I have a question about logic, according to the fallacy fallacy, it is illogical to assume that an illogical argument's conclusion is false based on its logical fallacy.
Wouldn't that make logic worthless? if it isn't 100% effective, whats the point, i find the room for error disturbing
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:09:38 PM
I have a question about logic, according to the fallacy fallacy, it is illogical to assume that an illogical argument's conclusion is false based on its logical fallacy.
Wouldn't that make logic worthless? if it isn't 100% effective, whats the point, i find the room for error disturbing
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Yeah that makes sense. Just because a claim is poorly argued or incorrectly argued, doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it can still be passed off as a false claim if you can provide a proper argument against it.
But yes. Saying something is false solely based on a poorly argued/incorrectly argued claim would be a fallacy.
Doesn't that decrease the value of logic, since it isn't 100% effective?
Considering an illogical claim can be right and a logical one wrong
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
Doesn't that decrease the value of logic, since it isn't 100% effective?
Considering an illogical claim can be right and a logical one wrong
No.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
Doesn't that decrease the value of logic, since it isn't 100% effective?
Only if you have unwarranted expectations of logic. If the logic doesn't hold up, it only means your claim is illogical. It is quite typical of theist thinking for things to be in black and white. Theists demand that something be either right or wrong, and the reasoning involved in getting to the right or wrong be damned. They don't want logic. They don't want science. They just want an answer. Usually one that they like. But reality is not that easy. Skepticism is not accepting an unwarranted assertion without evidence. It's not about being right or wrong. It only tells you when you lack evidence to claim you are right. The incredible simplicity and usefulness of that approach is lost on theists.
The fallacy fallacy itself appears to be a straw man fallacy, and is therefore a bogus argument. It makes an assertion that logic never claimed, and then tears down logic by disputing the invented claim.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
Doesn't that decrease the value of logic, since it isn't 100% effective?
Considering an illogical claim can be right and a logical one wrong
No. For instance. Lets say someone makes the claim that eating horse diarrhea is good for you because they "said so".
Even though that argument is incorrectly argued, you can still say the claim is wrong because everyone knows that eating horse shit will only put loads of viruses, bacteria, and other diseases and parasites.
See? I told you how the claim was wrong. It had nothing to do with how they argued it. An incorrect claim is an incorrect claim no matter how convincing it is.
You just don't understand logic.
Stop trying.
So you're saying that a good refutation of a claim lies in evidence, not in calling out logical fallacies?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 08:12:49 PM
So you're saying that a good refutation of a claim lies in evidence, not in calling out logical fallacies?
Evidence against the claim is a good refutation. Pointing out a logical fallacy points out that the claim is unwarranted.
I'm sensing a theist here, who is sincerely trying to understand logic, but just like an alcoholic, cannot let go of the very thing that keeps him from thinking clearly. It's like giving up an old friend who you dearly love, but a friend that still leads you astray. Deep down, you can see he leads you astray, but you still can't let go. But giving it up costs you nothing. You can still believe anything you want, you just have to admit when there is no logic in it.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
Doesn't that decrease the value of logic, since it isn't 100% effective?
Considering an illogical claim can be right and a logical one wrong
No. Good logic (non-fallacious logic) cranks out a true conclusion from true premises and sound structure. For example, Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.
Poor logic (fallacious logic) cranks out dubious - but not necessarily incorrect - conclusions from true premises but unsound structure. For example, All birds have wings, insects have wings, therefore insects are birds.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 08:12:49 PM
So you're saying that a good refutation of a claim lies in evidence, not in calling out logical fallacies?
Any and every claim/refutation relies on evidence.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 06:09:38 PM
I have a question about logic, according to the fallacy fallacy, it is illogical to assume that an illogical argument's conclusion is false based on its logical fallacy.
Wouldn't that make logic worthless? if it isn't 100% effective, whats the point, i find the room for error disturbing
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
If your argument contains a fallacy and your conclusion is correct, it's not because of your argument. More like a coincidence. A fallacy doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but it definitely means your argument is wrong.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 08:12:49 PM
So you're saying that a good refutation of a claim lies in evidence, not in calling out logical fallacies?
Sigh. No. A fallacy refutes the argument, full stop. If that argument is all that supports the claim, the claim is completely unsupported. The fallacy fallacy only applies to someone making the argument that, because the supporting argument contains a fallacy, the claim is false. The 'fallacy fallacy' is easily avoided. For example, 'your argument is fallacious so your conclusion is unsupported and I am justified in dismissing your claim on that basis'. There's nothing wrong with that response to a claim supported by a fallacious argument except, perhaps, lack of brevity. 'You haven't given a valid reason to think your claim is true' would be another approach.
Quote from: SGOS on September 08, 2014, 06:46:59 PM
The fallacy fallacy itself appears to be a straw man fallacy, and is therefore a bogus argument. It makes an assertion that logic never claimed, and then tears down logic by disputing the invented claim.
I don't think it's necessarily a straw man, just not very common. If the OP has spotted someone here claiming that a conclusion is wrong because the argument supporting it is fallacious, that person has technically committed a fallacy, though the person who is making the argument should be a good sport about it since they just made a claim without a basis. You're on awfully thin ice if you've been reduced to arguing that just because you can't make a good argument that something is true, or present evidence that it's true, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Allow me to provide an example of two fallacious arguments, one will be correct despite the fallacious argument, one will be incorrect because of the fallacious argument.
1. Drinking a beer is better than being shot in the head because god says so.
2. Homosexuality should be illegal because god says so.
Both arguments are wrong, however the first is correct despite being a fallacious argument. A beer is most definitely better than being shot in the head. The fallacy in the argument does not render the conclusion incorrect. In essence the argument is wrong(god never mentioned beer nor being shot), but the conclusion it reaches(living being preferred to death) is still correct.
The second argument is both incorrect and fallacious. Science has shown that homosexuality exists naturally in animals. It is a genetic issue and not one that can or should be treated as a preference and therefore illegal. This arguments conclusion is incorrect because science disproves it.
In essence if you change how #1 is argued the conclusion is correct. If you change how #2 is argued it is still incorrect.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 08, 2014, 08:02:19 PM
Who?
The idiot who's trying to use logic to show that logic has no value.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 13, 2014, 09:48:07 AM
The idiot who's trying to use logic to show that logic has no value.
I don't think he was trying to show anything. I thought he was asking and trying to understand.
Sent from your mom
:popcorn: :popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy.
But if you like fallacies, then the fallacy fallacy is a great fallacy.
So the fallacy fallacy is fallacious?
I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.
Quote from: AST111213 on November 28, 2014, 11:16:12 PM
I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.
I'm almost certainly responding to a troll post, but here goes:
P1) A > B
P2) B > C
Conclusion: C < A
Note the lack of a God or Gods.
Hi, atheistslayer. How ya been?
(http://img.pandawhale.com/60981-Third-Party-Facepalm-meme-extr-McI2.jpeg)
Quote from: AST111213 on November 28, 2014, 11:16:12 PM
I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.
I would say that you are assuming your conclusion.
Quote from: stromboli on September 21, 2014, 06:27:16 PM
So the fallacy fallacy is fallacious?
No, it’s correct. It’s just pointing out yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. All it’s saying is that you can be right for the wrong reason.
For instance you can find someone guilty based on a fallacy, (foe example an appeal to probability) and yet he is still guilty.
So if someone says that your fallacy has proven that the guy is innocent. They have made a fallacy fallacy.
Along this line one that bugs me often is "correlation is not causation"
While it's true that correlation is not causation, I routinely see people discard correlation as any evidence at all because it's cited as a fallacy. However, it is evidence, just not conclusive evidence.