Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
1–10 of 134 posts
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#2News at 10: not all of human thinking and interaction can be analysed by logic. Logic is a limited tool (though powerful when applied properly).
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#3For me, fallacies are a great tool for recognizing bad reasoning, which then provides pointers about how to expose it as such using a real argument. The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. In a good debate, the fallacies themselves never come up but you can see how they have influenced the flow of argument.
I really liked how it was put in the book Logical Self-Defense: To be valid, an argument has to be relevant, sufficient, and acceptable. All of the fallacies (that I know of) fail on at least one of those properties. Recognizing the fallacy tells you how to go about attacking or shoring-up the argument (depending on which side of it you're on).
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#4News at 10: not all of human thinking and interaction can be analysed by logic. Logic is a limited tool (though powerful when applied properly).
As one of the greatest logicians of the 20th century once said: Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#5News at 10: not all of human thinking and interaction can be analysed by logic. Logic is a limited tool (though powerful when applied properly).
I think the real lesson is that humans aren't always (or even often) rational. A logical argument that assumes humans are always rational is incorrect. But if you have a good model of human thought and interaction that includes all the irrational parts, using logic to analyze it can work great.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#6 Far too often, logical fallacies are invoked in order to run away from an argument.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#7Arguments are about core issues, not peripheral issues.
The only way to convict your opponent is on their ground, not your own.
Taking an argument seriously, as if it were the best representation of itself, is the only way to defeat it.
In order to truly disagree, you must discover how much you already agree.
=
I know these sound a little fatuous. Can I just lampshade by saying they're all very true? :/
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#8Arguments are about core issues, not peripheral issues. The only way to convict your opponent is on their ground, not your own. Taking an argument seriously, as if it were the best representation of itself, is the only way to defeat it. In order to truly disagree, you must discover how much you already agree. = I know these sound a little fatuous. Can I just lampshade by saying they're all very true? :/
Those aren't fatuous at all. I think Solomon put it well:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#9Picard Quote captures where we are headed with the acknowledgement that treating fallacies as very powerful often curtails Justice:
"There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#10It's nice to see the word baloney in lieu of #@%! A nice change of pace.