New answers tagged

0

I would say it's not an argument but an observation, on the history of thought, and one skewed by the demands of storytelling, such as to risk being retrospectively fitted into an account. The spindle of the fates, represents the highest level technology widely found in very ancient Greece. But Ada Lovelace also was the first to understand computer ...


0

Such demands are not statements, so there is no logical fallacy as such. Rather, they raise the issue of the burden of proof. You could appeal to an inductive argument, along the lines of, "Here are three reliable sources; I challenge you to come up with any at all." Or you could accept that you are talking to a game-playing weasel and walk away.


1

It's not a logical fallacy, but a dishonest debating tactic, or "informal fallacy". 2 counters: Ask of your opponent that they apply the same standard of proof to their own claim. Usually they won't be able to. Depending on the situation, explain how what they're asking for is unrealistic. An informal discussion between friends can't be held to ...


0

Short Answer If your question is asking why does the stated material not constitute a good argument for the existence of God, the answer hinges upon the difference between propositions and propositional attitudes. I think God exists, because I was raised a Baptist. The book states that this wasn't an argument because it just stated a reason for why they ...


0

At least some skeptics/relativists have not realized that their view is self-refuting. If a person that does not possess strong critical thinking skills observes that people believe in different things around him/her, s/he can make a superficial deduction of "I see people believe in different things, so how can there be such a thing as truth?" It ...


0

It's too vague. Why would a clear demarcation be expected? How can you reasonably generalise, or list criteria all fields & cases? Discussion with others, as opposed to looking up references or using reasoning, has a couple of specific strengths: non-explicit queues like strength of conviction; being challenged on your own views/disagreements with; and ...


1

If it's good because the person suffers more severe consequences if the state goes after him, logically it would be even better for the state to torture the insulter to death, because that's more severe yet. "More satisfying" is a horrifically unjust criterion for the punishment of an action. It would also be logical to argue that your friend ...


1

I would draw the line between context and intention. If your context is e.g. political candidacy, then "but you're ugly" is a valid contextual argument: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201607/voting-our-eyes-attractive-candidates-get-more-votes If you're throwing an insult that has no context to support it as reasonable, ...


0

You are confusing 2 things (1) knowing what is the actual truth value of the premises , that is what situation corresponds to the actual world (2) knowing the truth value of the premises in all situations. The method of testing a reasoning for validity is : consider frst all logically possible situations consider , among these situations, those in which ...


0

Assuming that the account is correct, to know that an inference is deductively valid is to know that there are no situations in which the premisses are true and the conclusion is not. This is an excellent point brought by Priest. Consider the modus ponens: (A → B) ∧ A ⊢ B The implication (A → B) ∧ A ⊢ B is obviously true and we don't need to scan the ...


0

It seems he's questioning the classic formal logic's source of validity when it comes to any kind of logical forms having a universal quantified physical premise with its conclusion, such as the universal proposition Everyday the sun rises in the east on earth. Just look out of your window, there's no such logic printed in the sky. So from what source can we ...


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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included