This is not quite valid since it is missing the premise that winged horses exist. — darthbarracuda

It's invalid in modern logic systems, it was valid in Aristotliean Syllogistic. It doesn't require omniscience, we simply know that syllogism does not lead one from true premises to true conclusions in all models, and hence ought not be valid in a deductive logic.

I admit I have only an introductory exposure to formal logic and know some things here and there. I'm no logician.

It's invalid in modern logic systems, it was valid in Aristotliean Syllogistic. It doesn't require omniscience, we simply know that syllogism does not lead one from true premises to true conclusions in all models, and hence ought not be valid in a deductive logic. — MindForged

This is good example of another major problem with logical fallacies. People get into arguments about whether a particular fallacy is being applied correctly as opposed to the actual basis of the argument.

Well I didn't misuse it or use it as a short hand for not liking someone's argument. :-)

This is good example of another major problem with logical fallacies. People get into arguments about whether a particular fallacy is being applied correctly as opposed to the actual basis of the argument. — T Clark

And argument requires structure for anything to come from it, and that structure is inescapably part of "the actual basis of an argument", it's how you derive conclusions. This is a complaint that makes no sense. Yes some use these stupidly and don't understand them. I am not one of these people.

would I be exempt from making wrong/bad inferences? — Posty McPostface

Only deductive inferences, not the inductive ones.

Would I be any closer to the correct apprehension of reality/truth? — Posty McPostface

Yes, you would be closer than the person with the exact same rational skills but less skills in logic.

But it would be insufficient to find all truths, or even all truths that can be found by man, because this would only cover deductive reasoning, and you would lack perfection in inductive reasoning; that is, finding essences and principles.

It's all a bunch of bullshit — T Clark

I very much wanted to post this great folksong, "It All Sounds Like Bullshit To Me". It's on Apple Tunes, but not on YouTube. It's sources is too esoteric, I guess--a Canadian Caver group -- people interested in spelunking, karst, and such. The performers are Dangerous Dick and the Duckbusters on the album "IN TOO DEEP". Good solid Canadian folk song.

Here's a sample:

IT ALL SOUNDS LIKE BULLSHIT TO ME

There’s a cave around here (though I’ll never tell where!)
That makes all the others look small
We dropped the first pitch on the fourteenth of March
We never got back ‘till the Fall!
The halls are so big and the crawls are so long
To believe it, you’ve just got to see
And to make the trip finer, there’s an exit in China
So we stopped off for egg rolls and tea!

Chorus
So let’s hear yer stories of past caving glories
Tell a tale that’s as tall as can be!!
I’ll not be the one to deny that it’s fun
Though it all sounds like bullshit to me!!

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 am not one of these people. — MindForged

Then don’t be lazy. Spell it out. Even if you understand it, one or all of the participants probably don’t.

Kind of? — MindForged

The ambiguity is the issue here, in my opinion.

It doesn't matter, this is just ridiculous. If someone doesn't know, they can ask or google. It's pointless to expect everything to be explained upfront and it's not as if I'm just spewing accusations of "fallacy this, fallacy that".

Well my issue was that even if I'm deploying a formal logic that doesn't mean I will flawlessly deduce the conclusion. People make errors, so knowing every fallacy isn't going to make one immune to errors in deductive reasoning. Hell, mathematicians mess up calculations too, so they have others check over their work and use automated theorem provers to decrease the likelihood of mistakes.

But it would be insufficient to find all truths, or even all truths that can be found by man, because this would only cover deductive reasoning, and you would lack perfection in inductive reasoning; that is, finding essences and principles. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's a given because inductive reasoning is wholly based on the empirical?

Part of my motivation in starting this thread is to understand if the concept of 'epistemic closure' is fallacious in informal languages, instead of formal ones.

Just a thought to consider.

It doesn't matter, this is just ridiculous. — MindForged

Ad hominem!!! :irony:

If someone doesn't know, they can ask or google. It's pointless to expect everything to be explained upfront and it's not as if I'm just spewing accusations of "fallacy this, fallacy that". — MindForged

I wasn't making a personal accusation, I was making a general point about so-called logical fallacies. I don't understand why it makes sense to make an explanation that many people won't understand or will misunderstand when you can just be clear from the start by spelling out your objection.

I'm going to put in more thought to this and come back with some more thoughts. I've been wanting to talk about logical fallacies for a while. @Posty McPostface - if you'd rather I do this in a separate thread, let me know.

I'm going to put in more thought to this and come back with some more thoughts. I've been wanting to talk about logical fallacies for a while. Posty McPostface - if you'd rather I do this in a separate thread, let me know. — T Clark

By all means, go ahead. You can reference this thread as the template or draft of the final product of the chain of thought culminating in your thread.

But then again, perhaps not. — Bitter Crank

So, maybe? — Posty McPostface

I'd like to addend my thoughts:

Logical fallacy refers to any argument which does not persuade using sound reasoning.

A persuasive argument which lacks logical merit can be used to persuade people of arbitrary conclusions, hence the philosopher's trepidation when such arguments are encountered.

I suspect it would be much better to have the skill of identifying fallacies when encountered than to memorize an ever growing list of formal and informal examples.

Being able to appraise the logical merit of an argument in the first place seems like the place to start (question the premises, review the evidence, examine the conclusion and its relationship to the evidence), and when you identify an argument as unsound, find out what idea or false logic it appeals to and give it a name (or just explain the gaps in logic it plainly to your readers or interlocutors).

Some commonly employed fallacies are really quite tricky though, so being aware of them more so helps you to avoid bad ideas than pull you towards good ones. If everyone understood the gambler's fallacy then Vegas might be a lot less lucrative than it is now! (I've had to explain it to friends many times in casinos).

Being familiar with common fallacies is indeed useful, but it's not going to directly reveal truth, it will just help you identify bad arguments (and maybe some falsity). If good arguments are light bulbs, then the 1000 fallacies are important examples of how not to construct them.



This list is much too long to be practical, but wouldn't it sound cool to suddenly accuse someone of if-by-whiskey pit-tu-quoque-spike kafka-trapping?

I read the list and now feel ashamed... But not too ashamed... This must be what it's like when dogs eat from garbage bins, spontaneously regurgitate its humors soaked contents onto the floor, and then feel compelled to re-consume it.

:chin:

It tastes alright.

This list is much too long to be practical, but wouldn't it sound cool to suddenly accuse someone of if-by-whiskey pit-tu-quoque-spike kafka-trapping? — VagabondSpectre

I see what you did there. :wink:

Nothing would make me happier to take the cleverness credit for referring to "kafka-trapping" with hidden meaning, but I honestly just thought it sounded cool! (and somehow could fit with the other fallacies I named).

What's the reference though? Curiosity is killing me! (But I have a few lives left!) :)

The meaning is that arriving at the 'truth' is like a kafka-trial periled with being aware of all the logical fallacies there are in existence. It's a hopeless task, I suppose where one is forever guilty of being fallacious and has no hope of exoneration.

This must be what it's like when dogs eat from garbage bins, spontaneously regurgitate its humors soaked contents onto the floor, and then feel compelled to re-consume it. — VagabondSpectre

It's a scriptural situation: "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11. It's such a visceral scriptural quote. So from this we can derive two insights: 1) For millennia dogs have been throwing up on the floor and then perusing the disgusting pile with interest. 2) Fools have been returning to their folly for about the same length of time.

Fortunately, neither this scripture nor the insights refers to present company.

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

Would I be any closer to the correct apprehension of reality/truth? — Posty McPostface

There's a difference between knowledge and practice. People know smoking is unhealthy but they still smoke.

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if anyone posted this link:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

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

Would I be any closer to the correct apprehension of reality/truth? — Posty McPostface

Closer, yes, but not all the way. Being aware of a logical fallacy helps in ensuring you statement or explanation makes sense and is consistent. You still need to put all the relevant information into any logical system. There are times when we use logic and still fail because we simply didn't have access to all the relevant information at the moment.

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

So you're saying that we shouldn't use the actual term for the logical fallacy, we should use the definition of the term when expressing disagreement? What's the difference other than taking the long route to explain your argument for someone who is too lazy too look up terms that they don't know?

You have it backwards. Logical fallacies are the result of lazy thinking.

Closer, yes, but not all the way. — Harry Hindu

The ambiguity keeps on cropping up. I would really like to know the reason why.

The meaning is that arriving at the 'truth' is like a kafka-trial periled with being aware of all the logical fallacies there are in existence. It's a hopeless task, I suppose where one is forever guilty of being fallacious and has no hope of exoneration. — Posty McPostface

Destination truth, ultimate verity, will likely never be reached, but as we rid ourselves of our fallacious reasoning and fill in our knowledge gaps we may approach certainty with greater and greater confidence. Recognizing inequity in our own epistemic courts and improving our ability to pass judgment within them, provisional truths, is then the next best thing to strive for.

When our perceptions, measurements, and models are more accurate (less fallacious) we get better predictive power and understanding over the things they describe, but a truth can always be more descriptive, or include a longer set of prior causes, or enable an accurate prediction farther and farther into the future.

Many of us expect never to gain perfect or complete knowledge and understanding, but we do expect for good reason that as we gain predictive power through more comprehensive and precise understanding, certain provisional truths which we do have are better and better approximating and corresponding to ultimate truth.

Once we've realized that we're indeed in an epistemic kafka-trial, we can begin to raise our standards to improve outcomes rather than retaining false hope in some ultimate or eternal attribute of the truths we produce. Getting closer is quite achievable, and can be more than adequate, whereas getting there is to approach infinity and might be without reward.

It's a scriptural situation: "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11. It's such a visceral scriptural quote. So from this we can derive two insights: 1) For millennia dogs have been throwing up on the floor and then perusing the disgusting pile with interest. 2) Fools have been returning to their folly for about the same length of time. — Bitter Crank

This is pricelessly apt.

I read straight through a new english version of the old testament when I was quite young, so this simile has been fermenting in the gut for well over a decade :) (though I cannot not recall reading it)

Normally in this situation I would try for some comedic or ironic commentary at the expense of religion, but I really like this proverb. It's timeless and visceral as you say (we've all seen dogs do this), and its main insight is instructive even if untrue in the general sense. True folly is in the repetition of it.

Fortunately, neither this scripture nor the insights refers to present company. — Bitter Crank

Indeed! :heart:

But don't hold it against me when you catch me perusing my own piles. It's a matter of scientific rigor, not folly!

The ambiguity keeps on cropping up. I would really like to know the reason why. — Posty McPostface

I thought I explained the reason why in the rest of my post. :brow:

So you're saying that we shouldn't use the actual term for the logical fallacy, we should use the definition of the term when expressing disagreement? What's the difference other than taking the long route to explain your argument for someone who is too lazy too look up terms that they don't know? — Harry Hindu

The differences are:

• Most discussions where logical fallacies are referenced fall apart into arguments about 1) what that particular fallacy "really" means and 2) whether or not it applies to this situation.
• Although it might not be true of you, most users of the concept and it's manifestations, at least here on the forum, don't understand them and misuse them. Case in point - ad hominem.
• Many of the "fallacies" on the list BitterCrank posted are confusing, silly, and/or wrong.
• Although it might not be true of you, most people who make claims of logical fallacy out of laziness and unwillingness to put thought into their arguments.
• Alternatively, they use such claims to give a gloss of sophistication to an unsound argument.
• Most uses of the term "logical fallacy" are guilty of the argument from authority fallacy. Why is that a fallacy? Because Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia, or Plato said so.
• Rule of clarity - use jargon as little as possible.

That's enough for now I guess.

Most discussions where logical fallacies are referenced fall apart into arguments about 1) what that particular fallacy "really" means and 2) whether or not it applies to this situation.

Although it might not be true of you, most users of the concept and it's manifestations, at least here on the forum, don't understand them and misuse them. Case in point - ad hominem. — T Clark

The second sounds like the cause of the first.

Many of the "fallacies" on the list BitterCrank posted are confusing, silly, and/or wrong. — T Clark

What about the link I provided in the other post?

Although it might not be true of you, most people who make claims of logical fallacy out of laziness and unwillingness to put thought into their arguments. — T Clark

This isn't true for me. In my experience, it is those that commit logical fallacies that are being lazy. I have committed many of them myself - out of ignorance, frustration at being wrong, or just losing interest in the conversation. I just try to acknowledge it when I do it. I'm evolving.

Alternatively, they use such claims to give a gloss of sophistication to an unsound argument. — T Clark

Again, this points to your second point on your list.

Most uses of the term "logical fallacy" are guilty of the argument from authority fallacy. Why is that a fallacy? Because Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia, or Plato said so. — T Clark

Where does Wiki, SE, or Plato say this? Who is the original creator of the list of logical fallacies? It seems to me that you want to make sure for your own sake, that your reasoning is sound regardless of whether someone else says it is or isn't.

Rule of clarity - use jargon as little as possible. — T Clark

In a thesis or research paper - yes, but on an internet forum?

It sounds to me that you're just complaining about a bunch of novice philosophers using this forum. This is an opportunity to teach, not complain.

Where does Wiki, SE, or Plato say this? Who is the original creator of the list of logical fallacies? It seems to me that you want to make sure for your own sake, that your reasoning is sound regardless of whether someone else says it is or isn't. — Harry Hindu

Wikipedia has a list of LFs. I assume SE does also. I just threw Plato in. According to Wikipedia, Aristotle was the first to systematize fallacies, so I should have used him instead.

For me, making sure my reasoning is sound is not accomplished by labeling an argument, it's by thinking it through and spelling out my thoughts.