What do you call it when one false argument follows from another one derived from valid premises? — redan

If an argument is derived from valid premises and the derivation is valid logic, then it is a valid argument. Anything following on from it is also valid (provided the derivation is valid).

Perhaps you refer to Principle of Explosion: ‘from a contradiction, anything follows’? For example, consider the following contradiction:

This statement is true
This statement is false

We can write:

‘This statement is true or trees can walk’ - this is true by virtue of 1 above.

Then 2 above tells us that ‘This statement is true’ is false hence we can logically conclude that trees can walk.

If an argument is derived from valid premises and the derivation is valid logic, then it is a valid argument. — Devans99

Yes; but, can it be the case that an argument that is fallacious can lead to other arguments that are fallacious?

Anything following on from it is also valid (provided the derivation is valid). — Devans99

Yes, though, in the case of fallacious arguments, then the same "logic" could apply but be mistaken and faulty, yes?

Yes; but, can it be the case that an argument that is fallacious can lead to other arguments that are fallacious? — redan

Yes if a logical error is made in the derivation. There is a set of valid derivation rules called syllogisms. If you don't stick to these rules you get invalid conclusions.

Yes if a logical error is made in the derivation. There is a set of valid derivation rules called syllogisms. If you don't stick to these rules you get invalid conclusions. — Devans99

So, then you can have some unchecked logic going about that is faulty; but, never actually true because nobody wen't to the matter of assessing the truth or falsehood of it?

Yes; but, can it be the case that an argument that is fallacious can lead to other arguments that are fallacious? — redan

Sorry misread your comment. A fallacious argument could be a contradiction. As mentioned above, contradictions allow you to deduce anything.

Sorry misread your comment. A fallacious argument is a contradiction. As mentioned above, contradictions allow you to deduce anything. — Devans99

OK, thanks!

You can deduce stuff from false arguments by conjunction introduction:

'Trees walk' - is false

But 'Socrates is a man OR trees walk' is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_introduction

It's been happening since whenever the first two simultaneous philosophers lived.

Leisure-Class Education Is an Insult to Intelligence

Let's assume that Aristotle's dogma that the best government is one led by the educated is valid. He then distorts it by the fact that education in his time was restricted to spoiled, mediocre, fickle, and self-indulgent HeirHeads.

This is something that could potentially go on forever. Some person could go on making fallacious arguments through straw manning, hasty generalizations, and such, and never become aware of it until pointed out by someone else. — redan

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial.

It's been happening since whenever the first two simultaneous philosophers lived. — whollyrolling

What do you mean by that?

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial. — S

Same as above...

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial. — S

:fear:

For a field that is best known for highlighting the distinction between empirical and analytic or rationalist schools of thought, then is there some third alternative? — redan

I'm not sure what this has to do with the rest of your post.

I guess the third alternative is Kantianism where Kant attempted to bridge the gap between the two schools of thought.

What do you mean by that?

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial.
— S

Same as above... — redan

I meant that it's possible for someone to commit a fallacious argument, have that pointed out to them, and yet still be unaware that they've committed a fallacy through disbelief.

We have all most likely done this. We can only try our best not to.

Does this happen often in people and philosophy? — redan

In people, yes, in philosophy, less so. The difficulty is that deduction is wholly inadequate to life. To reason about the future involves induction; to come to a judgement of any sort requires values. Even the commitment to truth and the valuing therefore of deduction is not to be arrived at deductively.

I don't have time to think of a rhyme, bur for all the Painted Jaguars on the forum:

Premises and conclusions are true or false
Inferences are valid or invalid
Arguments are sound or unsound

A sound argument has true premises and valid inferences
Some unsound arguments may have true conclusions.

If the premises of an argument are true, and the inferences are valid, the conclusion MUST be true.

EDIT: sorry, made a mistake. Fixed it.

This is something that could potentially go on forever. Some person could go on making fallacious arguments through straw manning, hasty generalizations, and such, and never become aware of it.... — redan

Welcome to Internet forums. :wink:

Welcome to Internet forums. :wink: — Wayfarer

Supposedly the forum rules here recommend following philosophical practice. I think mods accept way too many low-quality posts sometimes. I would like to see this forum be far beyond what Reddit, Twitter, Facebook etc. is, which it ain't sometimes.

I'm wondering if one can, by extension, say the same of psychologizing?

Namely, what do I mean? I mean to imply that these mental excursions are really manifestations of some psychological issue or urge that needs explication and refinement.

Seemingly, my pontifications on this forum are really some form of escapism or poor intellectualization. Therefore, does that make the merit of my musings really trite and mundane? I'm not entirely sure. It seems to me that I've been cognizant and aware of this fact, which was made explicit recently by the mods of this forum.

Over in the shoutbox, I made the assumption that what drives people to post on this forum is really some venting source for one's defense mechanisms. Generalizing, I would say that my "drive" to post on these forums is really, as mentioned, to stave off boredom and serve as an outlet for a sherbert head.

What do others think?

The Road to Perdition Is Patrician


The premise may be acceptable in general, but the specific case where it is used may need a deeper and more elaborated premise. Based on the fact that the premise is defective, the inferences would necessarily be illogical, even if logical from premises that don't need to be so thorough.

For example, 80% of the 1% were not born in the 1%. That supermajority, greater than even what is needed to override a Presidential veto, usually would prove that America is a land of class mobility. However, those born in the 1% have an outrageous 20 times their logical representation. That corrupting imbalance must be the dominating factor, so no claim of democratic inclusion can be made from this better-defined premise. In fact, the realistic inference has to be that the heiristocrats control the way for others to get ahead and would naturally only promote no-talent non-threatening brown-noses, like Cheney and Biden.