Logical fallacies

THIS IS A DRAFT!!!

There are may fantastic and exhaustive lists of logical fallacies on the Internet. I’m just going to list a few here that I run into quite often on this site. Many of my definitions are not strictly accurate, I’m trying to communicate an idea rather than a formal definition.

Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter my claims or conclusions by attacking the me rather than addressing what I actually said or asked. Strictly speaking the statement “Jon is a jerk.” is not a fallacy,“Jon is wrong because he is a jerk.” is a logical fallacy, however I do tent to treat them the same way.

Ad ignorantiam / argument from ignorance
Some specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. For example, HHO works because Jon has not proven it to not work.

Argument from authority
NASA looked into it once therefore it must be true.

Begging the Question
Putting an untrue statement into a question, making the question impossible to answer. “Jon,  have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is impossible for me to answer since I have never beaten my wife.

Post-hoc / Confusing association with causation
Just because two things happen in sequence does not mean that one caused the other. A happend and then B happened, therefore A caused B. “I took the remedy and my cold got better” is a very common exapmle of this.

One Comment

  1. Gerald Vermeulen; Rotterdam area, The Netherlands:

    My big question is: IS THIS TRUE ?? ……
    http://www.exomission.de/index.php/en/technologien-3/kraftstoff-wasser-emulsion-kwe

    If it is, I will maybe consider it; but only if this ship Rudolf Deymann has consistent results, especially on the NOx -reduction side of these claims. Fuel reduction is almost impossibly to prove scientific; and with proving I mean: Proven, Beyond any trace of reasonable doubt!

    I am recently reading a lot about the usual, standard HHO-gas scam:
    http://www.schuttevaer.nl/nieuws/techniek/nid19030-waterstof-verbetert-verbranding.html

    But recently this crossed my path:
    http://www.exomission.de/images/Presse2013/2013-08-xx%20Maritime%20Propulsion%20_%20New%20non-smoking%20therapy%20for%20diesel%20engines.pdf

    http://www.exomission.de/index.php/en/technologien-3/kraftstoff-wasser-emulsion-kwe

    If it works, great. But: Does it work???

    The national government of Germany seems to like it, they sponsor the realization by way of a tax-cut; equal to 40% of the extra cost for this piece of installation.

    What also interests me is the possible warranty issues that can be mounted by the Diesel engine manufacture. Just a tought!

    Can Anybody point met to credible evidence to (dis-)proving the thesis about water-Diesel emulsion technology?
    1st axis: Does it really reduce NOx emissions per utilized kW output of the engine?
    2nd axis: Is soot and fine particle(P10, etc.) production really reduced?
    3th axis: Does this system really lead to a “even” fuel use, or maybe a slight fuel reduction [0% up to 6% fuel savings]?

    Bair in mind that especially inland waterway watertransport vessel have almost 40 % of the time have their motor running with 70% of maximum revolutions and only 40% of needed power out-put (related to maximum possible by the same number of engine revolutions)!
    Fully loaded, full engine use (revolutions ánd needed power output) is only used in less then 5% of the time that diesel-engines power this type of motor tank vessels!

    Hope to hear of you soon!!

    Gerald.
    (I have no vested interests or ties whatsoever, to the mentioned companies!)

Leave a comment