The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Informal fallacies of logic are just a special species of sophistry
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 6th, 2022 3:53 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291029) |
Date: October 6th, 2022 3:55 PM Author: Insanely creepy theater stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291045) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 3:58 PM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell Some are, some aren't. The supposed problem with slippery slope arguments is really overstated.
Lots of ad hominem attacks are perfectly reasonable in context, all of them get tossed into the same bucket for simplistic critique. |
 |
Date: October 6th, 2022 3:59 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven I'm really talking about a general mastery of the set of them as applied to real inquiries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291075) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 3:59 PM Author: light violent messiness example of a "valid" ad hominem? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291077) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:01 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Pointing out someone is a partisan or paid shill. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291091) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:38 PM Author: light violent messiness You have to keep why you're bringing that up crystal clear in your mind.
If you are raising someone's partisan/shill background as a reason to bring some factual claim they are raising into suspicion, or as a reason not to regard them as an objective source worth paying attention to, that can be reasonable.
If you are raising someone's partisan/shill background as a *refutation of their argument*, then that is ad hominem and you are in the wrong. The truth value of an argument is indeed completely independent of a person, their background, their character, whatever. Retards and criminals and young children can and do make valid arguments all the time, and intelligent people lapse into non-sequiturs. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:42 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven True but in the real world arguments aren't free floating things. Information has costs, and if you can discount a source you'll likely do so, and be right for it. By the same token, then, one may use pointing out informal fallacies in argumentation to undermine the credibility of someone's sound argument, thus working sophistry. As you can see, then, a mastery of informal fallacies is a master tool of the sophist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291344) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:43 PM Author: avocado background story main people >one may use pointing out informal fallacies in argumentation to undermine the credibility of someone's sound argument
What is an "informal fallacy"?
I want to say that if there are "fallacies in argumentation" then the argument is not sound. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:51 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven I meant to say "valid," but the same can work for soundness in cases such as adding additional unneeded false premises, as people often do.
My general point is that calling out informal fallacies can be used as a tool to thwart rather than aid efficiently finding truth. A shared background norm of truth finding about the subject is needed. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:53 PM Author: avocado background story main people >A shared background norm of truth finding about the subject is needed.
Clearly. Yes I agree that blathering about fallacies is rhetorically useful when not arguing in good faith. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 6:54 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Now consider if you will that in practice, almost all arguments will be in bad faith, since there are better (as in more) incentives for bad faith than good faith arguments, and because bad faith arguments by their nature tend not to be resolved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45292040) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 6:56 PM Author: canary stock car (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45292053) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:25 PM Author: light violent messiness > Information has costs, and if you can discount a source you'll likely do so, and be right for it.
One thing to worry about here is that there can be systematic patterns of bias in the reasons for discounting sources. E.g. libs who won't listen to anything but "trusted news sources" who all happen to be super-left-wing-biased, haha whoops! This is part of why it's important to be super clear in why why you're bringing up some point, at least if you care about truth-seeking discussion at all.
If you're using someone's status as a partisan shill to impeach some factual claim, then that at least provides a path for them (e.g. they can try to provide a more trustworthy source for some factual claim, you can investigate that, and the discussion can continue). What people tend to do IRL is just use "you're a shill" or "you're a troll" in a vague way to discount both factual claims and intellectual arguments, and to do so with anyone who disagrees with their perspective (take a look at political Twitter sometime if you doubt this). *That* is ad hominem and irrational and is the sort of thing literally destroying civil society. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:10 PM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell Yes, you’re right on both counts, but most teachers conflate the two categories are leave students thinking both are bad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291490) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:39 PM Author: avocado background story main people Still doesn't invalidate an argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291329) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:01 PM Author: comical internal respiration corner i love when people say "ad hom" as if every discussion has to be within the bounds of formal logic. if someone says something retarded i'll call them a retard, i'm not going to type of a 10 page response refuting their argument with perfect logical syllogisms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291092) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:02 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Cr those people are retards.
And yeah, people can use one-sided demands for rigor as a trap and to waste your time and energy. |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:05 PM Author: Ivory parlor gaming laptop (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291115) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:18 PM Author: comical internal respiration corner it's the standard debate style of 110iq smug reddit midwit libs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291202) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:22 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291227) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 9:42 AM Author: indecent big-titted site gunner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294535) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:50 PM Author: Stimulating locus partner "one-sided demands for rigor as a trap and to waste your time and energy"
this is the great majority of argument that exists on the internet. its cumbersome because the casual reader will assume weakness in the argument so i think usually useful in the pragmatic sense. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:04 AM Author: purple jew lodge here, having discussions with friends who are all familiar with our own informal rules of engagement, saying something is retarded or calling someone a retard carries with it underlying implications that need not be specifically articulated each time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294602) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:12 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven im also gay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294639) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:02 AM Author: purple jew lodge Ad hom attacks are fine to expose that the other party doesn't have good intentions in presenting their argument.
slippery slope arguments are fine too but are misused by lazy idiots who just declare "well if you allow x, that leads to y." Jordan Peterson does this a lot. He talks really fast and with a lot of charisma so it's rarely criticized. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:04 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Cr.
Idk if it's fair to say Peterson is rarely criticized, but you said it with such charisma.
|
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:05 AM Author: purple jew lodge ty. i usually have to have a couple drinks in me before i approach being interesting to talk to.
he's criticized a lot. sometimes unfairly even. but his debate tactics i think are less often the target. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:11 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven That's fair.
He's kind of a bozo, but he benefits from arguing with greater (lesser?) bozos. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:46 AM Author: purple jew lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294791) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:31 PM Author: canary stock car Mfcr
Any time I ever hear someone refer to "the naturalistic fallacy" I immediately discount them as either stupid or a disingenuous (Jewish) sophist |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:37 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Cr, though for this one in particular I think GE Moore has smuggled a substantive view of the nature of morality into the package of a "fallacy". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291317) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:13 PM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell Yeah, this is a good example. Many arguments leave their normative assumptions unstated, but that’s because they go without saying.
Sophists who would actually try to call people out on the NF are usually just self-owning with straw man fallacies |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:44 PM Author: bateful well-lubricated coffee pot idea he suggested The best theoretical view of informal fallacies is that they are violations of context-based rules for critical discussion.
See, e.g., http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd.html |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:55 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Also true and follows from the function of thought. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291429) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 4:59 PM Author: Marvelous cumskin are u philosophymo kirbymo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291445) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:19 PM Author: bateful well-lubricated coffee pot idea he suggested I wouldn't classify myself like that, but I'm very familiar with this particular area. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291533) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 5:38 PM Author: Marvelous cumskin did you read the book that essay comes from (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45291732) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 6:38 PM Author: bateful well-lubricated coffee pot idea he suggested I don't think I have read that specific book, but I had a seminar that addressed fallacies in great detail, and I've read books from that author and other pragma-dialetics authors.
This is some of what I still have on my bookshelf.
https://ibb.co/tBfTGXR |
|
Date: October 6th, 2022 7:50 PM Author: Marvelous cumskin gorgeous fallacies (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45292273) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 9:42 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven He must get so many clients with these. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294533) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:28 AM Author: bateful well-lubricated coffee pot idea he suggested Dusty old statute books and reporters in the background don't reflect the rigor contemporary clients demand. They want to know their case rests on the sound bedrock of scholarship. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294718) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:36 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294752) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 9:40 AM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell It's a little absurd that such a vast range of "rule-violations" all get slapped with the same simplistic label. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294529) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:44 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294784) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 9:45 AM Author: indecent big-titted site gunner the rules of logic are essentially like the rules of chess, this knight only "takes" that queen if you accept ahead of time that knights get to move two spaces and one to the right because that's what knights do. There's nothing inherent in that little piece that makes it so, it's just what we all agree to. The same is true of formal argumentation
(it goes without saying that everything in this thread applies af to the practice of "law") |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 9:57 AM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell If you have an alternative to the law of the excluded middle and modus tollens, I'm all ears (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294574) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:00 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294587) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:05 AM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell Does this system enable one to derive P & ~P? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294608) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:10 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven It's a class of systems. Idk what you mean derive P & ~P. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294636) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:13 AM Author: Vermilion tattoo hell Can any of these systems be used to derive a statement and its negative and then conjoin them in a conjunction? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294642) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:29 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven Not as such. Maybe this is a better link.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/
>>> This view on mathematics has far reaching implications for the daily practice of mathematics, one of its consequences being that the principle of the excluded middle is no longer valid. Indeed, there are propositions, like the Riemann hypothesis, for which there exists currently neither a proof of the statement nor of its negation. Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both [a and not a] do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment. The dependence of intuitionism on time is essential: statements can become provable in the course of time and therefore might become intuitionistically valid while not having been so before. >>>
Motivation: https://ibb.co/CwT2mnM |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:15 AM Author: light violent messiness The laws of logic reflect reality. They're not the result of some arbitrary "consensus". They're not a word game philosophers play. In reality, something cannot be both X and not X at the same time and in the same respect. This is what the laws of logic reflect. When you reason as follows....
1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
...you are appealing to the law of non-contradiction (at a step 2.5 as it were, "The law of non-contradiction being true") which again, reflects objective reality.
There is a straight line from the belief that the laws of logic reflect an arbitrary convention or social consensus to believing that people can "identify" as women or two-spirits or attack helicopters or whatever and that's all something we have to respect. After all, that's "their truth", and, as logic just reflects an arbitrary convention anyways, who's to deny someone "their truth"? You throw logic out (or demote it by severing its connection to reality) and there are no contradictions (or none that you need worry about) and so anything goes, nothing has identity, and we live in an ever-changing, socially-determined, objective-reality-free metaphysical hellscape. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:34 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven I'm broadly sympathetic, but I think your charge is better addressed to nominalism/anti-realism/subjectivism than to properties of logic. See Peirce & the Threat of Nominalism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294738) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 10:03 AM Author: Pearl Knife Sweet Tailpipe (guy arguing semantics) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45294600) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 4:08 PM Author: avocado background story main people special species (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45296445) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 4:10 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven of speciousness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45296465) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 4:19 PM Author: Glittery yarmulke Gut reaction when hearing this criticism is to assume statement is true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45296515) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2022 4:20 PM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven This is a meta-argument point for just that reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45296523) |
|
Date: October 11th, 2022 9:58 AM Author: Onyx Trip Striped Hyena Heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5207076&forum_id=2#45313807) |