Hot answers tagged

9

According to the Wikipedia definition: Ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The Latin name is doubly confusing in that it has a fairly modern origin and in that it relates to a specific example: The name of this fallacy is attributed to Dr. ...


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.


5

There is a recent philosophical novel entitled 36 Arguments for the Existence of God by philosopher Rebecca Goldstein (who happens to be married to Steven Pinker) which contains a catalog of 36 arguments (and the corresponding refutations). Other than this, I can't think of any recent literature on the subject, which as you note, is rather well worn.


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

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 ...


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

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

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

In my experience the conflict regarding the existence of God is and always will be stuck on the nature of faith, not on argumentation. No theories wholly prove or disprove the existence of God. Why then, you ask, isn't everyone an athiest? After all, we believe in things that are proven, not those that are merely not disproven. The answer is faith. It is by ...


3

I think the wiki page is a good place to start. I hadn't heard of 'Argumentum ad baculum' before, but it seems a fairly easy concept. So, the argument seems to have the following form: X argues in favor of P. P => Q. Q is harmful to X. Therefore, not P. A ridiculous instantiation of this form is: Farmer Joe thinks it's going to rain tomorrow. If it rains ...


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 ...


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

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

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

You may be reflecting on the splitting point between morality and ethics. In many ways, ethics = morality + math. It is not so much illegitimate as meaningless to address the part 'before the plus sign' with logic, since finding one's basic sentiments illogical means nothing -- they are one's basic sentiments and simply are not going away without ...


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 ...


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