Hot answers tagged

8

One possible objection is that you're claiming something doesn't exist merely because people have varying abilities for recognizing (or not) said candidate existant (which you seem to posit in premise 2). A heap of sand is made up of grains. So, a certain number of grains of sand comprises a heap. However, how many grains are needed to make a heap depends ...


6

The main thing to realize about informal fallacies is that they are all closely related to strong arguments, because it's the resemblance to a strong argument that makes them seem compelling. In this case, the fact that an substantial majority of the people who seemingly have relevant expertise on the issue have come to a unified conclusion does not prove ...


6

There is a theory of arguments, but I am afraid that the OP conception of argument is too idealized, and the notion of effective debate too narrow, to apply to most of them. If people argued from sets of established axioms and the only issue was whether those sets are equivalent they'd be proving mathematical theorems and meta-theorems of mathematical logic ...


5

The "tactic" is just the logical rule of reductio ad absurdum. The idea is that you show someone their thesis is false because it generates contradictions. You say p, and I show you if p, then q, so q. However, we have good reason to believe not q. Contradiction. Therefore, not p.


4

My answer to the question as stated is: None. Nobody commits a fallacy at any point in the dialogue, as far as I can see. This is utterly unsurprising--a pair of professional philosophers committing a logical fallacy in a published paper would be like a professional basketball player missing a wide open, no-pressure layup. It can happen, but it's really rare....


4

This sounds like an example of equivocation, which Wikipedia defines as follows the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). However, the term equivocation is mainly used for using two senses of ...


4

I've seen the expression "argument from ignorance is a fallacy" applied to this approach, but I firmly believe that "argument from ignorance" is merely another way of saying, "the burden of proof is on the person who postulates an argument". According to Wikipedia: When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the ...


4

Simplify your statements by providing only one argument per statement. Rules of thumb are: Resist the temptation to fight all of the opponent's wrong points (address only one of his arguments/claims/points) and resist the temptation to bring out your full arsenal of arguments from several perspectives (provide only one counterargument). Pick one point and ...


3

In most cases, it is impossible or impractical to find the truth 100% reliably. Sometimes it is not impossible, but impractical for me because it would take huge effort. So instead of establishing the truth with 100% certainty, or trying to do so, we often only try to find the truth with a reasonable degree of certainty, so we can make informed decisions ...


3

From the background story, I think it seems that Alice is committing a fallacy of appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populum). She is saying that her view is correct because it is supported by majority. It would be appeal to authority if Alice had the belief that the group that affirms her views had more authority than the other group (that denies her views)....


3

There are multiple options depending on how the anecdote is presented within the context of the argument. To take an example I recently came across, many autistic people like to be referred to like that instead of as "person with autism." If I point out a survey of 1k autistic adults showed a strong preference, and you reply "well, my sister has autism and ...


3

It is such an intriguing argument though I find it hard to buy your premise 1 and 2. In my understanding, the evidence you are talking about here means the possible basis for a belief or a disbelief, such as testimonium in Latin sense. What is vague here is what you mean by "proof." Personally, I tend to interpret "proof" as "demonstrandum." Since you will ...


3

Normative ethics is the study of prescriptive ethics, what should be done, as opposed to descriptive ethics, which studies ideas of the good. Normative ethics studies purposive action. It is also referred to as morality. Here is the Wikipedia There is also some good rounded out info here: Britanica


3

You are describing the No True Scotsman fallacy, which you might understand as a special form of equivocation (as in the good suggestion in another answer). NTS involves insulating a claim from counterexamples by appearing to use one of its terms (e.g. Capitalism) in a descriptive way, as describing and being made true by actual cases, but actually using it ...


3

There was a classic radio debate between Bertrand Russell and FC Copleston on the existence of God. I'm not sure if the full debate is online but here's about 20 minutes of it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz2GjKPbQds The debate took place many years ago but Russell is always worth listening to.


3

In an ordinary debate, the goal is (theoretically) functional --to reach a single, objective, best conclusion, proceeding from shared premises, via the route of eliminating falsehoods, confusions, and logical errors. A philosophical debate may appear superficially similar, but its actual goal is to illuminate and elaborate the shape and the implications of ...


3

My version is: "Dear opponent, stop, if you constantly leave the answer you do not belong here, our conversation is useless and let's not spend more time on empty negotiations ..." Edit "Dear opponent, if scientists doctors and microbiologists could not come up with vaccines against plague, cholera or smallpox, the epidemics of which were spread in Europe ...


3

Calling something a fallacy when it is not is of course a mistake. And, you're right: sometimes people will try to reject the conclusion of an argument by pointing out a fallacy with the argument, and that is called the Fallacy fallacy: just because I make a bad argument for some claim $ does not mean that claim X is suddenly false. Indeed, sometimes ...


2

Assuming that by "God" you mean an omnipotent, benificent and all-knowing supernatural entity, this question boils down to a rephrasing of the classic problem of "evil". And I think it was argued by Epicur quite sufficently thousand of years ago: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? ...


2

Deontic logic is concerned with what is optional, recommended, forbidden, etc. Doxastic logic, on the other hand, is about beliefs. I would argue that policies (as per the OP) can be expressed by using deontic logic and perhaps doxastic logic as well if you want to capture actual adherence to stated policies. As a practical example, ISO/IEC 24744, a ...


2

Reading your question, my top concern would relate to some odd constellations of terms: Is it (a) hypocritical, false, deceitful, or in bad faith to try to win (b) a moral, political or ethical argument by (c) using logical methods instead of non-rational ones (like insults)? In cluster (a), you're grouping "hypocritical, false, deceitful, and bad faith,"...


2

Fallacy, shamallacy -- don't try to short circuit analysis by playing pin the fallacy on the argument. Whether Alice's statement is an appeal to authority depends in detail on what her intended meaning is, and how Bob interprets it. If Alice intends (or Bob interprets) the statement as indicating that "we should defer to these people on this issue ...


2

A name that aptly describes the person or thing it refers to is an aptronym; one which describes the opposite attributes is an inaptronym. There is a hypothesis that when a person is named a certain way, they tend to behave in a way that fits their name; this is called nominative determinism. There does not seem to be a term describing the opposite idea; if ...


2

You cannot defeat him because you are insisting in something that is not correct. Gravity is not a "fact". Gravity is a theory. It happens to be a theory that satisfactorily explains most observable facts (or, more precisely, most of the observable facts that it seeks to explain). You don't need it to be a fact; actually, you would be ontologically ...


2

You might be thinking of the fallacy of four terms, where a syllogism arrives at a fallacious conclusion by using two different meanings for the same word. Wikipedia also has an entry about this fallacy.


2

Is it sophistry to underline that a logical conclusion might stem from an ideology? Ideology without logic (science or reason) is sophistry. Ideology is the advocacy of an idea or theory. The Socratic method is to define what is not known, "aporia", and to devise methods of inquiry to discover the the truth of what is to be known, as embodied in the ...


2

There are two possibilities that we can consider here. The first, as you brought up, is the False Dichotomy Fallacy. Our person assumes there is only two possibilities, A and B, so after eliminating A she believes she has proven B. The second fallacy is referred to as the Blind Loyalty Fallacy. Our person assumes their source cannot be misinformed/...


2

As a parent, I was often presented with similar arguments from my kids. I can see at least two fallacies in the scenario, depending on interpretations: equivocation and denying the antecedent. Equivocation The argument is based on the ambiguous construal of the content of choice. For the parents, the content of choice is this: "Clean your room or else (...


2

In a certain sense your protagonist is correct. If your starting position is that logic and reason are correct, then applying logic to conclude that logic and reason are correct will always be circular. The trick is to not get all "truthy" about it. Logic is a useful tool for drawing inferences from a set of statements. That's all, nothing more mystical ...


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