I think I see what you’re saying, let me see if I can clarify. I’ll use the Hitler"ad hominem example you presented. Technically, it’s an invalid argument because the idea can be judged on it’s merits and may be good even though he is the one that presented it. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, we must also realize that someone who has a history of horrible plans for world peace and prosperity is probably less likely to be proposing one that is worthwhile. Is it the second point that you’re addressing?
To get it in a scenario that we’re more likely to see, a commercial says that their product is prefered by 3 out of 4 consumers. This is technically argument ad populum; it’s entirely possible that most people like a particular product and it is not the best product available. However, this is still a persuasive argument from a commercial perspective because realistically, if a lot of people use the product it’s probably going to be a pretty good product, or at least a decent one.
If that’s the case, then I would agree that, yes these are fallacies in formal logic, but that doesn’t mean they’re not still powerful tools, particularly when you’re talking about things like preferences and society where it’s a lot harder to come up with definitively true premises and logical steps. I also think this is exactly why these fallacies come up so often because we’re use to seeing them used as reasoning in other fields and it just doesn’t seem as natural when they’re not true when applying formal logic.
Wow, just wow. This has to go up as one of the most horrible posts ever on this board.
“If you’re talking some total bullshit and someone calls you on it, then they are just trying to derail the argument because they’re jealous that they didn’t get to use the bullshit first.”
The word ‘fallacy’ is a synonym for falsehood. So fallacies are always false, by definition. If it’s not false, it’s not a fallacy.
I think this needs clarification. Arguments can be described as fallacious, but we normally don’t describe statements, opinions, or ideas this way. “Fallacy” is not a general synonym for “falsehood”, but rather a term for an argumentative form that does not prove the point it is trying to prove–the argument is false, but the premise may not be.
Many a fallacious argument has been used to support premises that could be proven true with a sound argument. In fact, declaring something false merely because it is supported by a fallacious argument is itself an informal fallacy (I think this is the basis for the “Straw Man” fallacy).
B is a synonym for A.
Therefore, anything that is not A, is not B.
For example: “Dribble” is a synonym for “drool.”
So if a basketball player is not drooling, he’s not dribbling.
The problem is that the word “fallacy” has multiple meanings. (Look it up in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.) It can mean “falsehood,” but in the context of logic (i.e. logical fallacies), it refers to an invalid form of argument.
Right and an ‘invalid form of argument’ refers to a ‘false argument’. See how that works? A fallacy is false by definition. The conclusions might be correct, but that’s irrelevant to whether or not the argument is false. Fallacies are always false as defined. This is a stupid thread.
But the very phrase “false argument” gives rise to all sorts of confusion. So logicians don’t classify arguments as TRUE or FALSE, but rather as VALID or INVALID.
You did not notice that by providing an erroneous complaint against that post, you drove your post to a lower position on the scale of quality?
Regardless of any potential errors in Airman’s post, the claim that fallacy is a synonym for false hood fails on the level of historical etymology and current usage.
Drawing (from that error) the conclusion that an error in logic is always false (even though such errors may simply indicate an incorrect path to a correct conclusion) is, itself, incredibly incorrect. (See any of the other discussions of the meaning of fallacy in this thread.
Further, you have committed the same error of ambiguity that was posted earlier. To say that a fallacy is false is meaningless. Since a fallacy is a method of argumerntation or logic and not an idea or object of its own, it cannot actually be false, itself, so your sentence needs to be clarified before we can do justice shredding it. If a fallacy occurs, just what is it that is false? Is it the conclusion (which may be true despite the error in logic)? Is it the speaker (to whom the label “false” does not particularly apply as that person remains a person rgardless of his or her errors in logic)?
Clarity and accuracy, mswas. Strive for them.
(It did not really help your position that you were clearly whoooshed by Airman’s irony.)
Yeah. I think a more technical way to say it would be that “Many logical fallacies are expressions of common sense delivering a probabilistically-derived meaning from experience.”
Oh, there’s no denying a lot of fallacious arguments are powerful crowd-pleasers and rhetorical winners. That’s why people use them. I’d hesitate to call them “powerful arguments” though, unless you mean in a super-villain kind of sense. To me, a powerful argument is neccesarily a sound one, too.
I think a shorter way to say this is “Many logical fallacies are inductive”.
Informal fallacies certainly rely on induction–if “slippery slope” is true in these cases, it’s true in all cases–but formal fallacies are arguments that are invalid because of a clear error in the rules of logic. Formal fallacies are somewhat analogous to an algebraic error made in solving a math problem (e.g. inadvertently dividing by zero in the famous “proof” that 2=1). Informal fallacies are more like trying to solve a linear equation with the quadratic formula.
You’ve raised a really good topic, smiling bandit.
It’s important to note that there’s a difference between a logical fallacy and a rhetorical fallacy. You can Google both and find good sources, like Infidels for the former and Silva Rhetoricae for the latter.
A logical fallacy is a fallacy of rule. For example, there are rules regarding the drawing of inferences in most logics systems. In first order predicate logic — the logic familiar to most of us — modus ponens is a rule, while affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy. Modus ponens says that if an inference, B, is to be drawn from an assertion, A, then if A is true, B is also true. But affirmation of the consequent is supported by no rule, and says that if an inference, B, is to be drawn from an assertion, A, then if B is true, A is also true.
Here’s how they look using “->” to mean “implies”:
Modus ponens: A -> B: A is true, therefore B is true.
Affirmation of the consequent: A -> B: B is true, therefore A is true.
And here are examples:
Modus ponens: If I have a hundred dollars, I can buy a cup of coffee. I do indeed have a hundred dollars; therefore, I can buy a cup of coffee.
Affirmation of the consequent: If I have a hundred dollars, I can buy a cup of coffee. I can indeed buy a cup of coffee; therefore, I have a hundred dollars.
The fallacy lies in the fact that B is presupposing things that A has not declared. You can buy a cup of coffee (as of this writing) even if you have far less than a hundred dollars. A logical fallacy always destroys an argument.
Rhetorical fallacies are different. You cited one — ad hominem — in your OP. Fallacies of rhetoric do not necessarily debunk an argument, but they in no way assist one. So, for example, if you’re writing out a list of reasons why we should use the gold standard, then “Number 5, you’re an idiot” would not be considered by a reasonable person to be supportive of what you’re trying to prove.
So, to sum up… if an argument of logic is made, then a fallacy destroys it. But if an argument of rhetoric is made, then a fallacy does not support it.
