Tim hit it pretty well, but the idea behind logic is to attempt to PROVE what you are trying to assert. If Adolf Hitler (assuming he was alive) comes up with a new plan to promote world peace, and you say “Look what happened last time we listened to the guy!” you may very well be correct, however you haven’t proven Hitler’s plan to be false, wrong, bad, or whatever simply by attacking him personally.
In order to prove his idea wrong, you need to conclusively prove the specifics of the idea wrong. The fact that Hitler proposed it has nothing to do with the idea itself…
valid: an argument form. All deductively valid arguments are tautological manipulations of logical variables. Deductively valid argument forms preserve the soundness of the premise(s).
invalid: a formal fallacy where the soundness of the premise(s) is not guaranteed to be preserved through to the conclusion.
sound: whether a premise or, more generally, an argument, obtains.
false: an ambiguous term that could describe either an invalid argument form or unsound premises. Use only with extreme caution. Limit one per customer.
This discussion of logic and fallacies can remain in Great Debates for now.
If it wanders back too close to the OP’s tack of singling out individual posters for condemnation (or, at least, challenge), then it is going to find itself in the BBQ Pit.
This also means that anyone wandering in here to defend any previously mentioned poster should simply take the defense to the Pit as a new thread rather than cluttering up this one.
[ /Moderating ]
No one would ever fall for a fallacy if they didn’t so often appear to make sense. Even the most obvious fallacies could be used by a person attempting to argue in favor of something that’s actually correct, but that doesn’t mean the argument is valid or the premises true.
Affirming the consequent (If X, then Y. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.) is a very common fallacy because there are plenty of cases where you can reach a true conclusion with it. “If Susan went to the party, she won’t be at home. She isn’t at home. Therefore she must have gone to the party.”
If Susan had been talking about a party that evening and she isn’t at home when you go by her place, then it is likely that she went to the party. But deductive logic isn’t about what’s likely, it’s about what is certain, and the argument provided does not and could not prove where Susan is. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy because it ignores that multiple causes can produce the same result. Susan might have realized she was out of milk and went to the store, she might have accepted a last-minute invitation for dinner and a movie, she might have been abducted by space aliens. In any of these cases she wouldn’t be at home, and she wouldn’t be at the party either.
Affirming the consequent can seem very persuasive in cases where the premises are true, but if you arrive at a correct conclusion this way it’s by chance. If the argument were valid, you’d always get a correct conclusion when the premises were true.
I missed the editing window, but wanted to add that fallacies can also be persuasive because in real life it’s often unnecessary to prove something through deductive logic. If Susan said something about a party tonight and later I find that she isn’t at home, it’s usually safe for me to operate under the assumption that she is in fact at the party.
I haven’t demonstrated that Susan must have gone to the party, but it’s a likely possibility and it probably doesn’t really matter even if I’m wrong. Only if Susan’s whereabouts come into question later on would it be important for me to realize that I don’t have proof that she went to the party.
It seemed (as far as I could tell) that you were saying a fallacy implies a false statement. As cricetus and I both pointed out, that’s not true. You can have a fallacy even if your premises and conclusions are all true.
I don’t see what you find so condescending in someone telling you you’re wrong when you are, in fact, wrong.
You provided a single cryptic comment that has no clear meaning (your final pronoun has no clear tie to any antecedent and your statement is too vague to convey meaning):
You were told that the sentence was confusing and asked what you actually meant and you have been given several examples of actual logic in relation to fallacies, while you have done nothing but play victim and make further cryptic remarks in the meantime.
If you would care to actually spell out what your first statement actually meant, then demonstrate that it is not contradicted and nullified by the posts of cricetus and tim314, fine. Otherwise, you appear to be in this thread solely for the purpose of being contrary. In itself, that is not trolling, but it does indicate that you should probably not continue to post in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
If I may, the OP gave a link that led to this ----->“A fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the argument invalid in whole.”
Now, in the period of time I have been part of this board, I have read many who just seem to accept the norm with the attitude that it is so written, and so it is (just like folks who believe that the Bible is the word of GOD). That is what I call boxed in thought. I don’t subscribe to that at all. I tend to challenge conventional wisdom especially since I know that nothing philosophical is finite. I tend to get jumped on often mostly because I usually don’t run with the herd.
Note two things:
First, the definition you quoted is exactly what you have been told by other posters: a fallacy is a component of an argument that renders the argument (not the fallacy, itself) invalid. So your claim that simply identifying a fallacy makes “it” (and you have never identified what “it” is) false is incorrect if “it” refers to the fallacy.
Second, we are, indeed, talking about a definition. Thinking “outside the box” for a definition is just dumb. Definitions are what links speakers and audiences through the words produced and received. If one chooses to “think outside the box” regarding a definition, then one effectively destroys commnication, and there is glory for you.
(This is not to say that one cannot challenge a general understanding of a phenomenon in different contexts, but one needs to establish the definitions before any communication can take place. We have that problem all the time around here with words such as “myth” and “cult,” because those words actually do have multiple meanings that have to be ironed out before a genuine discussion can take place. However, one cannot simply decide to use the word “cult” to mean “tea party” without destroying communication. There still needs to be a basis of understanding–inside the box–before any actual communication can occur.)
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Unless I’m misunderstanding the fallacy, this, while being the basis for the limitation of power and checks and balances on political leaders, leading to such great political documents as the Magna Carta and the US Constitution, is actually a slippery slope argument.
There have been benign dictators/monarchs in history. Perhaps corruption of leaders has proven true in the prior majority of cases, but logically, surely it is beholden on interested parties to prove that King Rufus Pumpernickel or President Barack McCain will specifically abuse power, should they not have said checks and balances in place.
“Invalid” is not synonymous with “false”, just as “fallacious” is not synonymous with “false”. There’s a difference between talking about a proposition, which may be true or false, and talking about a logical argument, which may be valid or invalid.
Basically, we’re talking about the distinction between saying “Your facts are wrong”, and saying “the structure of your argument is flawed.”
We’re talking about the definitions of words. If you say “The sky is green”, are you just rejecting the “herd’s” definition of “green”? Are you “thinking outside the box” and considering the possibility that green really means blue?
No, in fact you are simply wrong. Words mean what they mean, and not what you want them to mean.
Fortunately, there’s no shame in being wrong. I can’t say the same for those who wear their wrongness as a badge of pride while deriding the “herd” with their oh-so-unoriginal facts and knowledge.
More perfection—almost. I think the point would have been better made with the “un” prefix in the last sentence, as it dials up the sarcasm. But a mere pimple on another otherwise perfect post. Keep up the good work.
I think this is basically my point: The “Fallacies” don’t prove the argument on their own, but they can, under some circumstances, be a powerful argument nonetheless.
Do we need to clarify “formal” vs. “informal” fallacies here? The first is an error in logic that cannot be logically true under any circumstance: 'If X, then Y. Y is true. Therefore, X is true" is a formal fallacy. The second occurs when a valid logical form is used with faulty premises or in an unjustifiable way–there’s nothing wrong with the logic, but it’s being applied in an incorrect way. “Slippery Slope” is a classic example; a slippery-slope argument is often valid (as far as analogy-based argument can be), but it is so commonly raised that such an argument deserves to be examined carefully, and may be fallacious because of the particular details.
The OP is right that ad hominem can be a powerful and sound line or argument, but it is an informal fallacy because human nature often raises this argument where it doesn’t necessarily apply (so much so that today people commonly reserve the term only for unwarranted personal attacks used to avoid confronting the evidence).
