• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

The requirements for a logical fallacy?

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
This is a weird question here, and I tried and failed to google it. Keep in mind, here, that I'm not logician and I've only taken two mediocre classes in logic. I really haven't applied myself to studying this field yet like I would like to. So I'm posting here to see if anyone has a better grasp on the subject, and can answer this question that's been nagging at the back of my brain.
It's a hard thing to google, because the keywords associated with the question are more readily associated with more popular questions, if that makes any sense.

I believe that in order for a fallacy to be made, it must appear in the form of an argument that is stated to explicitly support a conclusion. Is that true? Or am I wrong about that?

Let me give an example. I recently came across a comment on YouTube. Something to the affect of "Stop calling liberals "progressive". They're not." Someone called this a fallacy. Is it, though? (I don't mean, is there a fallacy that fits it, I mean, can a statement be called a fallacy when it is phrased in this fashion). I was under the impression that, in order for the statement to meet the "bare requirements" of being able to "be a fallacy", it would have to be phrased as a statement designed to prove the validity of a conclusion.

So, for example, if the writer had phrased the comment in this fashion, I would think you could say that there was a fallacy being made:
"Progressive people are compassionate. Liberals are not compassionate, therefore, liberals are not progressive"
Or
"If you're progressive, you can't be illogical. So stop calling liberals progressive, because they're not!"

However poorly the argument is made, in this fashion, it takes the form of having a clear statement that is spoken in support fo a clear conclusion. Someone is trying to logically prove that something is true, therefore, it is reasonable to refute the logical validity of the arguments. By comparison, if someone were to say: "Pink is the devil," or "All pitbulls should be euthanized", or "Speaking like that is going to make people hate you"....None of these could be considered fallacies, could they? Am I wrong? Are opinions, comments, and otherwise generic forms of speech contenders for "fallacies"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I care (You can skip this section if you're tired of reading)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, here are a couple of reasons why I care about this - if you're interested.
For one thing, I've struggled with some less-than-appropriate behavior, myself, in this regard. In the past, I've had it to where I've felt like I'm "on a mission" to prove some jerk wrong about their ridiculous beliefs - and I've found it easy to lean on fallacies like a crutch, to do that. It's so easy to be like "That's a fallacy", and "That's a fallacy", repeatedly, in the effort to pick apart someone's stance. Particularly, one I feel contemptuous of. It's not behavior I value in myself and I've worked hard to adjust this - but I know that if I knew I was being illogical, it would be easier for me not to be a perpetrator of this abuse of fallacies. (At least, I see it as abusive speech).

Secondly, I've been a recipient of this behavior, myself. In particular, in my last relationship, the guy I dated would use the "fallacy weapon" to destroy my "argument" every time I tried to communicate my feelings in the relationship. Obviously, it wasn't a very healthy relationship...lol. But I kept thinking to myself - how can you say that I'm making a fallacy? I'm not even making an argument - I'm simply stating a belief, opinion, feeling, or my perspectives on an experience. To call those things a fallacy seems, to me, to be something of a fallacy itself. In fact, it seems like MORE of a fallacy than what you're pointing out...because to say that an obvious opinion is "illogical", or else to say, essentially "You have no right to feel that way", or "Your feelings are invalid" - that feels like an illogical statement. If, for instance, a person says "I feel like conservatives only care about money" - can this really be considered a fallacy? Considering a statement like this to be a fallacy would be the same as saying a statement like "It hurt my feelings when you called me fat" a fallacy. Obviously, it's not. Regardless of whether the person should feel hurt, the fact remains that they did, so, realistically, this statement was a factual statement. Regardless of how logical the feeling was, it still existed, did it not? So is it not, in its own right, a fact?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The philosophy behind the question, and my uncertainty of its validity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay so, at the end of the day....there's a philosophy behind this question:
Can something which is stated as a subjective opinion, experience, or belief (subjective belief), be considered an "argument". If not, can it be considered a fallacy?

I think, not. However, I do recall stumbling upon an essay or article I once read - something about a logician explaining "why you are not entitled to your opinion". I don't precisely remember what his rationality was, but I've encountered this same frame of mind in other people who appear to be well-versed in logic....although, I've also seen the opposite. Ben Shapiro springs to mind. Though he's famous for saying "facts don't care about your feelings", I don't think that he's ever stated before that feelings or opinions are logically invalid. Merely that they are illogical, if used to validate a stance/fact/objective statement.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, here, but if you're familiar with the subject matter or with this argument, I'd love to hear your stance, and I would love it if you knew of any fallacies related to this kind of logic-picking human behavior...or if you have sources or material you recommend (books or so forth), I'd be pleased to check them out!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, my brainy ppls!
~ Inex
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today, 15:14
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
351
Location
Narnia
My understanding is that people don't know how to use words nor how they work, in this case it might actually be warranted.
1588024235292.png

The word is Latin, and broadly means 'deception.' Now of course the word is more forgiving, not assuming of ones intent (what comprises most fallacies lmao.) Though I will remark that if a fallacy is called on someone they can easily feign ignorance on account of now well known biases, though it will show complacency in their assumptions.

I'm not an expert either, but I am taking an online course in argumentation, and would put it like this. Fallacies can fall within any point of an argument.
1588024413407.png

I would think that the word was originally so unforgiving because if one is making an argument, in which the stakes are high, they would/can simply slip one in the middle of it to strengthen their argument in hopes that no one will notice. Likely, you think that it can only serve a conclusion because that's where most people put their fallacies, because untrained people will pay the most attention to the beginning and the end. If a fallacy was placed within the conclusion, and someone calls on it, then the entire argument falls apart.

In conclusion though, it's pretty fucking daft to call something a fallacy and not state which one. It's like top 10 things that stupid people do to look smart. When it comes to personal beliefs, you can make fallacies to defend them, but you can't make fallacies about how you feel about something. (Realizing you defend them with fallacies will help you make better rationalizations though) Feelings ie: qualia impressions, are not rational on their own. To say that *your opinion is a fallacy* is manipulative and baseless.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:14
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,978
Let me give an example. I recently came across a comment on YouTube. Something to the affect of "Stop calling liberals "progressive". They're not." Someone called this a fallacy. Is it, though? (I don't mean, is there a fallacy that fits it, I mean, can a statement be called a fallacy when it is phrased in this fashion). I was under the impression that, in order for the statement to meet the "bare requirements" of being able to "be a fallacy", it would have to be phrased as a statement designed to prove the validity of a conclusion.
There's general fallacies and then there's logical fallacies.

A general fallacy is just something that's wrong, for example it is a common fallacy that Australians drink Fosters beer, this fallacy may have come about due to misinformation (a Simpsons episode depicting Australians drinking Fosters) and/or a logical fallacy. I saw Australians on an episode of the Simpsons drinking Fosters therefore that beer must be their favorite brand is a logical fallacy but clearly not an intended deception.

Can something which is stated as a subjective opinion, experience, or belief (subjective belief), be considered an "argument". If not, can it be considered a fallacy?
It's asking someone to accept your argument at face value, effectively it's like saying because I believe such you should too because I'm credible and if you disagree you're attacking my credibility.

It's not a fallacy so much as just a really shitty thing to do, it's threatening confrontation to try and force the matter rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion, a tactic most often used by people who don't want to engage in reasonable discussion because on some level they know their position won't stand up to scrutiny.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
My understanding is that people don't know how to use words nor how they work, in this case it might actually be warranted.
View attachment 5420
The word is Latin, and broadly means 'deception.' Now of course the word is more forgiving, not assuming of ones intent (what comprises most fallacies lmao.) Though I will remark that if a fallacy is called on someone they can easily feign ignorance on account of now well known biases, though it will show complacency in their assumptions.

I'm not an expert either, but I am taking an online course in argumentation, and would put it like this. Fallacies can fall within any point of an argument.
View attachment 5421
I would think that the word was originally so unforgiving because if one is making an argument, in which the stakes are high, they would/can simply slip one in the middle of it to strengthen their argument in hopes that no one will notice. Likely, you think that it can only serve a conclusion because that's where most people put their fallacies, because untrained people will pay the most attention to the beginning and the end. If a fallacy was placed within the conclusion, and someone calls on it, then the entire argument falls apart.

In conclusion though, it's pretty fucking daft to call something a fallacy and not state which one. It's like top 10 things that stupid people do to look smart. When it comes to personal beliefs, you can make fallacies to defend them, but you can't make fallacies about how you feel about something. (Realizing you defend them with fallacies will help you make better rationalizations though) Feelings ie: qualia impressions, are not rational on their own. To say that *your opinion is a fallacy* is manipulative and baseless.
Which online course are you taking?

As I think I mentioned, I've had two college classes in logical reasoning, and they both pretty much sucked. I've also read a number of sources which were, also, pretty bad.

The problem with my education in logical reasoning is that it's tended to focus on two things, primarily.

The first, is learning which fallacies are which, what they are called, and when they are being used. The second is, and I know there's a special term for this but I'm forgetting what it's called - but essentially, abstracting logic in terms of letters and using "equations" of a sort to determine whether something is true or false. Truth tables are involved. Do you know what I'm talking about?

In any case, due in part to the fact that I've had some classes in these, and I've done a bit of reading in them both - I'm not too shabby with either. However, neither class really went into...hmm...what would you call it. Neither of these classes really discussed the theory of logic. Whether it's when logical methods are appropriate for use, or the whether something is capable of being considered an argument, or what the different schools of thought are...

I could have used this kind of education because it puts my studies on fallacies into context! Without this fundamental core to build on, I think people so often learn to simply memorize fallacies and then run off and beat people over the head with them. Or else, memorize fallacies, and then use them as a justification to disbelieve everything the layman tells them. Neither behavior is conducive to the development of accurate and extensive knowledge.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
This source is AMAZING! Thank you so much! I think I've actually come across it before but I think I dismissed it initially. I don't remember what kind of content I was looking for at the time. Anyways. I think this will shed some light on a lot of what I've been trying to work out - in particular, why there seems to be some disagreement between logicians regarding some of the definitions and applications surrounding the study of logic.

Thanks a lot! Going to read this within the next few days and if I answer my question, I'll post that here.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
A general fallacy is just something that's wrong, for example it is a common fallacy that Australians drink Fosters beer, this fallacy may have come about due to misinformation (a Simpsons episode depicting Australians drinking Fosters) and/or a logical fallacy. I saw Australians on an episode of the Simpsons drinking Fosters therefore that beer must be their favorite brand is a logical fallacy but clearly not an intended deception.
That's actually news to me. I've never heard of "general fallacies", but the source that Tomten sent agrees with you. Maybe that is where some of the confusion comes from? Perhaps people feel that if you have a belief that is blatantly wrong, they can say "That's a fallacy".

The example you used, in my mind, fits into that category. It's a grey area. You are almost definitely right that Australians do not favor Foster's beer, BUT, there is no logical way for you to prove that. Furthermore, you could be right, but someone else could contradict you and also be right. The idea of favoritism is too indistinct to be reduced so easily to a "True or False" statement.

So this is actually the perfect example of what I'm talking about!

It could be true that Foster's beer is not the favorite beverage, or even favorite beer, of all Australians at once.
It could also be true that Foster's beer is generally not the favorite beer of a statistical majority of Australians.
However, it could also be true, that Foster's beer is the statistically preferred beer in some small region of Australia that you've never went to before.
It could be true that there are five Australian's in total whose favorite beer is Foster's beer.

So this is at the heart, I think, of the issue of logic that I'm trying to describe. In order for something to be illogical, it has to possess the ability to be true, or false.

The statement that "Foster's beer is the favorite drink of Australians", cannot be either without arguments to deduce this logic to a "T/F" statement. Alone, that conclusion may be both true AND false at the same time. Therefore, the statement is not a logical fallacy. It is not a logical...anything! See what I'm saying?

The source Tomten linked to me had a really good definition of what a general fallacy is. It was an algebraic example - something to the effect of, if someone says "2+5=4", this is a general fallacy. The statement, itself, is false, and requires no argument to demonstrate otherwise. The fallacy is inherent in the statement. I don't think many statements can fit that definition.
 

Tomten

Member
Local time
Today, 22:14
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
41
"The second is, and I know there's a special term for this but I'm forgetting what it's called - but essentially, abstracting logic in terms of letters and using "equations" of a sort to determine whether something is true or false. Truth tables are involved. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

like this?
p->q
p
thus q

That's propositional logic (or zeroth-order logic), which is a part of formal logic (very useful stuff in mathematics).
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
Okay, so. This source that Tomten sent - which is great - has basically described to me the thing I've been trying to work out. I plan to read the whole thing, but this is just in the beginning of it.

> "An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The formal fallacies are fallacious only because of their logical form."

That is what I've been trying to confirm. This actually confirms my suspicions on two points. The first point, is that a fallacy has to have the form of a true/false statement. In both the "formal" and "informal" fallacies this source describes, the form of a true/false statement is required.

> Therefore an opinion, belief, or generalization cannot be considered a fallacy unless it is in logical form.

I think, though, some logicians have argued this, and the source discusses contention points in this field, so I might read otherwise. This is just what I have so far.

So, as an example, "Apples are delicious", could not be a logical fallacy, because apples can be both delicious, and not delicious, at the same time. To say "Everyone knows that apples are delicious", is a fallacy, because now you are guilty of generalizing to the extent of including parties who may think apples are gross.

Another example. "Charleston is thought of as the food capital of the south". This cannot be considered a logical fallacy. Some people can think of Charleston as a food capital, and some people may not. The statement clearly indicates that at least one person thinks of Charleston as the food capital of the south. Therefore, this statement is true. It is the implicit inference being made here - that the speaker is insisting that ALL PEOPLE think of Charleston as the food capital of the south - that drives people to call this a fallacy.

Further to that. If this statement was used as an argument to validate a conclusion - that Charleston is the best place to live, I *think* that you might be able to say that this is a fallacy. I think it would depend, though, on whether you're having a debate, or whether you're having a discussion.

The reason why that would be, is that whether or not this is a fallacious argument hinges entirely upon whether it is being used to prove that something is true or false. If a person is trying to prove that their opinion has merit, they are not necessarily trying to prove that their opinion is true or false for all people. Therefore, their arguments cannot be considered fallacious in nature.

So....most people who point out "fallacies" in general discussions, then, are abusing logic. I'm more convinced of that, now, than I've ever been. If it is the case that this happens frequently, then I think we should make more of an effort to put a stop to it. This behavior has caused quite a lot of ignorance, in my opinion. It is not used to further knowledge and truth. It is only used to bash people who think differently from you, and thereby, effectively absolve yourself of the responsibility of having to consider their opinions or beliefs. It's arrogance, simply put.

If course, if I find myself wrong based on what I'm reading, I'll correct this, but this is appears to be the rule of thumb so far.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
"The second is, and I know there's a special term for this but I'm forgetting what it's called - but essentially, abstracting logic in terms of letters and using "equations" of a sort to determine whether something is true or false. Truth tables are involved. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

like this?
p->q
p
thus q

That's propositional logic (or zeroth-order logic), which is a part of formal logic (very useful stuff in mathematics).
Yes! That's it. I've always had an easier time with that than I have with the "fallacies" themselves. Unfortunately, the fallacies themselves leave a lot of room for interpretation. A "sweeping generalization" seems like it should be obvious - but people will argue tooth and nail over the requirements for such a fallacy.

I prefer propositional logic. That is why - I think you pointed this out @EndogenousRebel - that's why I'll sometimes say "That is a fallacy", but I don't exactly know why in the way that people want me to explain it. That is to say, I don't always know the name of the fallacy, even though I can use propositional logic to explain it. Or I could draw, for instance, a Venn diagram to explain it. I agree with you Rebel - a lot of people will say "that is a fallacy" and have no idea what they're talking about. It's just an easy cop out. I think some people, though, can instinctively understand when something is illogical, but it can be hard to express in formal terms. I think the burden should fall to the most educated person (in terms of logic) to show that something is either a fallacy, or not. If you're the educated person making that statement, then you should be able to back it up. If you're the educated person receiving that statement, then you should be able to demonstrate that the person is right or wrong.

If we took that attitude with logic, there wouldn't be so many people abusing it. We often insist that the other person prove their point, even if we're capable of proving it for them. Why? If we're truly interested in discovering the truth, then we should prove or disprove the points that are made to us, where possible. People who are only interested in arguing, and not in proving their point, place all of the burden of truth on the recipient of their argument. The motivation is to "win", not to learn.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
Anyways! I have to go guys! Thanks for the very insightful conversation! I knew I would get answers if I posted here.

You know what is surprising, though? I don't tend to feel very many emotions in regards to my thoughts, but I was surprised that this post was embarrassing for me. As if I'm "admitting a weakness". Why should it be?

I think most people out there really know far less about logic than they think they do. They mistakenly think that by memorizing fallacies, they also know how to correctly apply them, for instance. There are a lot of cases where people seem to blatantly abuse logic for the purposes of manipulation, bullying, or so forth.

It would be one thing if they were right in what they were saying. It's a cat of another color to be WRONG about your fallacy-based attack! Haha.

I've felt, for a long time now, that it's preposterous to use the term "fallacy" to describe statements that can be both true and false, and which lack the arguments to make them either. I'm really glad to have read some validation for that now.

The only thing left to wonder if whether there is a name for this.
I think I might have come across it before? It might have been called something to the affect of "The fallacy of a fallacy", or what not. I'll have to look it up!

Thanks you guys!
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:14
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,978
The statement that "Foster's beer is the favorite drink of Australians", cannot be either without arguments to deduce this logic to a "T/F" statement. Alone, that conclusion may be both true AND false at the same time. Therefore, the statement is not a logical fallacy. It is not a logical...anything! See what I'm saying?
To me a fallacy isn't so much being factually wrong as coming to a conclusion through poor reasoning, if every Australian you knew liked Fosters then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Fosters is popular with Australians even if in actual fact most Australians hated it and you just had a misleading sample. It is however unreasonable to assume that because all the Australians you know like Fosters that therefore the majority of Australians do, when you've only met like two Australians that like Fosters.

Someone can commit a fallacy and still be right, not by virtue of their own reasoning but rather by circumstances favoring the right answer which propagates the fallacy, for example if the majority of Australians like Fosters it's likely that any Australians you meet will like Fosters too therefore although your reasoning is wrong you will assume correctly that most Australians like Fosters and because you were right you won't realize the flaw in your reasoning.

When I say someone is being fallacious I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying their method is wrong, which then implies that they're wrong but it's the method that's important. Getting someone to change their mind about something they falsely hold to be factually true is EXTREMELY difficult, instead go for the method, it's a lot more inoffensive to explain to someone the flaws in their reasoning than to outright tell them they're wrong and once they've changed their method they'll come to the correct conclusion on their own.

The source Tomten linked to me had a really good definition of what a general fallacy is. It was an algebraic example - something to the effect of, if someone says "2+5=4", this is a general fallacy. The statement, itself, is false, and requires no argument to demonstrate otherwise. The fallacy is inherent in the statement. I don't think many statements can fit that definition.
It's semantics but I would call that a logical fallacy as mathematics is strictly logical whereas general fallacies pertain to general reasoning like discussions of who likes what beer.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today, 14:14
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,950
Location
Dandelion field
logic is the most basic math.
all it is is an equivalency

x = y

doing logic means getting equivalence correct, both sides must be equal or proven so.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today, 15:14
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
351
Location
Narnia
My understanding is that people don't know how to use words nor how they work, in this case it might actually be warranted.
View attachment 5420
The word is Latin, and broadly means 'deception.' Now of course the word is more forgiving, not assuming of ones intent (what comprises most fallacies lmao.) Though I will remark that if a fallacy is called on someone they can easily feign ignorance on account of now well known biases, though it will show complacency in their assumptions.

I'm not an expert either, but I am taking an online course in argumentation, and would put it like this. Fallacies can fall within any point of an argument.
View attachment 5421
I would think that the word was originally so unforgiving because if one is making an argument, in which the stakes are high, they would/can simply slip one in the middle of it to strengthen their argument in hopes that no one will notice. Likely, you think that it can only serve a conclusion because that's where most people put their fallacies, because untrained people will pay the most attention to the beginning and the end. If a fallacy was placed within the conclusion, and someone calls on it, then the entire argument falls apart.

In conclusion though, it's pretty fucking daft to call something a fallacy and not state which one. It's like top 10 things that stupid people do to look smart. When it comes to personal beliefs, you can make fallacies to defend them, but you can't make fallacies about how you feel about something. (Realizing you defend them with fallacies will help you make better rationalizations though) Feelings ie: qualia impressions, are not rational on their own. To say that *your opinion is a fallacy* is manipulative and baseless.
Which online course are you taking?

As I think I mentioned, I've had two college classes in logical reasoning, and they both pretty much sucked. I've also read a number of sources which were, also, pretty bad.

The problem with my education in logical reasoning is that it's tended to focus on two things, primarily.

The first, is learning which fallacies are which, what they are called, and when they are being used. The second is, and I know there's a special term for this but I'm forgetting what it's called - but essentially, abstracting logic in terms of letters and using "equations" of a sort to determine whether something is true or false. Truth tables are involved. Do you know what I'm talking about?

In any case, due in part to the fact that I've had some classes in these, and I've done a bit of reading in them both - I'm not too shabby with either. However, neither class really went into...hmm...what would you call it. Neither of these classes really discussed the theory of logic. Whether it's when logical methods are appropriate for use, or the whether something is capable of being considered an argument, or what the different schools of thought are...

I could have used this kind of education because it puts my studies on fallacies into context! Without this fundamental core to build on, I think people so often learn to simply memorize fallacies and then run off and beat people over the head with them. Or else, memorize fallacies, and then use them as a justification to disbelieve everything the layman tells them. Neither behavior is conducive to the development of accurate and extensive knowledge.
The course I'm doing at my leisure is "Think Again 1: How to Understand Arguments" offered by Duke University via Coursera. I'm only a little past week 1 and I already feel it has given me a lot of perspective, really looking at things from an almost clinical point of view and everything broken down to it's simplest parts.

Attached is a math textbook I took for a class, called 'Contemporary Math.' It went into detail into key concepts and ideas used in society like basic finance, set theory, statistics. The class did go into truth tables, we even had to learn logic notation akin to what coders would deal with. The textbook doesn't go into it sadly, and I doubt you wanna hear this, but I think the best way to learn logic is by internalizing where it's used, the reasoning behind this is simple. If you can solve problems where logic in it's purest form is utilized, learning where you would make mistakes, then you should be able to spot gaps of logic in sub-par circumstances really easily. I myself wanna go through the textbook in it's entirely eventually, but, eh, I'm not sure it's an efficient use of my time.

Is the word you were looking for, extrapolating? Like I said, I think most fallacies are assumptions we make "true" in our heads to support the argument. You should look into the Socratic method. Lawyers use it all the time to full proof their arguments, and maybe if you give the wiki page a read it will orient you in the right way.
 

Attachments

Maou

Drunken Stupor
Local time
Today, 16:14
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
23
Logic isn't the same as an argument. A fallacy is an argument based on flawed logic. Simple as that really. I think context is the most important detail, in any argument. Without context, anything can be anything. Like if a person arguing pro-abortion, it doesn't mean she is arguing pro-death of unborn babies. Way too much black and white thinking interferes with logic.
 

BurnedOut

Active Member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:44
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
367
I believe that in order for a fallacy to be made, it must appear in the form of an argument that is stated to explicitly support a conclusion. Is that true? Or am I wrong about that?
A fallacy is usually caused when the deductions followed from the premises (usually established in most of the situations where the fallacy is committed.) contradict the premise.

For example, I see a boy pissing on the wall and I say, 'Only girls do that.' then that is not really logically valid because they don't and it has been established evidently that they don't.( However, if they start doing so, there is no issue in realigning the paradigm.)

Let me give an example. I recently came across a comment on YouTube. Something to the affect of "Stop calling liberals "progressive". They're not." Someone called this a fallacy. Is it, though?
Liberals are liberal because they adhere to a school of thought that is progressive. Their progressiveness is progressive because it's collectively emancipating. If the liberal is a pious man or believes that abortion is bad, does not make him a conservative. He is a liberal because after coming to power, he is going to follow the Leftist ideology as a guiding principle. In such a situation, you have to logically determine if any one of the two alternatives has advantages so massive that it overshadows the other one. And when I say advantages, I mean advantages that are in general laudable. This is what people forget while debating on a broader topic. Arguments such as 'Government interference should be minimized to the maximum.' are crap because they are inherently contradictory. That person may profit from it. But what about somebody else ? Now it must be clear why scandalizing someone on anything is very easy. I commit that fallacy so many times, mostly deliberately because it is so easy to use. However, I am very much aware of it.

if someone were to say: "Pink is the devil," or "All pitbulls should be euthanized", or "Speaking like that is going to make people hate you"....None of these could be considered fallacies, could they? Am I wrong? Are opinions, comments, and otherwise generic forms of speech contenders for "fallacies"?
Who said idiocy is out of the ambit of fallacy ?

Expressing human need of belonging and wanting attention ? Fine. Fallacious ? Definitely.

Generic forms of speech ? I don't get this. Do remember that idiots making universal claims based off one fact are idiots and human expressing emotions in the form of hyperboles are human. But logically, they are absolutely fallible.

Secondly, I've been a recipient of this behavior, myself. In particular, in my last relationship, the guy I dated would use the "fallacy weapon" to destroy my "argument" every time I tried to communicate my feelings in the relationship.
Bullshit argumentative style. Logic is applied recursively. So when he applies logic to the source of your emotions causing the apparently undemonstrable statements, he should be able to deduce the cause. If he repeatedly fails to do so, his logic is nothing but a welter of negative emotions spearheading into someone else's resoluteness using toxic catharsis by denial.


I think, not. However, I do recall stumbling upon an essay or article I once read - something about a logician explaining "why you are not entitled to your opinion".
He made an opinion too. Oh, that is not a fallible statement. Facts are opinions until proven.

if you knew of any fallacies related to this kind of logic-picking human behavior
Everything observable and tested can be subjected to logic. It is a basic biological component. In advanced species, it has gone beyond trial and error and into pattern spotting. Despite all the ramblings regarding the incoherency of the human mind, the uncontrived notion of 'patterns' can never be reduced to filth and blown.
 
Top Bottom