Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Big Game Hunting
 A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case >

A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

Big Game Hunting Moose, elk, mulies, caribou, bear, goats, and sheep are all covered here.
 Nosler

A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

Old 06-11-2004, 02:49 PM
  #1  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
BrutalAttack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
Default A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

If you're lucky, your friends trust you. Your readers, however, probably do not know you well enough to trust you (or distrust you) as a person. They will have to focus on the credibility of your ideas, not on the fact that you are a kind-hearted soul who always tracks down the owner of the extra quarter you found in the pop machine.

Logic is the tool we use to establish our credibility with readers. When someone bases an idea or proposal on weak logic, we say that they have committed a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are the equivalent of thin ice. When this ice cracks, your argument is likely to fall through.


Here is a few things to watch out for when your debating with someone be it in person or in writing. I've seen most of these at least once on this board and I've used more than a few myself from time to time.

Logical Fallacies

1. HASTY GENERALIZATIONS are based on atypical, irrelevant, or inaccurate evidence.



Example: Of course our students are physically fit; just look at the success of our sports teams this year.


2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT (POST HOC) is the result of assuming that because B follows A, A must be the cause of B.



Example: Tourism in this city started to decline right after Mayor Scott was elected. To save our tourist industry, let's replace her now!

3. REDUCTIVE REASONING reduces a complex effect to a single cause.



Example: People who want to be healthy should eat turnips. My Aunt Alice loved turnips, and she lived to be ninety-four.


4. FALSE ANALOGIES occur when writers overlook the fact that two things being compared are more different than they are similar.



Example: Why am I required to take certain courses before I can graduate from this school? No one requires me to buy certain groceries before I can leave the supermarket.


5. BEGGING (AVOIDING) THE QUESTION occurs when a writer assumes as true the very point he or she is arguing.



Example: Improving public transportation in this city won't solve highway congestion. Even if public transportation is clean, safe, and efficient, people will still prefer to use their cars.


6. CIRCULAR REASONING occurs when the argument merely restates the conclusion it was meant to support.



Example: The minister is such a good person because she is so virtuous.


7. EQUIVOCATION involves using a term in a completely different way than one's opponent uses it.



Example: My goodness, your honor! It is absurd that I am being prosecuted for stealing a copy of the Detroit Free Press. For one thing, we are guaranteed by the Constitution our right to a free press. And look at the name of this newspaper—does it not say Free Press?


8. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS attack the opponent rather than his or her argument. (Ad hominem literally means "against the person.")



Example: Senator Jones' bill on gun control should not be taken seriously; after all, this is the same man who has had at least five extramarital affairs.


9. FALSE EITHER/OR ARGUMENTS assume that only two alternatives exist in a given situation.



Example: The case is clear: either we support the death penalty or we allow crime to run rampant.


10. BAND WAGON APPEALS suggest that readers should accept something because it is popular; that is, everyone else has "hopped on the bandwagon."



Example: A recent poll showed that seventy percent of the American public believes emissions requirements on automobiles have gone too far; therefore, these laws are unreasonable and should be repealed.

11.. NON SEQUITURS occur when writers fail to show clear connections between their premise (starting point) and conclusion. (Non sequitur literally means "it does not follow.")



Example: Maria loved college, so I'm sure she will make an excellent teacher.




POINTS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THESE LOGICAL FALLACIES:


* Most of the conclusions included in the examples above could be argued. The problem is that the reasoning provided in these examples is insufficient or not credible.


* The best way to "smoke out" unsound reasoning in your own writing is to ask yourself what your argument takes for granted. Remove those assumptions, then rebuild your argument using stronger support--if such support exists.


more to come later....
BrutalAttack is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 07:00 PM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rocky Mountains, Colorado
Posts: 1,964
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

"more to come later...."
Good. If I'm not mistaken the name of the thread was "A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case.... "

What I think I saw was 11 points on how to NOT think logically and how to NOT present one's case....

Is there an error code for describing the exact opposite of the stated subject at hand? By identifying the negatives, do the positives automatically stand by themselves as self evident? Or is this a quick introduction to some handy "tear down tools?" Shy of someone writing posts that have two years work in them and encyclopedic content and organization, I believe these points will allow even the ignorant to by saying "nope, show me your research.... you've violated 1.4.8, and 11!"

Probably not what people come here for....

Proceed,
EKM
ELKampMaster is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 08:29 PM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Glen MT USA
Posts: 72
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

I agree with some and disagree with other statements but I do not post stuff that I dont think is factual.

Bottom line I come here to have fun not fight but when I see something that I disagree with and I think the evidence I think is right I will present it, but they will always be someone who thinks they know more no matter the topic even if they have seen it first hand.

Bottom line here this topic should have been in the Open Discussion Fourm after all this is the BigGameHunting Fourum. That you would have got more replies or not.
buck59 is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 08:47 PM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
BrutalAttack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

I'm not after replies or arguments. It's just some interesting points I happened across. Very helpful to me, especially when dealing with the public.
BrutalAttack is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 07:59 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 287
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. You cannot check ALL the facts and have the need to form opinion based on percentages? I read a book therefore I am informed? Ever take a poll?
It's funny how 60% of " the public polled " are in disagreement with my opinion. I haven't met the poller yet that doesn't have a loaded question. Great english lesson yet somewhat too structured for fair discussion. You aren't as brutal as you lead to be.
Poluke is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 09:00 AM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

Of course, a lot of what we discuss here and elsewhere is based on opinion and feeling, not facts. For most of what we discuss, there is no absolute right or wrong (baiting, which weapon, which bullet, etc). However, you still need to use logical reasoning without attacking the other person to persuade others that your opinion is the best.

If you dissagree with someone and you don't give a flip about whether he changes his mind or not, then by all means, start your rebuttal with: "You are full of sh**, or you haven't got a clue, or just you are wrong!" Words that will definately not persuade anyone

However, if you really want to make others think (the person you dissagree with as well as others listening or reading a thread), you have to agree to dissagree: "You have some very good valid points, but this is where I dissagree with you and here is why.

Why is it that in person, the vast majority of people having a disscussion act civil, but when they get on an anonymous fourm, some act like jerks? Why do some get there 'kicks" from talking down to others and trying to get a rise out of others? I don't know, but I do know that they don't persuade many people to their way of thinking.

So, you need both logic and civility to really make people change their minds.
txhunter58 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 10:54 PM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 815
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

BRUTAL -The only problem w/ your little guide is its full philosophical BS and textbook philosophy can argue that right is wrong and wrong is right, lawyer careers are completely defined by it. The govt. agencies all do studies to confirm "FACTS" that support their agenda. You are so arrogant w/ your knowledge gained from a book that anyone who disagrees w/ you based on real life experience is unenlightened, this only comes from ignorance backed by arrogance.
NVMIKE is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 12:49 AM
  #8  
Fork Horn
 
Elkshed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Missoula,MT
Posts: 307
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

If I were to wear a suit and carry a brief case into the woods and use your,"Mini guide to thinking logically & presenting your case" on a big bull elk, do you think it would work?
Come on B.A.this is a hunting site!
I'm sorry if I offended anyone,Lord I apologize.
Elkshed is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 02:34 PM
  #9  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 590
Default RE: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case

I think these points need to be part of the rules for this website. I know I'm not perfect either, but examples abound on this site of people who blatantly break the rules you've laid down.

On that note, I'd like to add one:

Overgeneralizing based on your own experiences.

In other words, if I hunt with a bow on the edge of a cornfield in central Illinois, then I can tell a big woods hunter in northern MN how to hunt, what he should see when he hunts, and how big his bucks should be if he's a real hunter. Stated another way, if I shoot a 130+ buck every year from the edge of this cornfield, then any other hunter in any other part of the country is clearly inferior to me if he doesn't do the same.
Dirt2 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GMMAT
Bowhunting
15
10-21-2008 08:22 PM
jeepkid
Guns
22
01-20-2008 12:07 PM
BeltedMag
Hunting Gear Discussion
4
09-16-2007 09:29 PM
BeltedMag
Hunting Gear
1
09-15-2007 10:47 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Quick Reply: A mini guide to thinking logically and presenting your case


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.