Fallacy of the Day: Reader's Choice

[sarahmichigan]

If you've been enjoying this series so far, please give me your thoughts one or more of the following questions:

1. Which fallacy (already discussed or another I haven't touched on yet) is one you think you're most prone to commit?

2. Which fallacy is a pet peeve and/or one you run into often in discussions?

3. Which fallacy do you think is insidious and/or hard to counter when you run into it?

I think I probably am most prone to
Versions of "ad hominem" or "poisoning the well" (though I really try NOT to let myself do that) and "appeal to emotion." One of the reasons I started studying logic was that I would (and still do, to some extent) get over-excited and emotional when arguing a point, and I'm still a little quick to jump to injecting drama and emotion into an argument.

Comments

[dare2grok.livejournal.com]

I sometimes adopt a "slippery slope" argument inappropriately. I see most often the "straw man" error committed by others (attacking a caricature or exaggeration of an opponent's idea). I find the hardest one to deal with is argumentum ad ignorantiam (assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false).

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

Begging the Question is one I've always found particularly irksome. That, or the Red Herring. Or Ad Hominem Circumstantial.

I hate many of them.

The most difficult to combat, from my perspective, is Ad Hominem Circumstantial... because, when they bust that one out on you, and you argue against it... of COURSE that's what someone in YOUR position would say :)