ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Subtile differences of categorization.
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I have not had much formal training in logic. Most of my knowledge is self-taught (from texts), or gleamed from conversations with the initated. So, if what I am refering to actually has a concept in rhetoric already attached to it, point it out.

When we talk about fallacies, we are talking about faulty logic, things that won't hold up to scruitiny. However, when looking at some fallacies, it appears to me that this definition might not be appropriate for all of them, in the strictest sense of the word.

Take, for example, Subject fallacies, more specifically, ad hominem tu quoque. When you commit tu quoque, you are essentially calling someone a hypocrite. "He says alcohol is bad, but he is an alcoholic." There is nothing wrong with the definition of the fallacy up to this point. However, what we are missing here, and where the grey area is, is in the "therefore" part of the fallacy. Consider the following.

- You say alcohol is bad
- You are an alcoholic.
- Therefore, you cannot be trusted.
- Therefore, your argument is (likely) wrong.

(Depending on the severity attached to the statment, the word in parenthesis may or may not be implied.)

The problem is this: This is not a misuse of logic, it is a non-use of logic. It is not an appeal that one should reason that because a person is a hypocrite that we should not trust their ability to make judgments about the subject. Such an argument would undoubtedly fail, as any sane person will eventually reason that conflicting actions and rhetoric will not destroy your logical faculties or ability to formulate an argument. It is an appeal that one should feel that way. An appeal to trust your gut instincts.

How does this fall under "misuse of logic"? Or am I missing something?

(Yes, nitpicking that will eventually lead to a very boring discussion, but bugging me all the same.)

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:59 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
In the general context, a fallacy is a "plausible reasoning that fails to satisfy the conditions of valid argument or correct inference". (Webster.) Argumentum ad hominem most definitely fails to satisfy validity. However, in a more restricted sense, the word fallacy denotes only formal fallacy, the assumption of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In that the word "fallacy" has multiple meanings there is certainly room for confusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:06 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Someone who's a hypocrite isn't commiting some sort of logical fallacy, they just don't practice what they preach. This doesn't invalidate the message (alchohol is bad, in this case), it just makes people look at the message as suspect. After all, If he truly thinks alchohol is bad, why does he drink?

I doubt anybody here will dispute the claim that random murder is wrong. But what if the DC Sniper, who randomly killed people, said that random murder is wrong? That doesn't change anything. We still agree with the point, even though the person making the point is admittedly wrong.

I think the fallacy here would be automatically suspecting the message to be (potentially) wrong because the person delivering it is a hypocrite. Maybe not a logical fallacy, but a fallacy none the less.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
"This statement is false."

Or:

A.:B, B.:C -- C.:A

Also:

If A can result in B, and B always results in C, then A always results in C.

And:

If x is a property of all A, and x is also a property of all B, then all A = all B.

However, most logical fallacies are more involved than any of these examples. Most religions involve a number of these.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:37 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Emy wrote:
"This statement is false."

Or:

A.:B, B.:C -- C.:A

Also:

If A can result in B, and B always results in C, then A always results in C.

And:

If x is a property of all A, and x is also a property of all B, then all A = all B.

However, most logical fallacies are more involved than any of these examples. Most religions involve a number of these.

The first line was a paradox, and therefore cannot be categorized with a true/false system.

Now, as much as I understand from the quite excessive use of Latine (and words in higher English than is thought in schools here), you were questioning the value of statements that put question marks on their on value. I don't see a problem with those kind of statements. They are bad arguments since they contradict themselves, but there's no other problem (logically speaking) I can detect.

Another possibilty is that you were talking about something that is called 'implied assumption'. When you say 'he cannot drive because he is drunk' you used the implied assumption that the state of drunkness interfere with the action of driven to such an extent as to make it a bad idea.

I miss my logic teacher.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:09 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Ack! sorry! Clarity and understanding are good; where Latin impedes those ideals, then, Latin must be bad.

In literal English, argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the man". In colloquial English, it means "an attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself". There are many variants of it, but someone who uses any such variant is not arguing with you (in a logical sense) but rather bullying you.

Take the original example in this thread, which was, "he says alcohol is bad, but he is an alcoholic". It is an attack on the person who said that alcohol is bad, not the statement that alcohol is bad. It proves absolutely nothing about the badness or non-badness of alcohol. In that way, then, it is fallacious: it fails to meet the validity requirement of a logical argument.

In literal English, post hoc ergo propter hoc means "after the fact, therefore because of the fact". In colloquial English, it means ... well, the same thing. ;-) Emy's examples, after the first one, show this error of formal fallacy. It is often encountered in the presence of existential quantifiers like "all X" or "for some X".

As an aside, ad-hominem arguments and fallacies are favourite tools of mendacious politicians and sleazy lawyers. Don't be suckered in by them, especially if you see them here in this forum where people who post are actively trying to get you to agree with them. As exemplified by those politicians and lawyers, the rules of debate (and of Debate Club) do not preclude their use. Caveat lector -- let the reader beware.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:31 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Punk logic:

"Fuck you, I'm right."

Ergo, the statement is correct, and classifying the statement is futile, and any attempt of doing so is stupid.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3246
Location: Frigid/boiling midwest.
Subtile?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:47 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
^^

Y'know, I was just thinking that, too, tmt.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:08 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Tamayo wrote:
In literal English, argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the man". In colloquial English, it means "an attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself". There are many variants of it, but someone who uses any such variant is not arguing with you (in a logical sense) but rather bullying you.

Take the original example in this thread, which was, "he says alcohol is bad, but he is an alcoholic". It is an attack on the person who said that alcohol is bad, not the statement that alcohol is bad. It proves absolutely nothing about the badness or non-badness of alcohol. In that way, then, it is fallacious: it fails to meet the validity requirement of a logical argument.

Yes I'm familiar with the concept.

Tamayo wrote:
In literal English, post hoc ergo propter hoc means "after the fact, therefore because of the fact". In colloquial English, it means ... well, the same thing. ;-) Emy's examples, after the first one, show this error of formal fallacy. It is often encountered in the presence of existential quantifiers like "all X" or "for some X".

I want to make sure I understand this (I.E. know the translation to Hebrew): statements that are wrong because they assume that 'most of x' could be addressed as 'the whole of x'.
This is a valid argument if you only remember to finish it by 'therefore it is highly likely' instead of 'therefore it is'. In other functions it is just plain wrong.


And yes, latin is bad.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:34 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Emy's fourth example is the most pared-down one. It shows that fallacies do not require existential quantifiers. One could restate it thus:

If I have an apple, then I have a fruit.
If I have a fig, then I have a fruit.
----
*Thus, if I have a fruit, I have an apple or a fig.

(I denote the erroneous deduction using italics with an asterisk prefix, in linguistic fashion.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group