe’s. "Cacciatore Simmer Sauce" pretty much rocks the house. Yes I know their italian stuff is trader giotto’s. #

Reddit.com had The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe’s “Top 20 Logical Fallacies” on it’s front page the other day.  An interesting review for me and you might enjoy it as well.  And if you want to really hate politics, run your favorite candidate’s ads through these filters.

This is my reordering and rewording of their list.  All credit goes to them for what I got right, all errors are my own.

Arguer Related

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true based solely on their credentials, without providing objective evidence?  If so, that’s Argument from Authority.

Does the arguer suggest that their belief if true based on their inability to explain or understand it not being true?  If so, that’s Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Does the arguer suggest that their belief about why or how something happens is true simply because we are currently unable to explain the why or how in detail?  If so, they’re Confusing the Currently Unexplained with the Currently Unexplainable.

Does the arguer suggest that a given set of rules applies to their argument, but not to another argument?  If so, they’re being Inconsistent.

Opponent Related

Does the defender address the counter argument or the person making the counter argument?  If it’s the person and not the argument, that’s Ad Hominem.

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true simply because we can’t prove that it isn’t? If so, that’s Ad Ignorantiam.

Does the arguer suggest that if you are skeptical of their argument A on the basis of reason X, then you must also be skeptical of argument B on the basis of reason X, even if argument B is if sufficiently provable using evidence other than reason X?  If so, they are arguing Reductio ad absurdum.

Does the defender suggest that their argument, flawed as it is, is justifiable as your counter is also flawed?  They are arguing Tu quoque (“You, too”).

Sequence

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true based on the ultimate effect it has, its end result, rather than their belief itself? If so, that’s Argument from Final Consequences.  (aka, a teleological argument)

Does the arguer suggest because A and B occurred simultaneously, A caused B (or visa versa) without demonstrating a causal link?  If so, they’re Confusing Association with Causation.

Does the arguer suggest that since A preceded B, A caused B without providing evidence demonstrating causality?  If so, they’re arguing “Post-hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this).  They assume cause and effect for two events that are temporally but otherwise not related.

Does the arguer suggest that if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then Z?  If so, they are presenting a Non-Sequitor, i.e., a logical connection where none exists.

Does the arguer suggest point B without articulating preceding point A?  Then they have an Unstated Major Premise or are Begging the Question.

Argument

Does the arguer suggest that, although A and B are different, since it is difficult to tell exactly where A becomes B, A and B are essentially the same thing?  If so, they’re presenting a False Continuum.

Does the arguer suggest that there are really only two possible choices, A or Z, when in fact there is also B to Y (i.e., some additional number) of possibilities?  If so, they’re presenting a False Dichotomy.

When given evidence proving otherwise, does the defender continue to argue their belief by moving the criteria for proof or acceptance out of range of whatever currently exists?  If so, they’re Moving the Goal Posts.

Does the arguer suggest that we cannot accept position A because it would lead to the much more extreme and unacceptable position Z?  If so, they are arguing the Slippery Slope.

Does the defender suggest that their view is correct not by arguing against your actual objection but by arguing against a much more defendable artificial objection?  If so, they are using a Straw Man argument.

Does the arguer suggest that A is true and when presented with counter evidence B suggest that A is still true but cannot be proved except in non-B conditions?  Then this is special pleading or ad-hoc reasoning, the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to make it continue to appear valid.

Does the arguer use circular reasoning?  This is tautology. 

Blake Lews on Vote for the Worst, originally uploaded by ReidCarlberg.

Speaking of odd AdWords combinations, this is the one I ran across the other day that surprised me: Blake Lewis on Vote for the Worst.

Really? Is that his most likely fan base?

Or are we getting back to the point where 50% of our advertising is wasted, we just don’t know which 50%?

Or are they buying it?

No idea.

Ben Stein on the New England Skeptic’s Society , originally uploaded by ReidCarlberg.

Yep, there it is — an ad for the creationist movie on the New England Skeptical Society’s website. Courtesy of Google’s AdWords. Definitely an odd combination.

The ad will of course change now and then but here is the original page.