"Red-herring" was referring to how your truth claim was wrong, that you are supposing a problem in identifying truth claims which isn't there. — TheWillowOfDarkness
So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly? — Janus
Only if you don't clusterfuck off! — Janus
But if your claim about which shops are in your local area is false, then it isn't a fact at all, but a falsehood. Your "subject of interest" would be lacking in facts.The problem with fallacies is not they aren’t real or that logic somehow doesn’t work, it’s they don’t address a claim being made. If I’m talking about which shops are in my local area, I’m not making claim about how fallacious my argument is or not. My subject of interest is another fact entirely, one which is not actually a fact of my argument at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true or invalid and true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument? — Harry Hindu
Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.
Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.) — unenlightened
If these topics are so "interesting", then I'd love to see a thread started on these. :rofl:I am a poster of The Philosophy Forum. Since I dislike fallacies, I am an idiot who can never be trusted. Ergo, there is a fruit shop on my street.” — TheWillowOfDarkness
:clap: You just explained the fallacy fallacy.I’m sure the fallacy minded will have a lot of fun picking that one apart, finding all the different sorts of missteps in logical inference I’ve made. But what have we said/learnt/discovered about whether there is a fruit shop on my street? Absolutely nothing. The metric which justifies the claim “There is a fruit shop on my street” or gives a reason to reject it hasn’t even been addressed. The fallacies of my argument doesn’t actually give us a reason to conclude the claim should be rejected. I could commit all those fallacies in my argument and it might be true there is a fruit shop on my street. — TheWillowOfDarkness
An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy. — Harry Hindu
No! It could all be valuable philosophical work. Of course you could still do this work in an obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow and all the rest of it" way, but then the good part of your work might be wasted. The "obnoxious, etc, etc......" is more a matter of style than substance. — Janus
That's not really doubt.
"Reasonable doubt" is actually an evidence/knowledge based claim. If we take the concept of "reasonable doubt" in law, for example, it is actually based on the expectation that if someone performed a crime, it amounts to empirical states which we can observe and investigate. It actually rejects someone committed a crime on the basis we know empirical states we would expect from the crime haven't occurred. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a red-herring because the garbage of it being fallacious is unrelated to its truth claim. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right". — Harry Hindu
Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.
The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.
But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level. — S
On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign. — praxis
It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy. — praxis
No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves. — S
we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic — S
... especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy, — S
When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.