New answers tagged

0

The fallacy in question is a relative of the classic syllogistic Four Terms Fallacy. The four terms fallacy occurs when we use a term with multiple senses, and subtly (or unsubtly) shift from one sense to another midstream. My favorite example is: P1: Nothing is better than complete happiness P2: A ham sandwich is better than nothing C: A ham sandwich is ...


0

This question is all over the place, so I'm going to cut to the chase and explain the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in simple terms, and then work from there. The (not quite) Fallacy. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is more of a caution about logic than a proper fallacy; that's typical of most informal fallacies. It rests on the understanding that there are two ...


1

I found this quote interesting, so I looked it up. It appears in in the Collected Works of C.G Jung, Volume 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings. Jung gives this example to illustrate what he calls reductio in primam figuram, which he claims is a logical device used by Freud. He explains this in the passage that precedes the one in the post: Freud ...


0

No, it usually wouldn't be fallacious. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. It occurs when the rules used to form a conclusion from a set of premises don't logically necessitate a true conclusion. If I say, "experts say X is true, therefore X is true," then that is a mistake in reasoning because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the ...


0

If you assume perfect determinism (and having the necessary knowledge to confirm the question at hand), then your claim say is correct. Opinion does not matter. The simplest example of such a case is mathematics. No matter how many experts agree that 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't matter until there is irrefutable proof. However, real life is usually not as cut-and-...


1

The superlative 'best' is an extension of the term 'better', which compares values on some measurable dimension or dimensions. A community of experts has access to acumen, skills, tools, and methods for making such comparisons analytically; as such, their assessment of 'best' within their particular domain will be far more useful and accurate than the ...


1

The most straightforward way to refute an argument is to provide a counter example, and what you're calling "the brain in a vat argument" isn't an argument at all, so here's what I suspect is happening (I'm going out on a limb here, so if I'm wrong please just tell me instead of downvoting and I'll delete this answer): Most likely, you're making an ...


2

This is an appeal to authority. Whether or not it's fallacious would depend on the details (and whether it's fallacious is also fairly subjective). In a debate I would probably say it's fallacious if it's a core part of the point you're trying to make in a debate. If you were arguing, for example, in favour of veganism, someone might say "meat is ...


7

This is less a question about logic (which the term "fallacy" would indicate) than a question about the theory of science; perhaps it would be better to ask "how reliable is an opinion of experts?" Typically, of course, the answer will be more reliable than any single opinion because the chance that a majority of any number of experts is ...


9

Ullah's answer gets to the heart of the question. The term fallacious implies the use of a standard of logical conclusion and in that strict sense, it is false to argue that a conclusion by experts can by a link in a syllogism. I would add that once we are thinking about how reliable experts are, it is interesting to consider how any opinion was arrived at. ...


1

Argument from Authority is generally fallacious if used on its own. But reliance on authorities can sometimes be justified in conjunction with other evidence, which aims to demonstrate that there is more objective evidence for the conclusion than against it, that the experts have considered both sides, that the experts are competent, free, and motivated to ...


31

Well, if I asked a community of non-experts how to perform key-hole surgery and I also asked a community of doctors, I am more likely to get a better answer from the second group. But of course, these doctors may not be surgeons as so they might plead ignorance. The point is the advice is more likely to be correct. It's a question of probability and not ...


0

This could potentially be argument from ignorance, as they’re suggesting there is no definitive proof that vaccines don’t cause autism.


Top 50 recent answers are included