|
Author
|
Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
more references
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.htmhttp://theautonomist.com/...rticles_stand/perm/fallacies.phpPage not found - Nizkorand 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:
Definition: Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
Examples: 1. If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
Enjoy
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
|
Message 17 of 344 (640831)
11-13-2011 3:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
11-13-2011 3:34 PM
|
|
Re: Reply to PaulK
However, as I keep saying - and you keep failing to address - even an appeal to an appropriate authority is a logical fallacy (and Wikipedia supports THAT, too. And note the thread title that you chose.) You claim Wikipedia is supports that an appeal to appropriate authority is a logical fallacy. Where does it say that exactly? I could not find it. And by the way, is Wikipedia an appropriate authority? So then, you just committed a logical fallacy, right?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2011 3:34 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2011 4:02 PM | | designtheorist has not replied | | | Message 21 by Larni, posted 11-13-2011 4:09 PM | | designtheorist has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 18 of 344 (640832)
11-13-2011 3:50 PM
|
|
|
Appeal to authority (in laymens terms): I am right because this scientist/theologian/nobel laureate/authority figure says so. You may be able to read and copy down definitions, but if you don't understand them, they are useless to you. (see: Buzsaw). I say this because Paulk IS right. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: Reply to PaulK
I am afraid the problem is your lack of understanding. You should look on this thread as an opportunity to learn. To anyone who understands what a logical fallacy is, this is conclusive:
...the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary
quote:
And by the way, is Wikipedia an appropriate authority? So then, you just committed a logical fallacy, right?
Of course any appeal to authority, even an appropriate authority is a logical fallacy. But apparently it is all you will accept. If you would rather deal with the facts, then you can answer my factual points, instead of ignoring them.
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Logic fallacy or rhetorical tactic?
I am inclined to think of quote mining as a dishonest rhetorical tactic, rather than as a fallacy of logic. Usually, the person who does the quote mining is fully aware of what he/she is doing and is making a rhetorical presentation rather than logical case.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Reply to PaulK
I don't get it: any appeal to an authority is a logical fallacy. What is there you don't get about this very simple concept?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 22 of 344 (640840)
11-13-2011 5:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
11-13-2011 2:32 PM
|
|
Re: An appeal to authority
quote:
In other words you claim that an appeal to an authority is not an appeal to authority unless it explicitly claims that the expert is infallible ? You are very, very wrong. Firstly an appeal to authority does not need to make that claim. It is the fact that authorities are not infallible that makes the argument a logical fallacy - even if it does not explicitly claim that what the authority says must be true. Secondly, obviously citing credentials is intended to set up the source as an authority. If you are appealing to what an expert - or any other supposed authority - says, rather than to the facts of the matter, you are making an appeal to authority. That is not to say that an appeal to authority cannot be a GOOD argument. Sometimes - if done well - it may be the best available to us. But it is not, and never can be, a logically valid argument.
I suppose it is true that any quotation of an authority is an "appeal to authority". But it is not true that such an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Otherwise, we could never use quotations in an argument without committing a logical fallacy. Is this what you at claiming (that any quotation of an authority is logically fallacious?) Quotations of authoritative figures are often appropriate and are not necessarily fallacious. If one is asking historical questions about the development of science, quotations are certainly appropriate. If one is asking about details of scientific theories, it is often appropriate to quote those who helped to develop the theories. In neither case is the quotation of an authority necessarily a logical fallacy.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2011 2:32 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2011 5:18 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 24 by Larni, posted 11-13-2011 5:32 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 23 of 344 (640841)
11-13-2011 5:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by kbertsche
11-13-2011 5:05 PM
|
|
Re: An appeal to authority
quote:
I suppose it is true that any quotation of an authority is an "appeal to authority". But it is not true that such an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Otherwise, we could never use quotations in an argument without committing a logical fallacy. Is this what you at claiming (that any quotation of an authority is logically fallacious?)
Any attempt to argue by citing an authority is logically fallacious. This is a simple fact. Experts are NOT always correct. If you can provide an example of a logically valid argument form authority (i.e. one where the authority cited is NECESSARILY correct) then please do so.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2011 5:05 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 24 of 344 (640843)
11-13-2011 5:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by kbertsche
11-13-2011 5:05 PM
|
|
Re: An appeal to authority
The important thing is that an appeal to authority (so and so says x is true' therefor it is true) is different from presenting what someone has demonstrated (so and so demonstrated x and therefor x is true). The credentials of the demonstrater are irrelevant: only that which is demonstrated is relevant. So, the conclusions x comes to cannot be passed off as one's own: as when doing the 'discussion' in a paper you can't very well say "x thinks I'm right: do I still need to do a viva?" Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2011 5:05 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 25 of 344 (640844)
11-13-2011 5:54 PM
|
|
|
an appeal versus a cite
There is a difference between an appeal to authority and a cite of an authority. It is perfectly valid to specify attributions, but when you go one step further and assert that "because x is an authority y is valid" it is always a logical fallacy.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 26 of 344 (640846)
11-13-2011 6:06 PM
|
|
|
Another source
logicalfallacies.info
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1774 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: 06-30-2011
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: An appeal to authority
designtheorist writes:
In a previous thread, an accusation of appealing to authority came up because a quote was introduced like this: X, winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize is Physics, writes: This is not an appeal to authority because it is not a claim the authority cannot be wrong. It is completely valid to describe someone’s expertise in a particular field. The purpose is to get the reader’s attention, not to claim the expert is infallible.
It amounts to a claim (by association) that the authority cannot be wrong in the particular instance quoted. If the authority happened to have won the Nobel Prize for something somewhat further removed from the actual content of the quote, it becomes an even greater liability because it could be construed as an attempt by the quote-miner to mislead. If you really want to safe-guard yourself against the charge of "appeal to authority" and still use quotes, you may do any or all of the following:
a) Use quotes sparingly! Quotes are the spice of scientific discourse, and are at their best when they pithily illustrate a point you are trying to get across. A wall-to-wall barrage of quotes selected solely to push one's own agenda is extremely off-putting. b) Just the name of the person you are quoting is sufficient in virtually all cases ( please do not assume that your audience is incapable of looking up that person or that person's credentials themselves!); and maybe include the original date and place of citation if this is relevant to the current state-of-knowledge of the field. c) If the quote reflects a non-mainstream or non-consensus position, note it as such. d) Cite notable alternative (or even contrary) positions from other experts in the field for direct comparison. e) Never claim (or even faintly imply) that any quote is the last word on the subject. The strength of science is in its tentativity; that is, any one finding may be subsequently overturned by incoming evidence.
Others here are certainly free to modify or add to this list. Edited by DWIII, : subject matter re: a2a via quoting
DWIII
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
|
|
Message 28 of 344 (640849)
11-13-2011 6:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
11-13-2011 5:54 PM
|
|
Re: an appeal versus a cite
Thank you jar! Finally someone gets it!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by jar, posted 11-13-2011 5:54 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by Larni, posted 11-13-2011 6:38 PM | | designtheorist has not replied | | | Message 40 by jar, posted 11-13-2011 7:50 PM | | designtheorist has not replied |
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
|
|
Message 29 of 344 (640850)
11-13-2011 6:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by DWIII
11-13-2011 6:06 PM
|
|
Reply to DWIII
I could agree with most of what you wrote except this part:
It amounts to a claim (by association) that the authority cannot be wrong in the particular instance quoted. If the authority happened to have won the Nobel Prize for something somewhat further removed from the actual content of the quote, it becomes an even greater liability because it could be construed as an attempt by the quote-miner to mislead. Identifying the accomplishments of the person is not at all the same as claiming he is infallible. When I quote Albert Einstein, I don't feel a need to say "Nobel Prize winner" because people know who Einstein is. But if I say Stephen Weinberg, people don't generally know who that is. Is he an astronomer, chemist, sunday school teacher? No one knows. Also, your use of "quote-miner" is not appropriate. People can quote without being a quote-miner. The assumption of guilt here is just ridiculous. If you are going to make a charge that someone is using a quote out of context and changing the meaning of the quote, you had better have some evidence to back up the charge. Otherwise you are just poisoning the well of civil discourse.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by DWIII, posted 11-13-2011 6:06 PM | | DWIII has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Dirk, posted 11-13-2011 7:01 PM | | designtheorist has not replied | | | Message 37 by DWIII, posted 11-13-2011 7:25 PM | | designtheorist has not replied | | | Message 60 by Taq, posted 11-15-2011 11:09 AM | | designtheorist has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: an appeal versus a cite
That's exactly what I said. Edited by Larni, : Removed the 'twat'
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
™ Version 4.2