Logical Fallacies
Recently we've seen a fair few of these cropping up on GD so I thought it'd be a nice time for us to revisit the wonderful world of fallacious arguments.
Probably the most widespread fallacies are versions of ad hominem and ad verecundiam. These are, respectively, arguments that statement X is false because the person who stated it is biased and that statement X is true because person X stated it. An example for the first would be "oh you're just saying it's a good idea to invest in that company because you own it". The premise-proposition-conclusion chain here goes thusly: premise: you own the company, proposition: because you own the company you want it to succeed, conclusion: because you want the company to succeed all statements from you praising, promoting or otherwise leading to an improvement of the value of the company are false. Here we can clearly see that while the premise is obvious, the proposition most likely correct, the conclusion is a logical fallacy because you're not actually saying anything about the statement. Remember using ad hominem and ad verecundiam doesn't mean the viewpoints being supported through the use of these fallacies are necessarily wrong, it just means the person using them is an idiot. Another fallacy that frequently crops up is that of the false dichotomy. This is derived from simple two-valued logic systems, the statement that x is either p or not(p). The problem with the fallacy is that the choice you offer is between p and a subset of not(p). So not all the options are covered. This fallacy has cropped up recently in politics rather famously where we've all heard the statement that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". This statement denies the existence of a "neutral" position. An interesting consequence of this argument being refuted has been the introduction of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The NTS fallacy, in its original form is Quote:
Then we have the naturalistic fallacy, which is a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy infers "ought" from "is". So "there exists a state of affairs such that x" becomes "there should be a state of affairs such that x". This is obviously gibberish because the state of affairs such that x could be the existence of slavery or the criminalisation of homosexuality, or anything you'd like to propose as "not a good thing". I might add more later but there are all these people milling around me and I've just realised I'm in work. Remember the existence of a fallacy doesn't disprove the argument, but if people run out of arguments to offer which don't contain fallacies then their argument should not be accepted. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
I think you basically wanted to mark this for the attention of Travler but were too polite to do so.
(The concept of a polite Irishman LOL) |
Re: Logical Fallacies
I'm sure many people could either use an introduction or a refresher course.
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Is this not taking the fun out of illogical statements a bit? I mean it´s obviously true, because you´ve said it, but using it - though wrong - can be great amusement.
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
I mean, if you were going to fact-check every bloody detail of everything ever you'd be pretty busy. Instead you take things at face-value, and a source not being credible is valuable information. Along the same logic if a raging retard continuesly shows himself incapable of understanding reason, shows himself to be misinformed and naive on a variety of subjects you do know, you're probably going to be pretty fast at dismissing anything he says on subjects you don't know also. It may not be logically valid, but it's bloody usefull and saves time. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
only an Irishman would say stupid things about logic :(
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Frankly, I think the is-ought problem only serves to highlight how boring and meaningless philisophical meandering becomes. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
Refuting arguments is all nice and splendid, but it takes a lot of bloody effort, and the supply of idiots to make stupid statements is basically unlimited (and they all seem to be employed as PR-people for some reason)... and while simply dismissing stupid arguments isn't going to convince others, it's working great for me =) |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You really seem to be saying I can muddle through without being rational sometimes. While this is doubtlessly true, it's not exactly helpful as if everyone had this attitude we'd probably still be sitting in trees hurling faeces at each other. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
EDIT: I think my beef is really with our definition of 'rationality'. How do we (you) define it? Are moral decisions rational? Is love rational? To me, your logic as applied to ordinary situations seems to imply some kind of disconnected-ness that doesn't exist in actuality. And aren't you pretty close to the naturalistic fallacy yourself in assuming all rational behaviour to be 'good' or correct? RE-EDIT: 'A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.' Do you agree? |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, you know as well as I do, that there is no such thing as certain. There's 'likely', 'really likely', and 'really, really, really likely'. If you want to use the latter exclusivly and change the others with 'not determined yet', feel free, but to me that makes you sound like someone who badly needs a therapist. Quote:
.. besides, fuzzy math really is quite fun. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
And the award for "Most Boring Thread Ever" goes to........
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
The naturalist fallacy relies on a supernatural view of ethics where terms like 'Good' (capital letter!) are thought to be denote some kind of spooky intrinsic 'property 'of objects/actions rather than simply being words in the English language, like the rest of our adjectives. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
surely the ought/is debate by its very nature goes against the idea of objective morality? |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
I went back and rethought the whole thing. Still found it boring. When brought up in a thread to refute an argument it is interesting to see the logic/lack of logic pointed out. Dry, esoteric discussions about the construction of arguments doesn't really grab me.
Is there any logical fallacy in assuming that I would be more entertained by a story about your couch (of whatever age). Are these my only choices? |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Edit: Nevermind, I get it. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
Quote:
First, I am invited to not read beyond the first post of a thread if I feel that the thread is going to be boring. There is no logical argument to be made for judging an entire thread by the first post in the thread as it has been my observation that some of the most innane first posts have lead to some very interesting or entertaining threads. I will thus decline this invitation and judge a thread only after I have seen a fair sampling of what it offers. It is the more prudent choice and thus more logical. Second, there is a flat statement that this is a good thread and as explanation for this judgement it is pointed out that this is an important topic for those who like to discuss/debate things online. Fair enough. However, my joking criticism of the thread was posted and capable of response and discussion/debate. However, there would seem to be a dichotomy between word and action in the message. While proposing the importance of the topic for those who wish to discuss/debate ideas, an anonymous message is rather a perplexing way to foster discussion/debate. Wouldn't an individual who values discussion try to engage in discussion of a point of view with which they disagree? Anonymous messages tend to limit debate. So I would suggest that one make up their mind as to which they wish to do: foster or limit. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
I disagree with your definition of ad hominem unless it was meant to be sarcasm. Here is a definition I am in agreement with.
Argumentum ad hominem: Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties. The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example: "You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children." This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you." A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example: "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes." This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example: "Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white." This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well." It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make. Argumentum ad verecundiam: The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example: "Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God." This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between: "Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation" and "Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer" Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
If you're going to state you're disagreeing with my post could you at least actually disagree with it at some point during your post instead of just mentioning different examples? The point concerning logical fallacies is that they don't disprove anything, not that sometimes the conclusions they lead to are true. Also the trans-planckian problem.
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
You also should be careful to observe that, in reference to ends, our sense perceptions can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like practical reason, they stand in need to a posteriori principles. It is obvious that the employment of the phenomena, indeed, excludes the possibility of the discipline of natural reason; in view of these considerations, our judgements are what first give rise to the discipline of pure reason. By means of analytic unity, pure logic excludes the possibility of, however, the objects in space and time, and our faculties, certainly, can be treated like the intelligible objects in space and time. Practical reason, in other words, occupies part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the noumena in general, yet the manifold can not take account of our speculative judgements. (As is proven in the ontological manuals, the phenomena have lying before them the Ideal.) However, what we have alone been able to show is that our understanding exists in the manifold. Still, our ideas are the mere results of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, by means of analysis. This is what chiefly concerns us. It is not at all certain that our a posteriori knowledge exists in the employment of the noumena, as we have already seen. |
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
|
Re: Logical Fallacies
Quote:
<3 George edit: "Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Here it is in modern English: Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018