Hot answers tagged

57

Technically speaking a fallacy is an invalid argument. In practice, what we would expect to see is two people starting from shared premises, and reaching contradictory conclusions, because (at least one) has made a logical error, or fallacy. But in this case, there are no shared premises. This is actually Mr. Black's biggest strategic error. It happens ...


33

You need to distinguish at least three cases here. Case #1: To believe consciously, at the same time , and with full understanding A and not A. In other words, this is the case where simultaneously believe that the world is flat and the world is spherical at the same time. This seems difficult if not impossible and might represent a feature of the human ...


20

No fallacy, two people have stated their opinions The whole issue resolves itself quickly with one small clarification (my addition in boldface) Mr. Black then confronts Mr. Pink one day at lunch, claiming that it is his opinion that all new age magic power b.s. is in-fact, nonsense Mr. Pink then asks in return: "Why does it matter? Why are you so [...


12

Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge. There is a recent view, however, ...


11

You can't really identify a logical fallacy unless someone makes a claim, and the only claim your question describes is this: Mr. Black denies all claims that cannot be proved by evidence. Mr. Black is committing the fallacy of over-generalisation. Because it is clear that there are some claims that must be 'accepted' without evidence. Otherwise Mr. ...


10

'Mr. Black denies all claims that cannot be proved by evidence.' It's easy to rug-pull Mr Black if he makes this claim, as a previous answer shows. But he has no need to make this claim. It is unnecessary. All Mr Black need do, and would do in real life I should guess, is to argue against Mr Pink that by the standards of evidence they both use outside the ...


10

Ugh. Let me rephrase the original post: Mr. Brown practices a lifestyle of scientific empiricism. Although Mr. Brown doesn't outwardly proclaim his beliefs, he passively makes them known to anyone in his life and frequently drops amoral bits of wisdom. Mr. White believes that the Bible is the one and literal truth. Mr. White then ...


9

God is entirely simple (not composed of parts), and God is immutable. God does not change in time; God is not in time; nothing about God changes. If this is so, how can God, for example, prohibit the Jews from eating pork before Christ, yet after Christ God allows those Jews who converted to Christianity to do so? Christians believe the God of the Old ...


8

According to Eric Schwitzgebel, Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a ...


7

I'm looking for a little more than "A lot of adults believe it so it's OK". In other words, you are not willing to accept the premise that it is nothing but because "a lot of adults believe it so". But what if that is the correct answer, and anything else would just be a contrivance? My conclusion is in fact a little more nuanced but this is a good ...


7

In general, what makes it properly basic is that it is justified. The word "properly," in this context, means "justified." A properly basic belief is a belief that has two properties: (1) it is justified and (2) it is not justified by inferences from more basic propositional beliefs (a "propositional belief" is a belief whose content is a proposition rather ...


6

Atheism is a belief that there are no deities (from the Greek ἄθεος, or "without gods"). It has nothing to do with their "existence," "minds," "personalities," or "selves." There are also degrees of atheism. There is the hardest of atheism, which believes there are no gods, and there are softer atheisms, which are not certain there is a god. (The latter ...


5

What problems arise in responding to Gettier problems with an assertion "the formal definition of knowledge, as justified true belief, does not need to exactly correspond to intuitive notions of knowledge."? Gettier problems are that some ideas that allegedly satisfy the formula of being justified true belief are not knowledge. One example is suppose ...


5

The question reminds of the problem with Cartesian doubt and of the Clifford-James debates (somewhat poorly named because Descartes is not actually subject to this type of doubt). Early in the Meditations, Descartes looks at the consequences for a species of radical skepticism. Here, he looks at the most radical denial of our ability to trust our faculties ...


5

One possible way to answer this question is to hypothesize that God wants good things for people at all times, but what those things are change as human circumstances change --even if God does not change. For example, at one point in human history, it was necessary for people to have large families because so few children survived to adulthood. Accordingly,...


5

Let me propose as a working definition of religion, that it is a set of rituals, practices and beliefs organized around a "legitimate" attempt to understand the assumed deeper metaphysical realities of the world. NOTE: This definition does not require you to accept that there ARE deeper metaphysical realities, only that there exist legitimate attempts to ...


5

The problem is that both Mr. Pink and Mr. Black have made a commitment to a position. They made a choice and they are now going to rationalize their position to each other. That neither side can convince the other suggests that evidence and logic underdetermines a unique position. See the SEP’s Underdetermination of a Scientific Theory article for more on ...


5

Welcome George. The fact is true. She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true. These conditions are not sufficient ('not enough') for knowledge because the fact may be true and she, X, may have justifiable reasons to conclude that it is true but those justifiable reasons may lead X only accidentally to conclude that it is true. Suppose X is ...


4

Focusing on my own religious views, I'd say something similar to the other posters as the solution. First, God is not in time, His existence precedes time and therefore is independent of it. In the Nicene Creed are the words [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages So, in this view, it ...


4

I believe what you are describing isn't a fallacy so much as a cognitive bias. In this case, the closest cognitive bias that fits your description is motivated reasoning where "when people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled 'motivated reasoning'. In other words, 'rather than search rationally for ...


4

There's an ongoing discussing here between comments and answers about the definition of contradiction as asked by the OP. Since the question asked about the realm of logic, I'm going to provide an answer assuming that contradiction means the fact of statement A and not A to be held true at the same time. OP asked why is it that humans cannot believe in ...


4

The problem is one of terminology and effective communication. Suppose we have a mathematics paper that includes the line, "For the purposes of this proof, we refer to numbers of the form 2^2^n + 1 as 'prime'", and then begins to prove all sorts of things about prime numbers. This is terrible use of terminology, because it uses the word "prime" to mean ...


4

They are belief systems. Any conjecture on a situation that has no proven answer is a belief. No exceptions. Nobody knows for certain the meaning or lack of meaning in the universe and thus any opinion on the matter is exactly that, opinion, belief, idea, or philosophy.


4

I think the limit you're running into is the idea the you either believe in something or you don't. Its trivial to show countless examples where that is insufficient. One approach you could take to reconciling this is to create a tiered system of belief. This would still be an approximation, but it could be enough of a model to help. For a predicate P: "...


4

The position in question has been called weak agnosticism (also "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism"). Here are the relevant definitions from Wikipedia. Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the ...


4

You have a scope of negation problem, if "I don't believe that P". You could be denying having any belief, meaning that you are relatively agnostic as to P, which is appropriate if you haven't seen enough evidence. You could also be persuaded that it is actually false to assert P (you believe ~P). Taken as a whole, if P is false, then ~P is true -- assuming ...


4

It really depends on what you mean by "stronger". Your question seems to be looking for a way to make two very different concepts of belief somehow comparable. There are a few ways to go about looking at that, but we first need to get clear on the two different versions of "belief" in your question. You "believe" axioms for the sake of argument. Let's ...


4

According to the Duhem-Quine thesis and the underdetermination of theories in philosophy of science, no theory can ever be completely dismissed by empirical data (See Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism" 1951). I will give you two examples, one historical and one hypothetical, to illustrate my point: In 1845, Newton's theory of motion was contradicted by ...


4

Indeed, as jobermark noted, you started backward (implicitly) from the assumption that God does not exist and then proceeded to make your point. As a rule of thumb, you can say any type of question on StackOverflow about arguments to "demonstrate" the existence or non-existence of God is likely to be a fallacy. The reason is very simple: questions such as "...


4

This is an interesting question, but it has so many layers that it is hard to answer it well. First, the question itself asks "is X blameworthy?" And this implies that there is a category of moral blame. This implies a moral theory where there are epistemic requirements for moral agency. The first article that comes to mind here is GEM Anscombe's "Modern ...


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