Fallacies I: formal fallacies
A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
This is part of a series on fallacies related to my situation these days. I am cherry-picking the ones I struggle with and feel are being used «against» me by those professionals in the psychiatric fields that claim to help. I am doing this to possibly help myself structure, express and understand why I am uncomfortable with a lot of the things that goes on in «therapy».
Of course, this series will confirm to my therapists that I am way too dependent on logic. Something I am accused of on a weekly basis. I bet I can find a fallacy for that too. Yes, I am caught in a web; not entirely of my own creation. In that sense I am, by doing this, digging my own grave in their eyes. Fuck it, I´ll do it anyway.
Formal fallacies = error in logic, structural errors; fallacious syntax.
Appeal to probability – takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Fallacies I: formal fallacies
Fallacies II: informal fallacies
Fallacies III: faulty generalizations
Fallacies IV: red herring fallacies
Bonivard
Gjøken
Mille
Anonym
Gjøkeredet 
It just might be rather fun to see what the crowd at REBT-CBT-FORUM would make of that statement if you posted it there.
Indeed! That would be interesting… With a possible outcome being a wee bit of support… That would be nice.. all I get here is static about percieved unhealthy logic.
Eye of the beholder.
If they found your logic unhealthy they’d most likely go ahead and dispute your statements … with more logic. Which would be the respectful way to discuss with an intelligent other, I would think. Or so I would argue, perhaps :)
You are not wrong, methinks.
This, however, is how various therapists operate:
Therapist: their statement, logical (requiring logical answer).
Me: my answer, logical (requiring logical answer).
Therapist: appeal to emotion.
Hence, ignoring my logical answer, and changing the game, so to speak. In a way it feels like my logic is rendered null & void.
I’m sure you’re right (especially if that snippet of «CBT»-inspired dialogue you posted a while ago is at all representative; that was awful :) I’m also sure it can be done better than that.
Nå trenger du kanskje ikke akkurat ytterligere eksempler på vissvass og manglende vitenskapelighet blant psykologer, men dette innlegget var morsomt – men du har kanskje sett det før? Fra Skeptikerskolen: Pasient søker psykolog:
Hei J – humor er aldri feil, og den der var hysterisk!