The 10 Commandments Of Logic

What do you think of this? Should more be added or should anything be removed?
I personally like this, and it is how argumentation should be performed in my opinion.
Enjoy
I don't agree with nr.8 to 100% though

If the fictional Jedi in episodes I, II and III would have included these in their teachings, perhaps they wouldn't have been manipulated so easily by Palpatine. :laugh:

These are pure gold. Thank you.

Number 8 is actually incredibly important.

I don't like it very much. More often than not the "oh-so-logical" of the internet will throw about names of fallacies completely ignoring whether the thing they are dismissing is in fact fallacious and why. Just some examples:

First of all, all of these are informal fallacies. In a debate they matter, in formal logic they don't.
So the first commandment is actually neat. Now, the appeal to the man encompasses more than just the target's overall character, but much of it can be summarised with "character", I guess.
The straw man fallacy has not necessarily anything to do with exaggeration. It can, but it seldom does. More often an exaggeration is tied into a slippery slope fallacy.
And speaking of the slippery slope, there's a fallacy I think could have a place on that list. I suggest it take the place of the third commandment, because the current third is referring to something that is hardly even a fallacy. Proofs by induction take upwards of two premises to conclude general statements about up to countably infinite sets and there is nothing fallacious about that.
The fourth commandment has nothing to do with begging the question. Not only that, but without assuming the truthfulness of your premises you can conclude nothing. If we shouldn't do the former, the debate would end before it could even start.
The fifth commandment I would either phrase differently or avoid referring to the latin name, but that's just me being nitpicky...
What the sixth commandment speaks of is yet again not the false dichotomy, but rather just a reduction to two possibilities. There is nothing wrong with abstracting an argument down to a most basic binary branching. Not every dichotomy is a false one and reducing arguments to true dichotomies is perfectly acceptable.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy has nothing to do with the seventh commandment. The actual thing is very closely tied to shifting the burden of proof and seldom, if ever, refers to actual ignorance or unknowable nature of the thing. It is also called argumentum ad ignorantiam, not ad ignorantum, if that helps anyone assess the quality and reliability of the source at all...
Now, the eigth, again, perhaps less than ideal phrasing, but I generally agree. It is generally the one making the claim who should stand with the burden to demonstrate it. Of course often enough the claim is phrased itself such as to shift said burden, so one must be careful to distil it and identify the essentials so as to see who bears which burdens.
Non sequitur is a very broad thing. Whenever you assert a conclusion without deducing it logically or after committing any fallacy, non sequitur is the most primitive and imprecise objection. Basically the ninth commandment means "never have a flaw in your thinking ever". A great goal to strive for, but an unreasonable standard nonetheless. I cannot think of a single discussion people would still want or need to have if everyone were to meet it.
Finally the tenth... yes, generally good. Nothing is true merely because people believe it, but the converse is true, and if significant, can be employed to further support a case that is standing on other grounds already. Besides, not all popularities are created equal. If your sample set are experts in the field of discussion, appeals to popularity may in fact be appeals to authority and are not necessarily fallacious merely for being the former.

Gisteron wrote: More often than not the "oh-so-logical" of the internet will throw about names of fallacies completely ignoring whether the thing they are dismissing is in fact fallacious and why.

That's a fallacy!... No, I'm just kidding. :laugh:

You have a great point, I've seen it all over the internet as well. People who completely derail arguments by focusing on explaining why it's fallacious. I think knowing about fallacies is helpful to avoid falling into assumptions and practicing better communication, but it is completely unhelpful when they are used merely to point out whether a statement was structured properly or not.

Yea, especially when it wasn't structured wrong in the first place

And then of course there is the whole stone tablet connotation.
Logic is the tool of thinking. Commandments are ways to not need to do that. Having a set of "the rational stone tablets that take the burden of thinking for yourself off you by instead just telling you how to act" is... kind of missing the point, in my humble opinion. :silly: