5 ms·

Yeah, Wikipedia also has a more in-depth list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

• jimnotgym 5y ago
  Indeed a private website does not seem a great place for a master list of anything. Github or Wikipedia seem like much better places. Since it is possible to extend discussion on the validity of any member of that list, or indeed add new ones.
  • denton-scratch 5y ago
    Github and Wikipedia are both privately-owned. The definitions given for these "logical fallacies" are packed with rancourous comments that don't throw light on the nature of the fallacy. The names given for them are not the standard names; the classical Aristotelian fallacies are usually named in Latin (and they aren't all there). And indeed, a lot of the so-called fallacies are not fallacies at all, because they aren't a type of faulty argument or reasoning; they're just sayings. This is a much better list of fallacy definitions: https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Introduction%20to%20Fallacies.html https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Introduction%20to%2... It doesn't claim to be a "master list"; in fact it states on the front page that a complete list is impossible.
  • nomilk 5y ago
    Agree that GitHub would be a great place for it. It's an incredible resource, and indeed (from bottom of page): > Open Courseware | OCW |This work is dedicated to the Public Domain.. A benefit of having such a doc on GitHub would be the ease with which others could critique and contribute, potentially making the list stronger.