# Logical Fallacies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2000, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891 "2000-03-25T06:59:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2000, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891/61 "2000-04-03T06:16:00Z")
Just out of curiosity, could someone please explain to me what CalifBoomer is asking here. It sounds to me like “logically prove that logic will solve every problem, but don’t actually use logic to do so.” What does he want here? I just don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891/62 "2000-04-04T15:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by waterj2: > \*\* What does he want here? I just don’t get it.\*\* He just wants to be noticed. **Tris** ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891/63 "2000-04-04T15:50:00Z")
Actually, Tris, I would have to disagree. I think the gentleman has a point of view he would like to communicate, but he has no experience or education in making rational arguments. I think he does not belong in the same “moron troll” category as bedboy4, who indeed just “wants to be noticed”. “Moron trolls” cannot be educated. There’s no raw material there to work with. There’s no desire to understand or promulgate a point of view. But CalifBoomer does have the raw material, or so I think. I don’t care if we ever move him off of his conservative or fundamentalist christian points of view. But I think he _can_ learn to argue and debate and, most importantly, listen. Whether or not we will actually _succeed_ is a different question. But I’m willing to continue making an effort for a while to see if he can be turned around. CalifBoomer, if you’re looking at this thread and the one in the Pit, please excuse me for talking about you in the third person. Please understand that it is not your **positions** I object to, but the quality of your arguments. I hope you will look on my comments as an attempt to help you learn a technique and mindset that are helpful. I’m truly not intending to insult you for disagreeing with me. * * * I sucked up to Wally and all I got was this lousy sig line! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2000, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891/64 "2000-04-05T05:33:00Z")
CalifBoomer posted: > [@](#): > > So let’s play a little game. You contend that the Constitution cannot be used as an argument against its own repeal. You call this this the fallacious use of argument from authority. Accordingly, I ask you to support the assumed premise of the infallibility and unlimited scope of human reasoning as a reliable tool to determine truth. Do you have a quote showing that SingleDad believes this? > [@](#): > > To be consistent with yourself, you must be able to do this according to your own guidelines and those of the atheist website you cited as sacrosanct. In other words, you cannot refer to your own ‘rational/logical’ processes or back to the atheist website as a source. To do so would constitute a “fallacious use of argument from authority.” > I submit that the mere existence of this conundrum defeats your argument(s) and refutes them as illogical. The fact that you believe this shows just how little you understand the concept of logic. If SingleDad puts forth a statement as a premise, then there is no need to “prove” it; the term “premise” refers to something which is assumed to be true. [quoite]Exactly. I asked you to support your assumption as logical and valid. [/quote] What does this mean, exactly? > [@](#): > > This you are unable to do. If you cannot support your starting premise, it follows that whatever may be derived from that premise may or may not be valid. Again, you’re misusing logical terms. The term “valid” refers only to arguments, not to statements. > [@](#): > > in any event, it would be third party or hearsay evidence, as such, not admissable. Does that stop you from believing the Bible? Gilligan posted 03-28-2000 02:27 PM > [@](#): > > Many fallacies don’t violate the forms; they are valid, formally speaking. But they are wrong for other reasons. For example: I disagree with that. If an argument follows the forms, then it is not a fallacy. You can reach a wrong conclusion from a valid argument, if you start with an incorrect premise. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891/65 "2000-04-06T04:52:00Z")
An interesting discussion of specific logical fallacies: [Is this an _ad hominem_?](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001666.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/17891.md?page=3)