Old 07-3-2007, 03:08 AM   #21
Vendetta21
Sectional Moderator
Sectional Moderator
 
Vendetta21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Age: 30
Posts: 2,732
Send a message via AIM to Vendetta21
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
A thread entitled "Does God Exist?" implies a question that has no concrete answer. Yes, we know. Presumably the person who made the thread also knows that. If there -were- proof, the answer would already be known.

But please, explain to me how discussion along the lines of "If God -did- exist, what would the ramifications be" and "If God -didn't- exist, what would the ramifications be?" is somehow not worthy of you or this forum.
That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.

This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.

And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church, and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument. I have no problems with the defense of an argument.

My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.

And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.

In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.
__________________

Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-3-2007 at 03:22 AM..
Vendetta21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-3-2007, 03:40 AM   #22
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.

You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum.

Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch.
jewpinthethird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-3-2007, 04:03 AM   #23
chunky_cheese
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
chunky_cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 1,736
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewpinthethird View Post
I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.

You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum.

Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch.
dont mak fun o me.
chunky_cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-3-2007, 04:05 AM   #24
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
Community Manager, Global Moderator, User Support
Global ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 9,784
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta21 View Post
That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.
People use the former, are corrected, and either learn from it, and contribute, or don't learn from it, and are generally summarily ignored. If the other random people pile on random comments, what should you care? Just do as we do, pass the thread over in favour of more appropriate discourse, and it will eventually sink down off the page, or be closed by a mod.

Quote:
This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.
So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

Quote:
And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church,
Christian apologetics is as large a field as it is, because christianity is a large religion, and has many supporters as well as many detractors. I hardly think that constitutes "rampant" apologetics.

Quote:
and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument.
Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

Quote:
I have no problems with the defense of an argument.
But this is the fundamental definition of apologetics. If you have a problem with apologetics but no problem with defending your argument, perhaps you should restate your argument in a way that actually says what you want it to.

Quote:
My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.
People who post threads whose only support assumes you grant them their view as correct tend to attract two things: People pointing out the untenability of the argument and mods closing the thread, depending on who got to it first. Many times, if the more practiced critical thinkers don't want to turn the discussion into something more valid, the thread is simply closed. At the worst case, it lives on the front page for a week or two, with the odd person poking their head in to correct the more egregious errors, and try to get them onto a useful track. I fail to see how this is necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:
And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.
If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as youv'e taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

Quote:
In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.
I think I've done a fairly adaquate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. As Abraham Lincoln said: "For the people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like." I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-4-2007, 04:55 AM   #25
Vendetta21
Sectional Moderator
Sectional Moderator
 
Vendetta21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Age: 30
Posts: 2,732
Send a message via AIM to Vendetta21
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.
Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?

Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.

Quote:
Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?
I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.) It sends the message that the forum expects more. That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.

Quote:
Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.
I have misapplied the term.

Quote:
If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.
I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.

At this point I think if we continue to keep arguing this point it will go further off on a tangent than we already, but I think that there is a personal disagreement here, and not necessarily a logical one. Yes, I know it disposes people against me, but sometimes a dry insult makes a rhetorical effect, sometimes an insult invokes humor. Sometimes it may do exactly what you're saying, but that's a case by case thing, not a blanket rule. Just like my choice of inflammatory words and pretension are not always used and applied the same way. In this instance, it worked for my intended purposes. If I were to do this in the exact same manner repeatedly it would not work.

Quote:
Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as you've taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.
No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.

Quote:
I think I've done a fairly adequate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.
It does not necessarily change to suit just myself. This was based on conversations with upstanding, regular forum members (of FFR in general) and what we felt to be the problem with Critical Thinking. I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..." The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.

I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.

I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.
__________________

Last edited by Vendetta21; 07-4-2007 at 05:03 AM..
Vendetta21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-4-2007, 09:29 AM   #26
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 36
Posts: 1,987
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

"Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement."

And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin?

Also, your standards are way too high for an online DDR simulator site, and I also think that if stricter standards were adopted, we'd be cutting out the majority of users from CT, and some wouldn't even know why. If you think the quality of FFR's CT forum is too low, then I'm sure there're thousands of higher quality CT threads to frequent where you'd fit in better. If not, feel free to start more threads of your own, and ignore the stupid ones.


Anyways, about the OP, I totally thought I had some inkling of an idea what it meant when someone said something like "That's just a straw man fallacy" when I totally didn't. I've learned a lot of new terms.

What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory?
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-4-2007, 12:05 PM   #27
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
Community Manager, Global Moderator, User Support
Global ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 9,784
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta21 View Post
Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?
Since the moderators have direct vested authority from Synth, it is absolutely a case that it is invalid because the moderators don't like it. The original quote you're paraphrasing loses some of its elan when you apply it to a situation in which the "god" in question is provably here and exercising authority in an objective measurable way. In its original context, your quote was trying to get at a question of whether objective morality exists outside of even the Gods, or if what is right and wrong is simply an arbitrary creation of the gods. Well, on FFR, Synth makes rules, we follow them or leave or are made to leave, as simply as that. He could state that everyone must speak in rhyme or be banned forever, and we would -have- to comply or face the consequences.

Quote:
Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.
As soon as you say "This is invalid" and not "I think this is invalid" you are assuming some level of authority. You are not claiming authority by disagreeing with authority, you are claiming authority by making absolute statements about what is and is not acceptable in these threads. My statements aren't even necessarily agreeing with authority, and certainly aren't assuming authority, I'm just pointing at the existing authority and saying "There are authorities, take it up with them"


Quote:
I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.)
That will almost certainly result in a) Many locked threads and b) Very few unlocked threads and c) Very few active participants in this forum.

Quote:
It sends the message that the forum expects more.
Does it actually expect more, or do you just wish that it would?
Quote:
That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.
The example you keep quoting is both one that we know you're making (So you can stop quoting it every time) and one that is explicitly stated in the rules of the forum as being not allowed by the rules of the forum. (So I don't know why you keep bringing it up)

Quote:
I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.
Perhaps instead of reading the posts -below- the original post, you might try reading the original post, which clearly seperates the two. Alternatively, you could read the discussion about how they are different, and by then seeing my edit (which took place -after- that discussion) in conjunction with the discussion, to critically evaluate the situation, and conclude that I was convinced, changed my mind, and edited the main post to reflect that.

Quote:
No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.
"Taking great pains" doesn't involve pain or pains in the sense you seem to think it does. "Taking great pains to" is analogous to "Going to great lengths to" or even simply "Going out of your way to" It doesn't imply difficulty of process, it implies you writing a very long-winded and overly verbose statement when a private message to the usual forum moderators would have been just as good.

Quote:
I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..."
And limiting the creation of topics yet further will somehow change that? Suddenly a loyal cadre of philosophers in exile will come spilling in from the Garbage Bin where they've been waiting for the chance to finally recreate the Aristotalian academy they've been dreaming of?

Quote:
The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.
I'm making a claim about the beliefs of many people, not just my own, despite nobody else jumping on this bandwagon once I got the ball rolling, and despite my not furnishing names of these old CT veterans who've been turned away by all this chaff in the forum?

Quote:
I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.
Well, this could have and likely should have been a new thread created specifically for this point, rather than a hijacking of an existing thread that was intended primarily to be a simple resource listing informal logical fallacies, but I'm happy to defend the right of less "qiualified" critical thinkers to discover the way they should do things by having them pointed out during the process of discussion, instead of making mods lock a thread and then spell out exactly what things they did right or wrong, so they can try again.

I'd rather have 9 bad threads out of 10, in which we slowly turn them into good threads by demonstration, example, and helpfulness, than have 10 good threads, and 90 locked threads.


Quote:
I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.
The shortcomings that are usually the case when applying inductive logic, and why deductive logic is generally stronger and more useful a tool.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-4-2007, 12:09 PM   #28
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
Community Manager, Global Moderator, User Support
Global ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 9,784
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin?
I think that what Vendetta was getting at is saying that begging the question is very often done through circular logic, which is one of the ways you can beg the question. it doesn't need another label, the one is just a subtype of the other.

Quote:
What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory?
Well...you don' so much 'appeal' to fallacies, as you do fall afoul of them. I'm not sure how the appeal of yours would work...The appeal to probability is when you conclude that because it is possible for something to happen, that its happening is inevitable. (This is a fallacy because there is no way to prove that it is inevitable simply because there is a chance that it will happen) While chaos theory (correct me if I'm wrong) tends to state that outcomes are inherantly unpredictable, which seems to -support- why the appeal to probability is a fallacy.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-4-2007, 07:06 PM   #29
Vendetta21
Sectional Moderator
Sectional Moderator
 
Vendetta21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Age: 30
Posts: 2,732
Send a message via AIM to Vendetta21
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
As soon as you say "This is invalid" and not "I think this is invalid" you are assuming some level of authority. You are not claiming authority by disagreeing with authority, you are claiming authority by making absolute statements about what is and is not acceptable in these threads. My statements aren't even necessarily agreeing with authority, and certainly aren't assuming authority, I'm just pointing at the existing authority and saying "There are authorities, take it up with them"
I think it was quite clear that I was always stating my belief. Whether or not I title each claim with "I believe this..." or "I think this..." is arbitrary given the content we are discussing. That kind of label is necessary for things such as math. You can assume, and have, that I believed it. Anyone who reads my post automatically assumes that it is my own personal belief. And there is no doubt in my mind that had I, or had I not "claimed" authority, that the argument would still remain the same in terms of the content value, and be objected in the same way. This point is moot. I don't have authority, so even if I did imply that I "claim" it, it doesn't make any difference. It is readily apparent that I don't have authority.

Quote:
Does it actually expect more, or do you just wish that it would?
That's a very good question, and I'm honestly not sure. But I will deliberate on it and tell you in a PM sometime. The latter is obviously true, but whether or not it practically does expect more would take a bit of thought to conclude.

Quote:
Perhaps instead of reading the posts -below- the original post, you might try reading the original post, which clearly seperates the two. Alternatively, you could read the discussion about how they are different, and by then seeing my edit (which took place -after- that discussion) in conjunction with the discussion, to critically evaluate the situation, and conclude that I was convinced, changed my mind, and edited the main post to reflect that.
That is my mistake.

I hope it is clear that we both intend for the same thing, though. Our goals are not different: higher level of content and thinking. Methodology is where we differ. So don't think I am at odds with you for your goals, or methods for that matter, I just am seeking a more effective method, for I think yours isn't as effective as others might be.

I feel that we are really becoming overly tangential at this point, so if you would like to continue this discussion, please send me a PM. If this were the original topic of discussion, I would have no problem continuing on, but I think that at this point the argument is more personal than anything, so if you wish to continue, don't hesitate to in a PM.
__________________
Vendetta21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 10:52 PM   #30
Kinnishian
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I can see much of this has been covered. However, my english teacher offered me this site which has even more thorough explanations of logical fallacies. Thanks to gmail I can retrieve it in my archives

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
Kinnishian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 11:46 PM   #31
jonathanasdf
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,959
Send a message via MSN to jonathanasdf
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

To add to the list: tl;dr symptom. Don't go into Critical Thinking forums if you have this.
__________________
This section intentionally blank.
jonathanasdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 02:35 AM   #32
ledwix
Giant Pi Operator
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Age: 28
Posts: 2,872
Send a message via AIM to ledwix Send a message via Yahoo to ledwix
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.
ledwix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 09:49 AM   #33
jonathanasdf
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,959
Send a message via MSN to jonathanasdf
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledwix View Post
"TL;DR Syndrome" could probably be placed under an "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position, because I know I can't be wrong, so it's just a waste of time," or the shortened version of that, the "I'm right because I KNOW I'm right" fallacy, which is partially circular reasoning and partially the ad nauseum fallacy. It might fall under another one, but I'm not sure.

I don't think it quite falls under any of the two categories you have suggested. It is basically, someone being lazy, and not reading the entire argument or entire thread before replying with a counter argument, which was probably already used in the thread, or was not targeted towards the general issue in the thread because they did not read it. It isn't "I don't want to read anything that hints at disagreeing with my position", its more like "I'm lazy and want to bring up my post count" or something.
__________________
This section intentionally blank.
jonathanasdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 11:11 AM   #34
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
Community Manager, Global Moderator, User Support
Global ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 9,784
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Well, this is a list of the "informal fallacies of logic" and the general philosophical community hasn't recognized tl;dr as a formal objection to an arguement *grin*

I think that tl;dr falls under the actual forum rules dictating that every post must be about something, and address the subject at hand.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 11:20 AM   #35
Sir_Thomas
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 848
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

But tl;dr is apart of the subject at hand.

The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read .
Sir_Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 11:24 AM   #36
jonathanasdf
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,959
Send a message via MSN to jonathanasdf
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

lets not start a debate in a topic about logical fallacies...

I'll just agree with what Devon says
__________________
This section intentionally blank.
jonathanasdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 11:27 AM   #37
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
Community Manager, Global Moderator, User Support
Global ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 9,784
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
The subject is too long, therefore the user didnt read
A post to that effect is non-contributory and would be deleted for breaking the CT forum rule dictating that all posts must contribute to the discussion.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2008, 09:40 PM   #38
Seefu Sefirosu
FFR Player
 
Seefu Sefirosu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 27
Posts: 314
Send a message via MSN to Seefu Sefirosu
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#hominem

Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything.

I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it.
Seefu Sefirosu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-4-2009, 04:33 AM   #39
somethingillremember
FFR Player
 
somethingillremember's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 106
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

What about appeal to authority? Where people conclude that something is right because someone in power or of higher authority than them said it. Because the president says it's true, it is true!

And what about when someone says that since something can be interpreted multiple ways, it isn't true and there is no true interpretation. Since this huge metaphor is confusing and can be interpreted many different ways, there is no true interpretation of the subject.
somethingillremember is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-4-2009, 05:44 AM   #40
Seefu Sefirosu
FFR Player
 
Seefu Sefirosu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 27
Posts: 314
Send a message via MSN to Seefu Sefirosu
Default Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu View Post
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#hominem

Another good list, even longer than this one, covering pretty much everything.

I linked after the Table of Contents. Scroll up to see it.
... what about the lack of appeal to authority?

EDIT: Just in case you get jumped to Ad Hominem (which you should, it's what the link is designed to do), remember, up scrolling is your friend. Link contains every appeal and every other logical fallacy you'll ever need.
Seefu Sefirosu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution