|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi designtheorist, and welcome to the fray.
I recommend reading Taxonomy of Fallacies at Logical Fallacies as a way to get some context for the debate. There are a number of links there, providing more information about the types of fallacies. A couple of other good references are: Logical Fallacieshttp://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm http://theautonomist.com/...rticles_stand/perm/fallacies.php Page not found - Nizkor and Formal fallacy - Wikipedia Goal of the debate The goal of this debate is for us to come to some agreement about the definitions of important fallacies and also about how they are to be confronted. Another thing to keep in mind is the value of a logical conclusion: if there is no objective evidence to support the premises being true, then the conclusion is not supported either, even when the form is valid. This becomes even more true when we move from deductive logic to inductive logic, which is essentially intentionally making a logical fallacy argument and guessing.
Other fallacies I hope others will consider and write about include: add the Affirming the Consequent fallacy:
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Granny Magda
then that would be an argument from incredulity? That's fascinating. I'm sure glad that no-one around here has written anything like that recently. yes that would be an argument from incredulity. similar is argument from ignorance:
quote: A different explanation could already exist in our knowledge base, but the author of the argument is unaware of it (or chooses to be ignorant of it).
Learning about logic is fun Indeed, and one of the things that I have learned more about on this site. A good reference I use ishttp://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm While it does not cover all logical fallacies (if that is conceivable), it does present them in the format of the op: definition, examples, ways to show the fallacy is not valid in the particular argument. For instance:
quote: :: Note that the "argument from hearsay" listed above is also known as the appeal to anonymous authority. Curiously, citing the fact that a paper has passed peer review means an appeal to anonymous authority (the reviewers). :: Note further that appealing to "the majority of biological scientists" as validation for the theory of evolution is also treading into the Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). The real test of validity of a conclusion lies in the evidence - objective empirical evidence - that substantiates the premises and in the proper construction of the logical deductions. If the structure is valid, then the conclusion follows from the premises, and then (and only then) the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises: if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. Normally, in science, we cannot be guaranteed that the premises are true, only that they approximate truth to the best of our (current) knowledge, and thus the conclusion/s are equally tentative as approximations of truth.
invalid vs false There is frequently confusion between invalid and false in these debates (and I think this is a large part of the issue in the proceeding debate over the appeal to authority). A logical argument that is flawed in the structure is invalid, and this is essentially the problem with logical fallacies. Invalid means that the conclusion is not properly derived from the premises, but it does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily false. Strip away the invalid structure and premises, and you are left with an unsubstantiated guess rather than a derived conclusion. If it cannot be shown that this guess is actually false (ie -- objective empirical evidence shows the earth to be billions of years old, and this falsifies any unsubstantiated guess that the earth is less than 10,000 years old), then it is possible that the guess is correct, even though there is no evidence for it. This could range from the possibility of guessing heads or tails on a flipped coin to the possibility of guessing the winning ticket to win a lottery from millions of tickets available. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : enlgisby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mike,
Nice to see you around again. I'm doing okay, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi designtheorist
Let me be clear on this. Unsupported claims of multiple logical fallacies is nothing but an ad hominem attack. It is an attack against a person's intelligent or morality or both. Likewise, calling someone a liar is an ad hominem attack. Here's another one to consider: Page not found - Nizkor
quote: You can be subjected to a campaign of misinformation, posts about you with incorrect information or statements attributed to you. These are then used to discredit your arguments in later debates. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024