39

Its a funny thing. Like David Blomstrom, I don't think this is actually a fallacy. The trick is that, in order to have a logical fallacy, one must have a logical argument. This consists of premises and conclusions. So what are the conclusions? Person 1 - Premise: "The US government engaged in a targeted and precise campaign to destroy Native American ...


21

Aristotle's syllogistic logic is too weak for serious work. It does not readily express multi-place predicates. You cannot express two-place relations like, "John loves Mary", or three-place relations like, "John is standing between Mary and Joanne", without using some odd-looking additional apparatus for converting n-place predicates ...


13

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure if any of these qualify as fallacies - a reminder that not all propaganda is fallacious. Native Americans were fighting each other before white people even got here. Humans have been fighting each other from the beginning of time. That's literally true. Whether or not it's justification for European colonization is a matter ...


7

From a modern point of view, Aristotle's Logic is a subset of predicate logic, called Monadic predicate logic: monadic predicate calculus (also called monadic first-order logic) is the fragment of first-order logic in which all relation symbols are monadic (that is, they take only one argument). All atomic formulas are thus of the form P(x). The ...


6

As the others have remarked, the counter-arguments you face are factually more or less defendable. Nonetheless, they bother us. Why is that? Because the actual dissent is in what wasn't said. When somebody like you points out the less-than-admirable behavior of the European intruders in the Americas they try to change the prevalent narrative. The typical ...


6

I would not say this is a fallacy, instead it is, to put in modern terms, a frame challenge. So, the second party in your little scenario is saying: Europeans came to the Americas and raped and plundered their way across several continents —- what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Even if we take it as a given that their behavior was bad, ...


6

That's not a fallacy at all, but a deductive argument form, aka modus tollens.


6

This is just normal Modus_tollens or called denying the consequent of classic logic of syllogism The form of a modus tollens argument resembles a syllogism, with two premises and a conclusion: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. The first premise is a conditional ("if-then") claim, such as P implies Q. The second premise is an assertion that ...


4

It's, Any idiot can choose a frame (of time) within which nothing matters. I quote this from Jordan B. Peterson "12 Rules of Life" chapter 4 p.87: That's a cliche of nihilism, like the phrase, In a million years, who's going to know the difference? The proper response to that statement is not, Well, then, everything is meaningless. It's, Any idiot ...


4

Yes, this is a valid argument - if the premises were true, the conclusion would also be true. However, premise 1 is not true, so the argument is unsound.


3

In logic an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of symbolic sentences called formulas. The validity of an argument can be tested using the corresponding formulas: if some "interpretation" ...


3

In addition to Hypnosifl's comment, there is another way to think about what is happening here. When making statements about the real world, as opposed to mathematical statements, we take for granted that such statements are typically merely highly probable, not certain. When the prosecutor says, "if the accused man committed the murder, he had an ...


3

I think it is easy to characterize this sort of invalid rebuttal, but for some reason it hasn't been said: It is an excuse. Essentially, instead of addressing the argument, it gives an excuse for the indefensible behaviour by saying that "others did it too". Well, murderers do not have the right to excuse themselves with "but others kill ...


2

Short Answer Yes. The fallacy is known as false equivalence, and in English is often described with the idiom 'comparing apples and oranges'. Long Answer In your example, both examples, murder and cutting in line are ethical violations, however, to conflate the two as equally abhorrent morally would be a profound injustice. (Yes, intended.) Why is it ...


2

The usual rejection is the principle of falsifiability, also known as the verification principle. It demands that for any statement to mean anything, it must be possible to test it for truth or falsehood. Untestable statements are meaningless, they are "not even wrong". This principle pretty much defines the logical positivist school of philosophy, ...


2

I'm going attempt rolling Bumble's and Hypnosofil's responses into something and add a dash of background NB: This has been challenged as a mischaracterization. See the comments below. Short Answer Yes and no. One way logic can be dichotomized is between the formal and informal, and the answer to your question depends on the types of logic you choose. ...


2

No. Science is a community with rules and an ethos of consensus and coherence. The choice of research topics is a choice with an ethical dimension and, practically speaking, impinges on limited resources. While the range of viable research topics may be very broad, it will be limited in some sense if the coherence and effectiveness of "science" as ...


2

One has to remember that Dawkins is crusading against the anti-science Christian fundamentalist movement that has succeeded in perverting the science curricula taught by some American schools and is threatening others likewise. But he is almost as bad as them, getting carried away by his own rhetoric and applying it out of its domain of validity. For example ...


2

Disagreements of Analytical Philosophy and the Philosophy of Language I'm going to respond from the position of someone who is clueless enough about the philosophy of language to try to relate the state affairs. You are keen to note that philosophy can be viewed as the process of converting intuition to language. In the analytical tradition, the literal ...


2

A real-world argument doesn't just involve the statements explicitly made, but also the implicit context the participants place those statements in. One obvious point here is the implicit referent of "it," and this is a piece of context you agree on. However, there' is also the issue of the implicit justification for the statements being made along ...


2

When you say "from A and B we can conclude (informally) C," there is a great deal of variation in whether a listener accepts it. People have background assumptions and methods of thinking - often not stated or known in words - which lead them to either conclude C or deny C to varying degrees of confidence. Does the listener accept A and B? If ...


2

You are quite right! Which is one reason why obsessing over fallacies can be misleading and unhelpful when it comes to assessing arguments. Merely pointing out that an argument has the form of a known fallacy is not a sufficient reason to consider the argument defective. Firstly, a minor point about terminology. You seem to be using the word 'inductive' to ...


2

First we can paraphrase your argument as such: If cigarette is the cause of cancer, then non-smoker will not get cancer. This can be called Fallacy of the single cause as reference: The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy, is an informal fallacy of questionable ...


2

Whether you were raised a Baptist or not has obviously nothing to do with whether god exists or not, but it has everything to do with you thinking she exists. Your sentence “I think god exists because I was raised a baptist” can be interpreted in two ways, one that is makes the statement completely wrong and one that makes it correct. English language can be ...


2

"If a argument is deductively valid we don't care if premises are true or not right?" Well, valid means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well (one way of describing logical validity is that if you have some premises P and a conclusion Q, then the statement P -> Q is a tautology). Note his comment "to ...


1

For me, this sounds like a borderline fallacy. If the speaker had said "presumably" or "likely" instead of "must," then there probably would be no fallacy at all. However, the speaker is linking two phenomena together based on coincidental evidence. It turns out there is a fallacy called a questionable-cause logical fallacy. ...


1

It is unlikely Descartes, Socrates, Hume or Popper - having strong perceptual foundations - would be taken in. However, figuring out human psychological 'defence' mechanisms helps if you have availability to information about them, the modern canons of which postdate all but Popper. Notably, splitting & projection and projective identification (...


1

Let me conditionally disagree with you regarding point 1. The argument that 'there are multiple religions with contradictory sets of beliefs. So, all the religions have to be incorrect or God doesn't exist' is not a good argument. But I don't see Dawkins forwarded that argument here. Rather what I see is him simply stating that 'All religions cannot be True ...


1

To say of two sentences that they are logically equivalent is usually understood to mean something like they are true under the same interpretations, or they share the same models. To use less technical language, there is no possible way for one of them to come out true and the other false. Any two contradictions are logically equivalent, since there is no ...


1

Short Answer There is no royal road to a strong argument. It takes a lot of diligence and mastery of a number of subject matters including mastery of the facts of the domain of discourse, formal and informal logic, linguistics, argumentation theory, and having a good range of argumentation examples. Professional philosophers spend their whole lives trying to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible