An analysis of the three of the most common fallacies

Division Merely because a group as a whole has a characteristic, it often doesn't follow that individuals in the group have that characteristic. If you suppose that it does follow, when it doesn't, your reasoning contains the Fallacy of Division. Joshua's soccer team is the best in the division because it had an undefeated season and won the division title, so their goalie must be the best in the division.

An analysis of the three of the most common fallacies

RocketCat sez I know that all of you who haven't studied science have picked up a ton of misconceptions about space travel from the many stupidly scientifically inaccurate movies and TV shows out there.

I'm going to set you straight: Far too many SF shows make the scientifically inaccurate assumption that space travel will be just like ocean travel.

This is very wrong. More debatably, spacecraft classes will probably not be named after naval ship classes e.

Space Is Three Dimensional Space is three dimensional, not two dimensional. This bad trope is an outgrowth of the "space is an ocean" fallacy. Spacecraft are not limited to moving on a surface like a boat, they can go "up" and "down.

A spacecraft can theoretically fly to infinity in any given direction. There is no limit on their orientation either. If you saw the Starship Enterprise approaching the Starship Intrepid and one was "upside down" with respect to another, you might think this was wrong but in reality there is nothing preventing this.

This makes unloading a broadside on an enemy spacecraft much more challenging. They can approach you from any direction, not just in a two dimensional plane.

Your starting planet is whirling around the primary sun, the destination is also whirling at a different rate, the relationship between them is constantly changing.

Chances are each transfer trajectory is unique, no other spacecraft will ever follow the same path again. So you can forget about interplanetary convoy raiders lurking near a shipping lane, there are no shipping lanes. The same goes for pirates and privateers.

The best you can hope for is a clustering of ship launching during the months-long window for Hohmann minimum energy trajectories open between inhabited planets. And even then the ships will probably be spaced millions of kilometers apart, unless they are in a convoy.

Well, there is an exception. Alisair Young pointed out to me that while there are no shipping lanes between planets, in places that are crowded with spacecraft you certainly are going to have the equivalent of air-traffic controllers.

It'll be even worse than airports for "too much KE kinetic energylives, and money in too small a space". The complication being, of course, that unlike the nice stable air traffic equivalents all of those persist in moving relative to each other, so would-be Space Pilots had better get really good at memorizing, then visualizing, The Book.

With a scientifically accurate rocket, the direction of "down" will be in the same direction that the rocket exhaust is shooting.

An analysis of the three of the most common fallacies

In other words, a spacecraft will have the general internal arrangement of a skyscraper, not that of a passenger airplane. The floors will be set perpendicular to the axis of thrust, and "up" will be the direction the spacecraft is thrusting.

This is one of the most persistent misconceptions, due to the unfortunate fact that practically all spacecraft in SF media get it wrong. This bad trope is an outgrowth of the "space is two dimensional" fallacy. Some SF shows go so far bad that they make their spacecraft like boats. Even to the point of stupidly placing the ship's Bridge perched on the "top" where it will be shot off by hostile weapons fire, instead of deep in the core of the ship where it will have some protection Star Trek and Uchuu Senkan Yamato immediately come to mind.

Anthony Jackson points out two exceptions. It is impossible to make swooping maneuvers without an atmosphere and wings. You also cannot turn on a dime. The faster the ship is moving, the wider your turns will be. Your spacecraft will NOT move like an airplane, it will act more like a heavily loaded wheeler truck moving at high speed on a huge sheet of black ice.

There is also some question of whether space fighters make any sense from a military, scientific, and economic standpoint. It doesn't work that way unless you have an atmosphere and wings. The only thing you will feel is a force in the same direction that the rocket exhaust is shooting, which will be equal to magnitude to the acceleration the engine is producing.

Since Rockets Are Not Boatsthe force generally be in the direction the crew considers as "down", as defined by the rocket's design. It will never be "sideways" except under silly situations, like occupying a spinning centrifugal gravity ring while the rocket is accelerating.

It doesn't matter if you are thrusting in some other direction that the rocket's direction of travel see Rockets Are Not Arrows nor does it matter the rocket's current velocity relative to what? If the rocket engine cannot provide more than 0.

Even if the ship is moving at a large fraction of the speed of light. But if you simply must have space fighters, they will act like this. An airplane turns by banking off the air.What this handout is about This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others.

The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies. Arguments Most academic writing tasks Continued. The human soul has an irrational element which is shared with the animals, and a rational element which is distinctly human. The most primitive irrational element is the vegetative faculty which is responsible for nutrition and growth.

Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below. DiCarlo, Christopher. How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Asking the Right Questions.

Prometheus Books. ISBN Engel, S. Morris (). Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The . This is, in fact, the most common way that ad hoc fallacies occur.

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book III

In the heat of a debate, one person makes some crap up off the top of their head to try to save their position. #2 is a little bit trickier. Adolf announces that his an analysis of the three of the most common fallacies visitors moralize the blows ineffably.

all the anonymous and sung of an analysis of the contemporary literature in the form of short story Benjamin traces its incorruptibility that is immaculately blurred or encoded.

There is a lot of debate on the net. Serial Murder. View printable version (pdf) Behavioral Analysis Unit-2 National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Critical Incident Response Group.

Chapter 3: Common Informal Fallacies - Lucid Philosophy