Fallacy Fallacy

jwoodward48 wrote:
Climate change deniers like to take a non-expert's arguments apart, and then claim that they have "disproved global warming." This is the fallacy fallacy, a wonderful meta-y kind of fallacy. In essence, it is the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"The sky is blue, because baby ninjas paint it blue every morning. At night, the Time Sharks eat the paint and spread their dire, doomy darkness across the sky."

jwoodward48 wrote:
Obviously false reasoning. Obviously true result.

jwoodward48 wrote:
So don't say that you've "disproved global warming" when you've only knocked down one amateur.

jwoodward48 wrote: Climate change deniers

jwoodward48 wrote: ...like to take a non-expert's arguments apart,

jwoodward48 wrote: ...and then claim that they have "disproved global warming."

jwoodward48 wrote: When there are more tornadoes in a region, and the trend is consistent over time, that's climate change

jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.

jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
When there are more tornadoes in a region, and the trend is consistent over time, that's climate change. When currents are redirected and Europe is cooled, that's climate change. When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I wonder what you think of weathermen?

The weather is not random.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Anti-qualitative bias, anybody?

Look, yes, you can describe a change in a thing without using units.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Red" and "orange" have no units.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Thoughts have no units

jwoodward48 wrote:
You can describe an overall difference between two species of bird - that does not have units.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The individual components often do have units, but that's beside the point.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My father is a sociologist, and he works with information every day, scientifically, that is not composed of numbers. Are you saying that he is not, in fact, doing science?

jwoodward48 wrote:
If there are 200 times as many tornadoes, 240 times as many hurricanes, and 440 times as many floods in the year 2020 as there were in the year 1900 (they won't btw), and this trend is not limited to a single year or location, but a measured gradual increase in almost all places, what would you call it? A change in the overall weather?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Weather has a random aspect to it, yes. It is very unpredictable. But analysis of weather data can show overall trends. If most temperatures were at 93 C, hell yes the weather has changed?

jwoodward48 wrote:
A question for you: If weather is completely random, then how do we notice Ice Ages? Wouldn't that be a long-term trend in the average temperature? Isn't temperature an aspect of weather?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Another one for you: If weather is completely random, then roughly the same amount of snowstorms that happen in Canada should happen in Mexico, accounting for the difference in size.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.

You're not paying attention at all, are you?

jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.

There is nothing to discuss. I have explained the fallacy fallacy, why your example is not it, and the fallacy you have made in trying to use the fallacy fallacy in this way. You are illiterate in both formal and informal logic. You don't pay attention to anything anybody says. You just keep plowing ahead ignoring any explanations at all. You have learned nothing.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.

You missed this lesson too. I can only assume you insist on being dumb.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself.

I accuse you of being stupid.

the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.

the fallacy of assuming that the result of fallacious logic must necessarily be false

presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false

a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong

Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.

Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position is invalid or used a fallacy.

The fallacist's fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't get it. Every time I point out an inconsistency in your thinking you insist that I simply don't know enough.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB was claiming that weather cannot have a trend.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I was saying that it is not [completely] random. Is there a random aspect? Yes. I was arguing that it is not purely random, like a "coinflip." It seems that you disagree with him, and agree with me, that the weather can have a trend. No, you'll find some way of weaseling out of it. Your good friend IB is always right, and the evil commie unpatriotic religiously dogmatic (any I missed?) Jwood is always wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.

You're not paying attention at all, are you?

Oh, I'm paying quite a bit of attention.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.

There is nothing to discuss. I have explained the fallacy fallacy, why your example is not it, and the fallacy you have made in trying to use the fallacy fallacy in this way. You are illiterate in both formal and informal logic. You don't pay attention to anything anybody says. You just keep plowing ahead ignoring any explanations at all. You have learned nothing.

You did not explain how I was false. You nitpicked at terminology, and misread "false" as "fake."

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.

You missed this lesson too. I can only assume you insist on being dumb.

What lesson? I am right; see below.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself.

I accuse you of being stupid.

Here's my definition of "fallacy fallacy":

the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.

Here's a slightly different, perhaps clearer, definition, also by me:

the fallacy of assuming that the result of fallacious logic must necessarily be false

Note how they mean the same thing.

Here's a definition by somebody who is not me (not cherry-picked, the first site I found):

presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

Claim = result. See? I am right.

But maybe that was a fluke. Maybe they're wrong. Let's look at other definitions.

the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false

a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong

Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.

Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position is invalid or used a fallacy.

The fallacist's fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious.

See? I am right.

jwoodward48 wrote: I'll stick with science, thanks.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, I'll be sticking with the evil Commie scientists, not your obviously-unbiased science funded largely by fossil fuel companies.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.

jwoodward48 wrote:
As for your very first post, is your "better explanation" for data supporting GW that the scientists are being bribed by the evil commie liberals in our government? I'll stick with science, thanks.

jwoodward48 wrote:
A good way of explaining this might be a straw man set up by somebody else, whether intentional or not.

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, I'll be sticking with the evil Commie scientists, not your obviously-unbiased science funded largely by fossil fuel companies.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

Wrong. A fallacious argument is not a valid predicate in the first place. You have no A.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.

You did and you still are trying to.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

Wrong. A fallacious argument is not a valid predicate in the first place. You have no A.

What? Of course it is! "A fallacious argument exists for C" is B. B does not imply !C.

Look, if the arguments for GW "go up in smoke", then they're fallacious. Now I have an A.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.

You did and you still are trying to.

I'm using the definition given by everybody else in the universe. Would you like to make a new term for... whatever you're trying to claim a fallacy fallacy is?

jwoodward48 wrote:Also, how do you explain the cooling effect of smoke and ash in the atmosphere from volcanoes? After all, the atmosphere cannot affect the average surface temperature - at all! [/s]

jwoodward48 wrote:
Would you care to give a brief definition, instead of a bunch of complaints about mine? You're just saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" - why don't you say what's right then?

This is where you make a false equivalence. It doesn't even result in a fallacy fallacy.

You simply assume 'obviously fake reasoning'. Oddly, the reasoning is NOT fake at all.

What makes it fake is we have far better theories to explain it without requiring baby ninjas or Time Sharks. We can falsify the 'baby ninja' theory by showing there is no sky to paint. It is not a surface. This also falsifies the Time Sharks because there is nothing to eat.

We DO have a theory that has not been falsified, and continues to be used simply because it has not been falsified YET.

Regardless of the theory, the sky is still blue. The false information still results in a blue sky. The conclusion has NOT been shown to be incorrect, thus no fallacy fallacy.

jwoodward48 wrote: ...this is as untrue as it is possible to get.

jwoodward48 wrote: (A->

and (A is false) -> (B is false) is only a fallacy if B is false. How do you say these things?

jwoodward48 wrote:
That is a trivial, circular argument. And furthermore, the logical statement in my post that you quoted was really a representation of what Into was saying. So if it looks ridiculous, good.