The Fallacy Fallacy Why you shouldn't go looking for faulty reasoning - Open Thread

Into the Night

Into the Night

Verified User
Yet attempt is made to censure people from threads, so I'll start a parallel thread for open dicussion.
The OP, started by Hugo:

"In my experience, fallacy theory is not just useless—it can be actively harmful. It encourages intellectual laziness, offering high-minded excuses to dismiss any argument you don’t like. It impoverishes debate by pretending that messy, real-world disagreements can be resolved with the blunt tools of formal logic. You end up like my students: slightly paranoid, dismissive, and, ironically, less critical than when they started."
 
Yakuda says:

This just sounds like you don't like having the errors in your reasoning pointed out to you. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in that post. Maybe that's something you should consider before whining about fallacies.
 
A fallacy is not a theory, Hugo. Denial of logic. You can't blame your fallacies on anybody else. They are YOUR fallacies. Only YOU can do something about them. You can't make them go away either.
 
Hugo says:
"I will be requesting you banned from all of my threads."

Obviously, Hugo can't take any opinion different from his own. Thus, the parallel thread that is open to everyone.
 
Nope. Logic is defined by axioms, just like mathematics. Inference is not required.

Here I am trying to educate Hugo on what logic and mathematics is, and he continues to deny both.
 
T.A.Gardner says:

"Those are the rules. But they are useless without data and information to run the equations, just like in mathematics."

Here I was trying to clarify that logic does not require data or information. Mathematics does not require it either.
Both logic and mathematics are defined by their axioms. They exist without any data. They exist without any information. Both are more than just an equation.

Let's take a well known equation used in science: F=mA. This relates force, mass, and acceleration. No data is required for this equation to exist. It DOES, however, exist as the result of a theory of science, transcribed into mathematics to give it the power of prediction.

This single equation is the more important in all of science, since it focused for the first time on trying to discover what forces there are, what mass really is, and the concept of accleratino (which is a derivative of a derivative of position as it changes over time (speed), and how THAT changes over time (acceleration).

Whether is a planet, a moon, or an apple, the equation holds true. Any theory of science only remains so until it is falsified. This relation has never been falsified yet.


Now, to the topic of data:

Data is the result of an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology, and are therefore not a proof of any kind.
This ALSO means that it is not possible to prove any theory of science True. Science is an open functional system, where proofs are not possible. Science consists only of falsifiable theories. Nothing else.

Proofs are only possible in closed functional system such as mathematics or logic. They are closed because they are defined (including their operating limitations) by axioms. You cannot go outside and change these axioms. They are the rules of the game. Change any single rule, and you are playing a different game.

Thus, F=mA requires no data. It requires no observation. It simply exists. You can certainly apply data and observations while you use it, but the equation itself does not require data or observation to exist.

The theory of science was created through observations and data and insight by Newton, but the equation that results does not require it. Once created, the theory no longer requires data, observation, nor even Newton.
 
Hugo says:
"Logic is about how we combine statements. Not about their individual truths."

Poor Hugo still does not understand even the beginnings of what logic is. He still denies it.
Basically, he is tired of me calling his fallacies (errors in logic). He think's I'm somehow responsible for his problem. Thus, the parallel thread.
 
Yakuta says:
Into the Night said:
Courtier's fallacy. College education does not automatically validate any argument.

Consider, for example, the college educated idiots in government.
Click to expand...
"Or on this site"

Well observed! Absolutely right! Many idiots here are college educated. It is college that indoctrinated them into their weird view of the world.

This is not a new problem. Colleges, universities, and even grade schools are rife with Democrat controlled instructors. It's really past time to clean up the place, but elements have been installed that make it difficult, such as tenure and special credentials (handed out by Democrat instructors again!) to teach.

I teach anyway, for those that want to learn. For those with closed minds, like Democrats have, there is no teaching them anything. They are ignorant and illiterate with college degrees.
 
@RB says:

"You mean the ones who claim a college degree...."

Many leftists here do have a college degree, for all the good it does them...
They have become mindless, chanting what their leaders tell them to say.

Many here have a degree in computer programming of some kind, but like so many of this kind, they can't code much beyond being a script kiddie.
You will find most computer code atrocious. These people couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. This even affects open source, but especially affects Microsoft. It's why Microsoft software is so horrible. If you ever get a chance to look at Windows source code, don't lift the lid...you won't want to see what's inside.

Needless to say, I'm a Linux user, but crap software is all over Linux as well. Being open source, people fork it and fix it easily, so the problem tends to be somewhat self correcting.
 
@Hume says:
"I know what logic is. I explained it. Very standard definition."

@Yakuda says:
"You certainly don't use logic when posting here."

Well said, Yakuda! Hugo is trying to state his own very weird redefinition of 'logic' as "a very standard definition". He denies logic in a desperate effort to deny his own fallacies. In this statement of his, he again commits a redefinition fallacy and a void reference fallacy.

Hugo not only doesn't use logic here, he is openly denying logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top