Learn about logical fallacies!
Chess Squares
10-09-2004, 19:43
for "False Analogy" read through posts in the Gun Control thread, especially NMR and Faxon, the majority of comparisons by them are of the false analogy variety
which is a comparison in a logical debate between two things that cannot be logically related
Bodies Without Organs
10-09-2004, 19:50
for "False Analogy" read through posts in the Gun Control thread, especially NMR and Faxon, the majority of comparisons by them are of the false analogy variety
which is a comparison in a logical debate between two things that cannot be logically related
All 'things' can be logically related on the very basis that they are all 'things'.
Chess Squares
10-09-2004, 19:51
All 'things' can be logically related on the very basis that they are all 'things'.
damn you smart ass!!
Tuesday Heights
10-09-2004, 19:54
Can you prove anything about logical fallacies without referring to anyone on NationStates?
Chess Squares
10-09-2004, 19:55
Can you prove anything about logical fallacies without referring to anyone on NationStates?
what?
Tuesday Heights
10-09-2004, 19:57
what?
Your whole basis that logical fallacies exist is based on arguments within the NationStates forum; can you prove anything about logical fallacies without flamebaiting posters into your argument?
Chess Squares
10-09-2004, 20:15
Your whole basis that logical fallacies exist is based on arguments within the NationStates forum; can you prove anything about logical fallacies without flamebaiting posters into your argument?
do you even know what logical fallacies are.. im just saying there are plenty of examples of this particular fallacy in that thread by those people
Reltaran
10-09-2004, 20:15
All 'things' can be logically related on the very basis that they are all 'things'.
Aye. Question is, at what point does any specific comparison become irrelevant?
Cannot think of a name
10-09-2004, 20:24
One english 1A class and suddenly everyones a rhetorisist. No, I don't know that that is a word or a position.....shut up.
Here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) is index of logical falacies. Now in addition to being grammar police people can be rhetorical police (which is actually more productive....)
Bodies Without Organs
10-09-2004, 20:28
Aye. Question is, at what point does any specific comparison become irrelevant?
Relevance is dependent on context, and so that question is unanswerable in a universal sense.
Cannot think of a name
10-09-2004, 20:33
Relevance is dependent on context, and so that question is unanswerable in a universal sense.
gain saying...which isn't a fallacy, it just irratates me. The thing works like this:
Apples are delicious, therefore tires should be delicious. See how that doesn't work?
But you knew that, you where just being contrary for fun......
Reltaran
10-09-2004, 20:36
Relevance is dependent on context, and so that question is unanswerable in a universal sense.
Which is exactly what I was saying -only in a less direct manner. Socratic method, y'know?
(note that I generally don't prefer said method)
Bodies Without Organs
10-09-2004, 20:56
gain saying...which isn't a fallacy, it just irratates me. The thing works like this:
Apples are delicious, therefore tires should be delicious. See how that doesn't work?
But you knew that, you where just being contrary for fun......
Nah: 'apples and tires are similar, in that they both have tastes'.
Chess Squares
11-09-2004, 00:31
Pertitio percipi which is roughly latin for "begging the question" also known as "circular logic"
see http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356246&page=1&pp=15 for examples
I'd ask for some specific examples, but I know CS isn't reading this.
One of my favorite fallacies I see constantly in the NS forums is the fallacy of division. Because something is true of a group it must be true for all members of the group.
A fine example of this fallacy comes from The Three Stooges, who were six different people (Larry, Currly, Moe, Curly Joe, Joe and Shemp - this list is debated by some scholars of The Stooges but is generally accepted as true). Therefore, since [i]The Three Stooges[i] were six different people, Moe Howard (one of the Stooges) was six different people (a rather extreme split personality I guess). This is absurd, Moe was only one person, so we have proven that The Three Stooges could not have been six people, and in fact could only have been one person - therefore Larry, Curly, Moe, Curly Joe, Joe and Schemp were all one person. Wait this cannot be true either, they are six different people . . ..
Something can be true for a group without being true of the members of the group. Some things can be said to true both for the group and for all of the members. These things are those which refer to the defintion of the group, for instance The Three Stooges were male and all members of The Three Stooges were male (well I have my doudts about Shemp Howard, but putatively Shemp was male).