Isn't this all this amounts to? That humans are not omniscient? — darthbarracuda

I think it amounts to the hopelessness that philosophy faces if it is to be a prescriptive/normative ethical domain of thought. It will always seem to only be able to be a descriptive science.

There, the ambiguity is no more.

I believe my other point about imperfectly following rules is more pertinent to your question. — MindForged

Is this about the discrepancy between formal and informal reasoning?

No, I don't think so. There is a difference between logical validity and soundness. Having valid syllogisms doesn't make you any closer to reality, not unless these syllogisms are sound (by having true premises). And having true premises requires non-theoretical commitments, such as the commitment to explore, learn, adapt, etc. Logic is form, sense is data. A computer may be programmed to be completely logical with respect to some input, but if there is no input, the computer has nothing to do. — darthbarracuda

Yes, we're not talking about epistemic content, yet. Just about the reasoning process itself and the motivations behind it.

Given the popularity of the use of the term "logical fallacy" I think a lot of people would disagree with me. — T Clark

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. It seems reasonable on face value.

I don't understand your comment - are you disagreeing with me or disagreeing? You are guilty of the Lack of Clarity Logical Fallacy. — T Clark

I'm agreeing obviously. How can I disagree?

It's really insidious isn't it? One of the more treacherous one's out there.

There is only one true logical fallacy - the Logical Fallacy Fallacy. It is using the term "logical fallacy" without understanding the underlying basis. If you can't describe what the issue is with another person's argument without saying "XYZ Fallacy" then you have committed this fallacy.

If you disagree with another persons argument, you have to be able to express that disagreement in plain language without using labels or catch words. The term "logical fallacy" is just a lazy way of not having to think your position through. — T Clark

This is golden. So, pointing out fallacies is a fallacy of trying to disregard the whole argument based on the occurrence of a fallacy. I'd say that's uncharitable and insincere.

I have one for you. It's called the 'psychological fallacy', where one points out that someone is deriving a position or argument based solely on psychological needs. As if everything were driven by psychological need...

No. Aside from the fact that no one perfectly adheres to rules even if they believe they ought to l, what counts as a logical fallacy is relative to the logic you're using. Ergo, you may find out you were reasoning according to the wrong logic in some domain and thus have been reasoning fallaciously. — MindForged

I don't understand. I don't know if there's a theorem stating that if something in base one logic, applies universally to all other logics? Meaning, if I'm correct in one domain of logic, then by extension it should apply to all other domains of logic.

Perhaps... — VagabondSpectre

So, is that a yes or no?

But then again, perhaps not. — Bitter Crank

So, maybe?

Then I must ask... What are you doing here engaging with us in philosophical endeavors? Is it the fact that you might be wrong and are willing to endure more pain as you call it?

That is easy. Like most difficult questions it has been under our noses all the time. The poets have being trying to tell the Philosopher for a thousand years. — Marcus de Brun

So, then philosophy is a gift that keeps on giving?

"If we seek to understand the whole Universe, we'll understand little, but seek to understand ourselves, and we'll come to understand the whole Universe."

A saying from a close friend of my childhood.

But language is simply a vehicle for the instincts, a means to achieve a single supreme natural primordial objective. — Marcus de Brun

And, what is that objective if you don't mind me asking?

Understanding the objective obviates the need for making such a fuss about language itself. — Marcus de Brun

Well, to better understand the objective, we have to understand ourselves first.

How might we overcome it if we do not understand it? — Marcus de Brun

Well, Wittgenstein believed that through analyzing the use/nature of language, we can come to a better understanding of the true nature of how questions or conceptual schemes are formed. Anyway, one can delve into that route or accept the implications of the seventh proposition of the TLP, and simply engage in life instead of trying to make sense of it and never be able to.

In contrast to the appraisal of some of the other respondents, to be honest, I don't think that you've asked anything particularly deep or worthy of exploration. — Sapientia

[...]

Maybe these questions or remarks from you are more of an expression of some feeling you wanted to get off of your chest in light of recent events, and it's more about the subtext. — Sapientia

Thanks for proving my point...

I don't think that it's about the argument. If he's doing what he describes others of doing, it is precisely then that we (Posty included) can learn something. From the source. — Πετροκότσυφας

I guess we can all learn something from each-other, hence, the need not to point fingers for any reason in particular and just reflect on your own assumptions and biases.

Easier said than done, though.

As always Posty, your posts are serious grounds for thought. — Marcus de Brun

Thanks, I try.

So I suppose you have to rely upon your instincts.. — Marcus de Brun

What kind of instincts? If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad inferences?

Your second question appears to point to a favorite of yours: namely why do people on forums such as this, tend to be more destructive in their commentary than constructive or kind? — Marcus de Brun

Yes, that has been a concern for me for a long time.

On balance, it seems to me that on forums such as this one, where anonymity is relatively assured people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves. — Marcus de Brun

Interesting. What makes you think that's the reason why?

I think you can tell the x's from the y's by spotting those posters who believe that conceding a goal is as much a victory as scoring one... at least when it pertains to the great 'game' that is Philosophy. — Marcus de Brun

I don't play the game, I just watch from the sidelines.

To summarize my post, above, we end up having disagreeable fights because too often we act as if a discussion is a contest upon which is riding a judgement of our personal worth. The solution? Write what you will and then let go of it. — Bitter Crank

So, this is a result of not playing devils advocate with every position or argument you make?

Why point the finger? Why ask if it's a form of paranoia and not ask, for example, if it's not a form of love? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't really know. Is there even an answer?

So, is it some logical fallacy to try and categorize a person or label them as someone or something to discredit them or present them in some negative manner to ignore the content of their post?

The purpose of this thread. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are a bunch of questions in the OP. You can choose to answer anyone you like.

I don't know. Does it even matter? — Πετροκότσυφας

What's it you don't know?

So, you're asking because you want to know?

I don't know. Why even bother asking?

Why does being anything have to do with the arguments you make? — yatagarasu

Indeed?...

That's true here too. The arguments speak for themselves. Racists and murderers can make good arguments too. — T Clark

What's true here too? I'm trying to ask, why should I even care who you are, or what reason you have for posting something? Doesn't it come down to paranoia or something of that sort?

It can also be exhilarating, even enlightening. — Janus

Is that not a delusion onto itself?

*looks at the horse*

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at. — Marcus de Brun

I have the impression, that Wittgenstein believed that an apt and appropriate concern for ethics and morality can only arise if we can overcome the instinctual and subconscious aspect of mankind.

All made possible by @unenlightened...

*Thinks if that was wise to say...*

*Thinks harder...*

*F-k it.*

I'm at my limit. I hope I can hand off the baton to someone else. One thing before I go is that the objective/subjective trap is irrelevant to the issue.

I'm sorry TimeLine but I'm afraid the ad hominems aren't going to work.

I agree. It has been my conviction for a while now that philosophy is, fundamentally, an individualistic enterprise. I think that philosophy may not be a noun, but rather is more of an adjective to describe how a collection of ideas influences a person in a significant, overarching way. Philosophy, as Nietzsche pointed out, is autobiography. Before "religion" became associated with a determinate social "thing" (something that has happened relatively recently, in fact), philosophy stood as that personal, individual activity. In some ways, the decline of the recognition of the importance of philosophy coincides with the rise of organized religion. Philosophy lost its esteem as the individualistic, spiritual journey and was replaced by dogmatism, group-think, superstition. — darthbarracuda

Yes you raise an important issue perhaps the overarching issue this thread is trying to present. Namely, that there is no incentive to test your own theories or beliefs if they conform to a certain worldview and go along cherry picking evidence or choosing convenient beliefs. I mean, nobody likes being wrong. Maybe apart from the ideal version of a scientist. But, then one wonders, if philosophy is only instrumental to satisfying a psychological need, then what's the effin point of it all so to speak? Isn't that some perverted reductio ad absurdom of the whole enterprise?

When people fling insults and ignore fallacies, it is because they feel threatened on a personal level. The philosophy they have internalized and used to orient themselves in the world is under fire and must be protected. Insults are conjured up by individuals and are aimed at individuals; they have no place in rational argument. — darthbarracuda

What's that the result of, then? Treating philosophy as a way of life or what?

I couldn't decipher a question here. — Hanover

It was just a show of gratitude for maintaining the place. I just hope you can spot any ad hominems and other logical fallacies or personal attacks or have users more actively flag them. Apart from that, not sure what to add.

No, it was a facade. But, you get the point don't you? This is a special place.

Yeah, after a while I just got used to the beatings my father did to me physically and psychologically.

Got ya.

In case anyone doesn't only want to bash prejudices about what the 'ego' or 'man' is all about, or how he ought to act, there's this topic I started a while ago that in many ways is refreshing to the opinion bashing on these forums...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-human-traits-be-formalized.927606/

Because humans are sexually dimorphic, and exhibit extremely plastic social behavior. But, I get the feeling that the sentiment of others on this forum is that this is not the case, or at least normatively doesn't matter?

So, if we assume the above, then we can either choose to reinforce the male dominant stereotype or embrace some other alternative, which surely exists.

In light of the recent shitshow that I started about whether I was being too sensitive about jokes being made about sex in the shoutbox, I wanted to revive this thread.

I'm hoping for any new input and to dispel the bleak and depressing "truth" that a man only is a man if he can realize his full potential as a male.

So, I'm just going to go on a limb here and say that expressing masculinity is an issue for me here. Or do I just don't care at that pissing contest?