Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Logic and Logical fallacies

  1. #1 Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Guest
    I just have to ask, since apparently FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are, what do you think logic and logical fallacies are?

    This question is mainly curiosity about how people on this forum think. I see multitude of fallacies committed every day, especially by the self-proclaimed "experts" or "physicists" as well as many creationists, so it's left me wondering exactly what on *earth* do you think logic and logical fallacies are?

    Edit: It says something when a religious post made at the same time gets three times as many views as as a post concerning logic and reasoning. :?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Maybe all it says is that people are thinking about it before they answer?

    What is logic?
    Arguments arising from demonstrated facts, or agreed upon assumptions, and supported or contradicted by additional facts as they are introduced.

    Where a hell of a lot of people go wrong is in not even recognizing their assumptions; most of the time that doesn't bother me, but it drives me bat-shit that people do it here.

    Logical fallacies?
    Unsupported inferences.

    I think the most pernicious one is:
    If A, then B means that
    if B, then A.

    Then there is the correlation v. causation issue; WHY is it so hard for some people to grasp that correlation does not prove causation?

    Also, given an assumption of causation, why can people not imagine the cause and effect reversed?


    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Isn't a logical fallacy a conclusion that either
    a. does not follow logically from the premises, or
    b. follows logically from the premises, but one or more of the premises is itself false?

    Note that 'a' doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion itself is wrong - only that it didn't follow logically from the premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I just have to ask, since apparently FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are, what do you think logic and logical fallacies are?

    This question is mainly curiosity about how people on this forum think. I see multitude of fallacies committed every day, especially by the self-proclaimed "experts" or "physicists" as well as many creationists, so it's left me wondering exactly what on *earth* do you think logic and logical fallacies are?
    If that, by chance, was a reference to me, would you kindly tell me what it was that I did?

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Logic is when a given property (or properties) is pointed out using exclusion or inclusion possibly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    If that, by chance, was a reference to me, would you kindly tell me what it was that I did?

    Cheers
    No, I can safetly say it wasn't directly referencing to you.

    However, I'd like to explain an EXAMPLE of an ad-hominem (which apparently nobody understands)

    B has idea C

    A says A *knows* that B is D

    A also says that because B is D, C is invalid.

    B therefore is wrong.

    Can you guess how that is logically falicious?

    Now, here is a proper way to "insult":

    B has idea C
    A says B is probably D
    A proves C wrong, and furthers the point that B is D

    B is therefore wrong.

    And how often do I see people doing that? Aside from administrators and moderators, almost nobody.

    I'll also explain the ever-so-popular (and you do this one, william, so this is in part a reference to you, and no I'm not saying I am innocent of this one either. We all end up doing it to an extent) "art" of blind assumptions.

    B says C

    A says B is e,f,g,h,i

    A lacks evidence

    B points this out.

    A claims that B is also Z as well as X and P

    Therefore, B is all of those traits.

    While the above is not a very good example, you get the jist (I hope). Hint: A completely avoided replying to what B said regarding C.

    Combine the two logical fallacies above together: And you get...Kent Hovind. (kidding)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Post links to unresolved and I'll try. I have an idea, why don't you put all unresolved ideas in a cathegory called "unresolved".

    I bet there are a lot of people who like resolving stuff.

    It could have several undercathegories called "maths","physics", whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Failures in an argument where the logical fallacy is an argument that is irrational.

    Consider the following dialogue:

    Hannibal Lecter: Tell me, Will. Did you enjoy it? Your first murder? Of course you did. Why shouldn't it feel good? It does to God. Why, only last week in Texas, he dropped a church roof on the heads of his worshippers as they were grovelling through a hymn.
    He wouldn't begrudge you one journalist.
    Will Graham: Put me next to him, Doctor.
    H: You and some SWAT team? Oh, Will. Where's the fun in that?
    W: He'll have to take his chances, too. A roof can fall on anybody.
    H: But not on Molly and Josh, I take it. Not yet, anyway.
    Imagine your views of the world are raw and potent, that you consider the world a violent mix of forces and that you do not believe in risk-avoiding behaviour because it primarily harbours an illusion of control over fate and second, is non-life affirming. Now, imagine that you, like Will Graham, have a wife and child. Surely, your intellectual views remain the same - indeed, the roof can fall on anybody, and it would be irrational to abandon your intellectual view in favour of a more comfortable relationship with your child.

    The question here is how you rise up to that challenge, and whether there is a real 'better' answer to that question.

    Likewise, a personal attack may not always be a logical fallacy. If I can point out that Socrates was only drawn to reason because he could not appreciate art, because he was so deformed, I explain a part of his philosophy, one that he never cared to examine.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I just have to ask, since apparently FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are, what do you think logic and logical fallacies are?

    This question is mainly curiosity about how people on this forum think. I see multitude of fallacies committed every day, especially by the self-proclaimed "experts" or "physicists" as well as many creationists, so it's left me wondering exactly what on *earth* do you think logic and logical fallacies are?

    Edit: It says something when a religious post made at the same time gets three times as many views as as a post concerning logic and reasoning. :?
    well a good example of a logical fallacy is your post here

    it consists of a faulty generalisation

    "FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are........"

    you take a small sample and make a deduction based on that and then apply it to the entire population. Hence faulty generalization.

    A more realistic reply would involve wording your post as follows:
    "I just have to ask, it appears to me, that few people here (based upon what I have read) comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are, what do you think logic and logical fallacies are? This is of course my own personal opinion and has no basis in fact."

    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    it consists of a faulty generalisation

    "FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are........"

    you take a small sample and make a deduction based on that and then apply it to the entire population. Hence faulty generalization.
    I'm always stuck wasting my time explaining..

    No, it's not a faulty generalization. A faulty one would be based without a factual premise. From the people I have seen on this forum thus far who continually make logical fallacies even after they are pointed out, I can safetly say "few."

    The fallacy is assuming that "few" means "entire population." :P

    Also, it is not a "small sample" either. Plus, I mostly refer to the regular posters. I can't refer to those I have no knowledge of, now can I?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    it consists of a faulty generalisation

    "FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are........"

    you take a small sample and make a deduction based on that and then apply it to the entire population. Hence faulty generalization.
    I'm always stuck wasting my time explaining..

    No, it's not a faulty generalization. A faulty one would be based without a factual premise. From the people I have seen on this forum thus far who continually make logical fallacies even after they are pointed out, I can safetly say "few."

    The fallacy is assuming that "few" means "entire population." :P

    Also, it is not a "small sample" either. Plus, I mostly refer to the regular posters. I can't refer to those I have no knowledge of, now can I?
    You have no factual premise, it is entirely your personal opinion..........presented as if it is fact.

    THIS is what a logical fallacy is.

    Where is your 'evidence' few people on the planet know the difference? Or even few people who are members of this board. Not every member posts an opinion.

    THOUGH, I have informed you of your own logical fallacy and yet you deny it is such and continue to defend it. So yes there is at least one here who does not know the difference. You may though be in the minority.

    You yourself are not a reliable 'source'.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    You have no factual premise, it is entirely your personal opinion..........presented as if it is fact.

    THIS is what a logical fallacy is.
    So...examining posts and following the exact definitions you can find online for logical fallacies, then amassing a rather large amount of posters that continue to make them, is opinion?

    I'm sorry, but THAT is a logical fallacy.

    Perfect example is your further attempt to support it.

    Where is your 'evidence' few people on the planet know the difference? Or even few people who are members of this board. Not every member posts an opinion.

    PLUS you have demonstrated you yourself do not know the difference, thus you are not a relaiable 'source'.
    ungh...always FEMALES...I did not say planet. I referred to this message board. You made your own logical fallacy there, ever hear of "strawman arguments?"

    and how have I demonstrated that I do not know the difference? This kind of adds to the fallacy I explained about assumptions...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    You have no factual premise, it is entirely your personal opinion..........presented as if it is fact.

    THIS is what a logical fallacy is.
    So...examining posts and following the exact definitions you can find online for logical fallacies, then amassing a rather large amount of posters that continue to make them, is opinion?

    I'm sorry, but THAT is a logical fallacy.

    Perfect example is your further attempt to support it.

    Where is your 'evidence' few people on the planet know the difference? Or even few people who are members of this board. Not every member posts an opinion.

    PLUS you have demonstrated you yourself do not know the difference, thus you are not a relaiable 'source'.
    ungh...always FEMALES...I did not say planet. I referred to this message board. You made your own logical fallacy there, ever hear of "strawman arguments?"

    and how have I demonstrated that I do not know the difference? This kind of adds to the fallacy I explained about assumptions...
    you are guilty as charged, may I refer you to Wikipedia?

    Now you are using adhom as your supporting argument, more logical fallacy also.

    Suggesting that because I am female I am inferior and thus you win I lose regardless.

    Keep those logical fallacies coming

    (in your first post, you said FEW people blah blah- there was no mention re 'on this board', you later remark that you are curious re what people on the forum think, but that does not lead us to assume that your previous generalisation was restricted to those people only)
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    you are guilty as charged, may I refer you to Wikipedia?

    Now you are using adhom as your supporting argument, more logical fallacy also.

    Suggesting that because I am female I am inferior and thus you win I lose regardless.
    WTF? No, it suggests a past history with troublesome females. I suggest nothing when it comes to gender and intelligence.

    Once again: STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

    As for the last bit regarding "on this board," gee, sooooo sorry it wasn't BLOODY OBVIOUS I was referring to this board when I mentioned the physicists and creationists on it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    you are guilty as charged, may I refer you to Wikipedia?

    Now you are using adhom as your supporting argument, more logical fallacy also.

    Suggesting that because I am female I am inferior and thus you win I lose regardless.
    WTF? No, it suggests a past history with troublesome females. I suggest nothing when it comes to gender and intelligence.

    Once again: STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
    adhom and logical fallacy, thank you for the demonstration
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Umm...where?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Umm...where?
    your first post re logical fallacy, then your subsequent supporting 'evidence' of that fallacy, then your sexist comment re females which constitutes adhom.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Umm...where?
    your first post re logical fallacy, then your subsequent supporting 'evidence' of that fallacy, then your sexist comment re females which constitutes adhom.
    ...you know what, nevermind. If I continue with this, it wont do me any good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    From time to time, I consider myself logic. Oftenly I notice fallacies, but since I'm not interested in fallacies, and neither are others, I try to stay away from them and I don't have time commenting everything anyway (try to avoid making them aswell). Infact i mostly only take part in things I like to talk about. An opening reply should not be unlogical crackpot. It's called spam. Any such should be put in trash.

    And please, put the "nothing" junk in pseudophilosophy. Or make a cathegory called nothing. Either way, philosophy should not contain "nothing1", "nothing2","nothing3"...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    well a good example of a logical fallacy is your post here

    it consists of a faulty generalisation

    "FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are........"
    I urge you to reconsider. A faulty generalisation is attributing to a population the property of a sample. However, he does not speak of the property belonging to a population. Indeed, he brings a nuanced view of that group: few.
    It might be a hasty generalisation, but in fact his words are much too vague for there to be a real argument about it. Most importantly, it was not used as a reason in an argument, and its status as being fallacious or not is therefore of little importance.

    You have no factual premise, it is entirely your personal opinion..........presented as if it is fact.
    Not at all. You may question the quality of his empirical findings, but not the nature. He clearly states he has gathered this from fact. Whether it is a sound scientific finding is a whole different matter.

    Now you are using adhom as your supporting argument, more logical fallacy also.
    No, his mentioning your sex does not automatically mean he uses that as a reason for you being wrong in your assumption. He did not make the statement, "You are a woman thus inferior, thus your argument is wrong."
    He merely stated that in his past, only women were so vigorous in their pursuits of demonstrating that he was fallacious.

    your first post re logical fallacy, then your subsequent supporting 'evidence' of that fallacy, then your sexist comment re females which constitutes adhom.
    I think I have demonstrated that these two logical fallacies do not exist, but are also irrelevant to the actual thread. What I find most interesting is that you have chosen to not talk about the straw man accusation. Moreover, you have yourself committed a logical fallacy by attacking jeremy not at his arguments, but at his introductory statement.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    well a good example of a logical fallacy is your post here

    it consists of a faulty generalisation

    "FEW people comprehend what logic and logical fallacies are........"
    I urge you to reconsider. A faulty generalisation is attributing to a population the property of a sample. However, he does not speak of the property belonging to a population. Indeed, he brings a nuanced view of that group: few.
    It might be a hasty generalisation, but in fact his words are much too vague for there to be a real argument about it. Most importantly, it was not used as a reason in an argument, and its status as being fallacious or not is therefore of little importance.

    You have no factual premise, it is entirely your personal opinion..........presented as if it is fact.
    Not at all. You may question the quality of his empirical findings, but not the nature. He clearly states he has gathered this from fact. Whether it is a sound scientific finding is a whole different matter.

    Now you are using adhom as your supporting argument, more logical fallacy also.
    No, his mentioning your sex does not automatically mean he uses that as a reason for you being wrong in your assumption. He did not make the statement, "You are a woman thus inferior, thus your argument is wrong."
    He merely stated that in his past, only women were so vigorous in their pursuits of demonstrating that he was fallacious.

    your first post re logical fallacy, then your subsequent supporting 'evidence' of that fallacy, then your sexist comment re females which constitutes adhom.
    I think I have demonstrated that these two logical fallacies do not exist, but are also irrelevant to the actual thread. What I find most interesting is that you have chosen to not talk about the straw man accusation. Moreover, you have yourself committed a logical fallacy by attacking jeremy not at his arguments, but at his introductory statement.

    Mr U
    The question was

    'in your opinion what do you think a logical fallacy is ..'

    I provided my opinion.nothing more. No adhom, no attack. Nothing personal.

    I used Jermemy's post to demonstrate my opinion. An existing example is always helpful.

    You dispute the validity of my opinion as did he. Your argument was slightly more thought out. I may have altered my opinion based upon it, but your comment that my opinion was more than it was...an attack is unreasonable.

    An opinion is what was requested and I supplied one.

    We shall further disagree re the 'sexist' nature of Jermey's comment.
    I do not expect when I post, for my 'gender' to be relevant in any way shape of form with regard to how my reply is interpreted.

    As a female, with no valid opinion to make, I shall not make anymore.

    goodbye x
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    ANWAY, aside from the nature of this thread being almost ruined, I found the reason as to why theists tend to be so persistent. Also applies to numerous threads on the forum aside from theistic ones if you care to look around (or read this thread 8))

    Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is a flawed argument, whereby some statement is made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to refute it anymore, at which point the statement is asserted to be true because it is no longer challenged. This is a form of proof by assertion.
    8) Woo-hoo.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

    P.S: So do continue, what ARE your views on logic and logical fallacies? Readers answer =.=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Fact: 'All Humans were born on earth',
    'All things born on earth are human'

    The second line of the above is a logical fallacy, it does not follow from the facts

    'All expols are ryats, all ryats are nylads'
    therefore all 'expols are nylads'

    THe second line is a fact derived from logic.

    Logic can be thought of as 'the construction of a fact or prediction from other known facts or predictions'

    A logical fallacy is " the mis-construction of a fact or prediction from other known facts or predictions'

    Logic does not have to be constructed from facts, it can be from predictions or from 'accepted facts of fantasy' ie you can apply logic to any subject of fact, fiction or religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    I'd like to help things along here, so perhaps more people will learn the skilled art of not using logical fallacies :P.

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

    Information presented on that website is quite valuable. Especially if one wishes to debate in a sensible manner.

    Personally, I agree with the following definition (also presented on that website):

    A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.
    Of course, as displayed on this thread, when one uses "logical fallacy" accusations to the extent they become logical fallacies, things become screwy.
    The entire point with pointing out a logical fallacy (err of reasoning) is to render the reasoning void. Most people seem to not get this aspect, nor why it is important. If the reasoning is invalid, how can the result be valid? The same goes for the premise.

    I think one of the most important points here, would be the proper application of logic in your arguments. As my observation suggested, few people do know how to apply logic properly, even fewer know how to point them out. I figure, if more people on this forum understand the workings of logic, their lives may improve and maybe this forum will get less illogical arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    Oh good Jeremy, I'm glad you learned something from me :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Oh good Jeremy, I'm glad you learned something from me :wink:
    umm...what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Logic and Logical fallacies 
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    No, his mentioning your sex does not automatically mean he uses that as a reason for you being wrong in your assumption. He did not make the statement, "You are a woman thus inferior, thus your argument is wrong."
    He merely stated that in his past, only women were so vigorous in their pursuits of demonstrating that he was fallacious.
    If I may, that is bullshit.

    Bringing gender into an argument ALWAYS suggests that gender is relevant, and often implies persons of that gender are naturally less capable of discussing the issue at hand.

    To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

    Let's play the game now; substitute the religious or ethnic group of your choice for 'female' in the following:

    "ungh...always FEMALES..."

    "WTF? No, it suggests a past history with troublesome females. I suggest nothing when it comes to [gender] and intelligence."

    One get can get away with this in personal relationships, but not professional.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •