Ad hominem. Facts don't care about your feelings.

The site staff will band together and keep coming up with reasons to reject it, no matter what you say. — S

Yes, we should really change your name to @K, and this place to "The Philosophy Castle".

Ad hominem. — fdrake

Do do do-do-do

This helps me sleep.

:rofl:

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid. — Harry Hindu


Which is in line with what Baden said. — Christoffer

Except that it isn't.

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.) — unenlightened

@Harry Hindu is correct and @unenlightened is incorrect here. To be sound (which means true) an argument must have both true premises and a conclusion that follows validly from those premises.

The example given by @unenlightened may have true premises, but even if the conclusion were true as claimed, the argument would not be true if the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in anything worthy of sustained discussion. — StreetlightX

So something could be philosophically interesting, even if it were riddled with fallacies? :confused:

To be sound (which means true) an argument... — Janus

Arguments can't be true. So, he messed up the vocab.

the argument would not be true... — Janus

As are you...

"If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using logical jargon correctly."

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

But who cares, really. That was kind of the point.

I voted 'agree' to the OP, because despite protestations that it would take up precious space; I can't see how it could take up more precious space than the reams of drivel that make up much of what is posted on this forum.

Arguments can't be true. — Baden

Then what are you actually saying with an argument, if not making the case for the fact of some state-of-affairs?

So something could be philosophically interesting, even if it were riddled with fallacies? :confused: — Janus

I can see it being interesting like a puzzle. Making an argument riddled with fallacies is like mixing up the colours of a Rubik's cube and then placing that cube somewhere as a kind of open invitation to solve it.

We are talking about logic and logical fallacies in a philosophical context and the appropriate vocabulary to be used within that context. I didn't invent the frigging vocab.

Premises and conclusions are true (or false). Arguments are valid (or invalid).

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology.

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point.

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point. — Baden

It wasn't a matter of either one of us being right or wrong. We were simply talking past each other. But you can believe whatever makes you sleep better tonight.

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology. — Michael

Great idea, only this time we've switched roles, with you being ironic and me being sincere. (Oh wait, that was @Baden. Whatever, you're all the same to me. Everything's a goat anyway).

:lol:

Of course I knew you are right, technically speaking. But I am arguing that 'sound' means 'true' in the sense that a straight board or an arrow can be true. An argument is true if it 'hits the mark'. The analytics are sometimes just that; too anal with their terminology, too desperate to be rid of ambiguity.

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology. — Michael

Shall we do a poll?

The analytics are sometimes just that; too anal with their terminology, too desperate to be rid of ambiguity. — Janus

Probably. It's sometimes necessary, but certainly not in most of what goes on around here.

If the fallacies were deliberately woven into the text I suppose it could be something interesting; a kind of novelty; but could it be philosophically interesting?

Shall we do a poll? — Baden

That's a terrible idea! (Now everyone will think that it's a good idea).

You're catching on K. :razz:

If the fallacies were deliberately woven into the text I suppose it could be something interesting; a kind of novelty; but could it be philosophically interesting? — Janus

Apparently whether or not something is philosophically interesting is entirely a matter of StreetlightX's opinion, so you're asking the wrong person.

But who cares, really. — Baden

*raises hand*

I voted 'agree' to the OP, because despite protestations that it would take up precious space; I can't see how it could take up more precious space than the reams of drivel that make up much of what is posted on this forum. — Janus

When did you become so sensible? Maybe I just missed it before. Anyway, I like this you.

(And yes, I do judge sensibleness on a scale with myself at the top and we-both-know-who at the bottom). :wink:

Take it up with Harry then. And I hope you'll be able to sleep at night after that.

Apparently whether or not something is philosophically interesting is entirely a matter of StreetlightX's opinion, so you're asking the wrong person. — S

Yes, @StreetlightX does tend to universalize his own personal preferences.

You already corrected him. And I see what you did there.

Well thanks, @S, I probably still have some philosophical sympathies that you would disagree with, but to me this is more an argument about form than content; and I've always been a stickler for coherence and consistency, and open acknowledgement of one's presuppositions (we all have them!).

I’ve got no problem the logic. The necessary meanings of logic are how we distinguish and reason about things.There are many different logics. Fallacies are one of these logics. Of itself, this is perfectly fine.

Fallacies and their logic are a field of knowledge we may be an expert on. Just as I know how I felt yesterday, what’s in my backyard, what’s important for me to do today and how planets are moving, I may know about fallacies and when people commit them. If the subject was fallacies someone had committed, I would have exactly what’s needed.

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.

We can see this easily in examples. Let’s say I claim there is a fruit shop on my street. I make the argument:

“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.”

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.

If someone want to now about the fruit shop is there or not, fallacies and their logic does not them. The subject is not my argument and whether it has made a fallacious misstep, it’s the empirical fact of whether a shop exists on my street.

To comment on the truth of the claim, someone needs the appropriate definitions of fruit shop and knowledge of if the shop exists. Talking about fallacies I’ve committed gets no-one any closer to knowing if there is a fruit shop on my street.

In any case fallacies make comment on the structure os someone’s argument, not the content of their claim. This is fine if you are interested in the fallacies of their argument. If, however, you are interested in whether their underlying claim about something is true or not, talking about fallacies is utterly useless. They only give you cause to think an argument has fallacious reasoning. They don’t give a reason to accept or reject the underlying claim.