This is the first thread in what may or may not be a series, depending on logical topics that I think need to be addressed. I want people to understand the fallacies of certain "word games" so they can stop wasting time with fallacioius arguments. Let's start with what I call symbol replacement. There is probably some official philosophical term, but this is a nice, simple description. A fallacy occurs when you have multiple different things associated with the same symbol, and then equate the two. This is usually done in a syllogism. A syllogism is the following logical construct: A implies B, and B implies C, so A implies B. The notation would be (A->B /\ B->C)->(A->C). [/list=1] Let me use some examples of fallacious arguments to demonstrate. In these examples, do not concern yourself with the truth of the premises, but with whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Premises 1) Johnny is not objective in his reporting. 2) All that exists exists objectively. Conclusion Therefore, Johnny does not exist. [/list=1] Now what is wrong with this argument? It appears valid. However, there is a problem with the word "objective." "Objective" has a different meaning for Premise 1 from what it means in Premise 2. Therefore, you cannot connect the two statements through this word, "objective." Therefore, you cannot draw the given conclusion from these premises. Premises 1) If you are a female with big breasts and a thin waist, then you are hot. 2) If you are hot, then you do not need to put on a coat. Conclusion If you are a female with big breasts and a thin waist, then you do not need to put on a coat. [/list=2] Here, we have a seemingly valid argument by looking at the relationship between the different symbols (words). However, the same symbol is used to refer to two different concepts, so this symbol cannot be used to make the connection between the two premises. In the first, "hot" means "sexually attractive." In the second, "hot" means "high in average kinetic energy." So, this is actually not an (A->B /\ B->C) set of premises, but an (A->B /\ C->D) set of premises. Obviously, woman can be sexy and still require a coat, even if you agree with the premises.