Remember me
▼ Content

Fallacy Fallacy



Page 2 of 2<12
23-09-2016 01:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, excuse me for not assuming good faith. It's not like anything else you've written has suggested that you're even capable of writing a post in good faith.
23-09-2016 01:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, excuse me for not assuming good faith. It's not like anything else you've written has suggested that you're even capable of writing a post in good faith.

Could you not simply read it for what it was? It was one line.

In any event, if you have an if->then and the "if" (antecedent) is false then the entire if->then is true, regardless of what the "then" (predicate) is.



.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 01:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, it's not. If it is raining, then the sky is made of cheese. It is not raining.

(I guess you could argue that "it is raining" is more correctly "it is raining AT THIS TIME", but meh.)
23-09-2016 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, it's not. If it is raining, then the sky is made of cheese. It is not raining.

(I guess you could argue that "it is raining" is more correctly "it is raining AT THIS TIME", but meh.)


So...

If A -> B.
!A

......and?


You really suck at this logic thing, don't you?

I find you woefully illiterate in formal and informal logic.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 03:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, I read that a bit too quickly. Yes, you're right. (No, I did not start agreeing with you because you insulted me. More like despite your insults.)

However, that's not what we are discussing. The fallacy fallacy is informal logic, anyhow.
23-09-2016 03:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, I read that a bit too quickly. Yes, you're right. (No, I did not start agreeing with you because you insulted me. More like despite your insults.)

However, that's not what we are discussing. The fallacy fallacy is informal logic, anyhow.


Evasion by redirection. Argument of the stone on the fallacy fallacy topic.

You really are not good at all with logic. Quite illiterate.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 04:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Let me rephrase that.

YES OH ALL-KNOWING INTO YOU WERE TOTALLY CORRECT. I BOW BEFORE YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEGE.

Now let's talk about the fallacy fallacy, as per the topic of this thread.


Also, I'm not illiterate - I've never taken a logic class, but I'm fairly knowledgeable on the topic, what with a natural affinity to STEM, a father who is both very intelligent and always willing to answer questions, plenty of textbooks, and of course a nearly limitless supply of Internet, I've been able to learn quite a bit about many fields. This is of course excluding the many university classes I've taken, both online and in-person, all of which I passed with flying colours (apparently "A" is a colour), except for that one Honours English class I got an A- in. So there is considerable evidence that I am not illiterate in mathematics or the sciences - when you continue to say so, it's quite clear that it is no longer a statement of observation. It is an insult. One which I am

IGNORING
23-09-2016 08:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let me rephrase that.

YES OH ALL-KNOWING INTO YOU WERE TOTALLY CORRECT. I BOW BEFORE YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEGE.

Now let's talk about the fallacy fallacy, as per the topic of this thread.


Also, I'm not illiterate - I've never taken a logic class, but I'm fairly knowledgeable on the topic, what with a natural affinity to STEM, a father who is both very intelligent and always willing to answer questions, plenty of textbooks, and of course a nearly limitless supply of Internet, I've been able to learn quite a bit about many fields. This is of course excluding the many university classes I've taken, both online and in-person, all of which I passed with flying colours (apparently "A" is a colour), except for that one Honours English class I got an A- in. So there is considerable evidence that I am not illiterate in mathematics or the sciences - when you continue to say so, it's quite clear that it is no longer a statement of observation. It is an insult. One which I am

IGNORING


You are NOT even remotely knowledgeable about the subject. You are not knowledgeable about science either.

You are illiterate in both subjects as well as mathematics, especially in probability, random numbers, and statistics. It also extends to history, economics, and governmental structures.

Your own arrogance is your own worst enemy. The evidence I need to say this is right here in this forum.

You have joined the Church of Global Warming AND the Church of Marx. You are clueless.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 14:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, I'm just going to ignore you when you say that. Okay? I once listened, and I got depressed from processing the constant attacks on my intelligence and scientific literacy. I started half-believing them, and my self-worth plummeted. I don't need your approval.
23-09-2016 14:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Making people feel bad is the entire reason for his existence, his arguments are so stupid he must know that they are stupid, you don't think he is concerned about what is really happening in the real world do you?

I told you talking to him is no good for your mental health.
23-09-2016 14:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Heh, I thought you were joking.
23-09-2016 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: I once listened, and I got depressed from processing the constant attacks on my intelligence and scientific literacy.

If you don't like that sort of thing then don't establish yourself as the bulveristic, insulting scientifically-illiterate religious dupe who says stupid things.

Rather than compete with others as to who is the most moronic, take notes from those who know more and don't be afraid to learn.

jwoodward48 wrote: I started half-believing them, and my self-worth plummeted. I don't need your approval.

That's what got you sucked into Global Warming and Marxism in the first place.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 18:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
*I'm not listening*

If you want to say something to me, how about not insulting me?
23-09-2016 20:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
*I'm not listening*

If you want to say something to me, how about not insulting me?


Those days are past, dude. The only path to that is through the restitution I explained to you. So far you have done extremely poorly. Again, your own arrogance and pride are your own worst enemies.

If you can show you can get through the double standard of insults coming your way and not insulting, you will have shown me that your apology is serious.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 00:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hehehe, I'm pretty sure I'm doing that now.

So, hey, what about that fallacy fallacy? It's informal, right?

1. C is an argument supporting A.
2. C is fallacious.
3. A is false.

Isn't that the fallacy fallacy? Do you have a better definition?
24-09-2016 04:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hehehe, I'm pretty sure I'm doing that now.

So, hey, what about that fallacy fallacy? It's informal, right?

1. C is an argument supporting A.
2. C is fallacious.
3. A is false.

Isn't that the fallacy fallacy? Do you have a better definition?


All informal logic stems from formal logic. It's like applying math vs the rules of math.

Your definition of the fallacy fallacy here is succinct and correct, although logic often writes it this way:

If P->Q
and !P
therefore !P->!Q

or even:
If (P->Q) & !P then !P->!Q

Here P is same as your C, and Q is the same as your A. I am also using the typewritten symbols, since the usual written symbols are not part of most telegraph codes.

The correct logic, of course is: If (P->Q) & !P then P->Q
which is to say if !P, then Q is still dependent on P, not !P (is that a double negative?
)


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2016 04:48
24-09-2016 04:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So just to make sure I understand, a formal fallacy is something of the form

1. All cats are mammals.
2. Therefore, all mammals are cats.

Whereas an informal fallacy is like

1. Dr. Bryan is a Nazi.
2. Therefore, [whatever-he's-arguing-for] is false.

Right?

I get that formal logic is deductive logic, such as [A->B] -> [~B->~A]. But what would that make informal logic?
24-09-2016 05:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So just to make sure I understand, a formal fallacy is something of the form

1. All cats are mammals.
2. Therefore, all mammals are cats.

Correct. This example is strictly based on the form of the argument.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Whereas an informal fallacy is like

1. Dr. Bryan is a Nazi.
2. Therefore, [whatever-he's-arguing-for] is false.

Right?

Also correct. This argument may or may not be correct. You have to examine the content. In this case, what his argument is about. Once the content has been analyzed and the argument reformed to incorporate it as a precedent, you can usually identify the formal logic it violates.

Informal logic fallacies are kind of like short cuts to the whole process.

The example in the second case is typically given to conclude that anything a Nazi says is false. This actually forms a compositional error. Since people are involved (Nazis), such an error is also called bigotry.

If bigotry involves some physical characteristic (such as skin color, number of eyes, etc), the bigotry becomes racism.

In the case of Nazis, for this example, bigotry is there, but not racism.

Of course a Nazi often was found making racist arguments of their own, such as Jews (the race) are inferior (the compositional error).

jwoodward48 wrote:
I get that formal logic is deductive logic, such as [A->B] -> [~B->~A]. But what would that make informal logic?

Formal logic is about the form of the argument and set theory.

Informal logic is about the content of the argument and how implied content causes a formal fallacy.

For example, cherry picking (an informal fallacy) is not necessarily a fallacy. There are times when cherry picking is correct, such as using falsifying evidence for a theory and ignoring supporting evidence. It is all based on the content, not the form of the argument itself.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2016 05:27
24-09-2016 07:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So informal logic is essentially applied informal logic?
24-09-2016 11:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So informal logic is essentially applied informal logic?


No. If anything, informal logic can be described as applied formal logic.

Informal logic is about the content of arguments. If a fallacy occurs, it is over the content, which must be examined to determine if a fallacy actually occurred.

Formal logic is about the structure (the rules of logic). In a formal fallacy the structure itself is the problem, and is content independent.

Informal fallacies have a root in formal logic, but the content is the key to get there. Many informal fallacies are duplicates of each other as formal fallacies are concerned. They are given different names due to their content.

For example, let's use two common types of errors, the compositional error where the properties of an element of a class is improperly extended across other elements and possibly the class itself), and a divisional error (the properties of the class as a whole is improperly assigned to each element of that class).

These are two different informal fallacies. The compositional error in particular is the fallacy we know as bigotry, if the class is people; racism, if the property being extended is a physical characteristic.

They both come back to the masked man fallacy, a formal fallacy of argument form. The informal names depend on which way the identity was improperly applied across elements and class.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 15:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, thanks. That makes more sense now. (Also, your quoted statement had a typo. It should have been "informal is applied formal".)
24-09-2016 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, thanks. That makes more sense now. (Also, your quoted statement had a typo. It should have been "informal is applied formal".)


I thought it might be, but I wanted to be clear on that point in case it wasn't.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Fallacy Fallacy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The issue of the Moral Fallacy613-10-2016 23:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact