- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
too bad we can't ban people from p&n for 2 weeks for committing a logical fallacy
- Thread starter ElFenix
- Start date
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, I've certainly seen more than enough of the following fallacy around here lately:
that would eliminate every single lib/dem and make it pretty boring around here
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, I've certainly seen more than enough of the following fallacy around here lately:
that would eliminate every single lib/dem and make it pretty boring around here
No, the appeal to pity and appeal to emotion fallacies would eliminate all the liberals. Appeal to tradition would eliminate the conservatives. Only ones left would be Libertarians.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
i'd much rather the FCC start fining stations that broadcast blatant lies, and engage is logical fallacies. the promotion of ignorance over the public airwaves is the true "indecency" on the airwaves these days, not someones boob.
of course this would put the entire right wing radio/publishing/fox news out of business.... not gonna happen.
as for pn users... isn't there a guy that still uses pascals wager in his sig? debunked for hundreds of years and still he clings.... such is blindness.
of course this would put the entire right wing radio/publishing/fox news out of business.... not gonna happen.
as for pn users... isn't there a guy that still uses pascals wager in his sig? debunked for hundreds of years and still he clings.... such is blindness.
If people were banned for 2 weeks for every time they had jacked logic... we would only see EVERYONE (Self included) post once every 2 weeks.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
The problem as I see it is that people feel bad about themselves and identify with their beliefs because those beliefs have some imagined worth in the world. But this happens on an unconscious level and when somebody comes along that has all his self-worth tied up in an opposing point of view all hell breaks loose. Generally one side is as loony as the other because, while each opinion embraces an aspect of truth, it is only partial and exclusive of the truth on the other side. That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing.
Anyway, because all this happens unconsciously, this attachment to ideas, the underlying assumptions on which our opinions are founded remain invisible. Most of us have never carefully, mercilessly, and to the root examined what we believe and why, it is true, if at all, because we believe what we believe, not because we seek truth, but as tection for our egos. For those that have made such an inner analysis and done it thoroughly, my opinion is that what they find is nothing at all. We in fact know nothing. We only believe in a thousand pounds of cabbage.
Can you live with the realization that you know nothing at all? Can you live in modesty? What is the fate of a mind that is empty of truth; what is a man who is stripped of everything? What can't be taken away?
I would suggest that if you have become completely aware of your own need to BS, you will recognize it in others. You won't need to memorize a list of the fallacious arguments when you've seen that every argument is false.
When the thinker reaches his last thought he dies, but the heart beats on.
Anyway, because all this happens unconsciously, this attachment to ideas, the underlying assumptions on which our opinions are founded remain invisible. Most of us have never carefully, mercilessly, and to the root examined what we believe and why, it is true, if at all, because we believe what we believe, not because we seek truth, but as tection for our egos. For those that have made such an inner analysis and done it thoroughly, my opinion is that what they find is nothing at all. We in fact know nothing. We only believe in a thousand pounds of cabbage.
Can you live with the realization that you know nothing at all? Can you live in modesty? What is the fate of a mind that is empty of truth; what is a man who is stripped of everything? What can't be taken away?
I would suggest that if you have become completely aware of your own need to BS, you will recognize it in others. You won't need to memorize a list of the fallacious arguments when you've seen that every argument is false.
When the thinker reaches his last thought he dies, but the heart beats on.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
That's about the biggest load of non-sensical B.S. I have ever read. We know nothing? Truth is solving paradoxes? A thousand pounds of cabbage? I'm sorry to say but Whisky Tango Foxtrot is all that comes to mind when reading this.
In any event there is a branch of philosophy called Logic. If you study this branch of philosophy you will discover that arguments that are in a written language have two elements: premises and conclusions. There is a method of determining if the conclusion follows the premises, you explicate the argument into its basic logical form and after it is in that form you determine if it is a logical fallacy or not based on the rules of logic. Sometimes you can literally replace the words with logical symbols. This tests the validity of the argument.
Example of a valid argument:
It is bad to be in debt.
If it is bad to be in debt, consumers should avoid debt.
Consumers should avoid debt.
The other way of determining if an argument is acceptable or not is to find out if each of the premises are true. This tests the soundness of an argument. You can have an argument that is totally valid according to the rules of logic but because it has untrue premises the argument is unacceptable.
This applies to deductive reasonsing, I imagine that inductive reasoning is more complicated to prove or disprove depending on the analysis of the reasoning.
In the real world showing an argument is invalid can sometimes be easy or sometimes be difficult depending on how complex the argument is and how many premises it contains. Showing an argument is unsound should be straightforward, you have to attack the truths of the premises, perhaps with scientific or mathematical reasoning.
So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes or thousands of pounds of cabbage.
This doen'st mean we can't make logical arguments, what is underlying is unimportant in the marketplace of ideas.
"90% of our opinions are based on emotion, the other 10% logic"
-Justice Rehnquist.
We all come to our conclusions for esoteric reasons. It's in supporting those reasons with logic that we can all make arguable points that allow those with differing subscriptions come to a conclusion.
Such is the outcome of error, but with focus on and submission to the positive the thinker never reaches a last thought.
that is to say the wages of sin is death but salvation is free to all who have faith in Jesus.
Faith. Humbleness in the sight of the single bright incomprehensible truth makes you free in all else.
My bad, I thought you were in law school there. At any rate, nothing is good about ad homs. However, human nature typically dictates discussion regardless of classical logic.Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: burnedout
Those profs over at UT have already brainwashed you, I see.
?
already. heck, i graduated years ago
what is good about ad hominems?
D: That's about the biggest load of non-sensical B.S. I have ever read. We know nothing? Truth is solving paradoxes? A thousand pounds of cabbage? I'm sorry to say but Whisky Tango Foxtrot is all that comes to mind when reading this.
M: What did you expect. You think you know something. Notice too that your words are a mere assertion, although what's to follow is, I suppose, your attempt to back up this thesis.
D: In any event there is a branch of philosophy called Logic. If you study this branch of philosophy you will discover that arguments that are in a written language have two elements: premises and conclusions. There is a method of determining if the conclusion follows the premises, you explicate the argument into its basic logical form and after it is in that form you determine if it is a logical fallacy or not based on the rules of logic. Sometimes you can literally replace the words with logical symbols. This tests the validity of the argument.
Example of a valid argument:
It is bad to be in debt.
If it is bad to be in debt, consumers should avoid debt.
Consumers should avoid debt.
M: Hehe, all well and good when you are talking about truth with a small t, but for anything important this method is useless. The only really interesting question in your example is contained in the given. What is bad? You assume you already know. But what you actually know is nothing. You do not know what is 'the bad'.
D: The other way of determining if an argument is acceptable or not is to find out if each of the premises are true. This tests the soundness of an argument. You can have an argument that is totally valid according to the rules of logic but because it has untrue premises the argument is unacceptable.
This applies to deductive reasonsing, I imagine that inductive reasoning is more complicated to prove or disprove depending on the analysis of the reasoning.
In the real world showing an argument is invalid can sometimes be easy or sometimes be difficult depending on how complex the argument is and how many premises it contains. Showing an argument is unsound should be straightforward, you have to attack the truths of the premises, perhaps with scientific or mathematical reasoning.
M: Where did you attack my premises with any of these things. You attacked me because I scared you. That's what comments like 'Whisky Tango Foxtrot' imply. I rocked your security blanket and made you feel crazy and you projected that feeling of being crazy on me. You have never examined yourself so you don't see. You haven't studied yourself with out mercy. It's easy to spot a phony if you know how you used to lie, if you've cut down all the useless props that keep you from falling into the empty pit of realization that one knows nothing at all.
D: So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes or thousands of pounds of cabbage.
M: You haven't arrived at truth, you arrived at a parlor trick. You can prove that 1+1=2 by definition. Big F'ing deal. What is the meaning of life, my friend? Apply your rational logic to that. You are attached to logic because it makes you feel important. You actually know nothing important. What is important! Nothing. Importance is an illusion, no?
M: What did you expect. You think you know something. Notice too that your words are a mere assertion, although what's to follow is, I suppose, your attempt to back up this thesis.
D: In any event there is a branch of philosophy called Logic. If you study this branch of philosophy you will discover that arguments that are in a written language have two elements: premises and conclusions. There is a method of determining if the conclusion follows the premises, you explicate the argument into its basic logical form and after it is in that form you determine if it is a logical fallacy or not based on the rules of logic. Sometimes you can literally replace the words with logical symbols. This tests the validity of the argument.
Example of a valid argument:
It is bad to be in debt.
If it is bad to be in debt, consumers should avoid debt.
Consumers should avoid debt.
M: Hehe, all well and good when you are talking about truth with a small t, but for anything important this method is useless. The only really interesting question in your example is contained in the given. What is bad? You assume you already know. But what you actually know is nothing. You do not know what is 'the bad'.
D: The other way of determining if an argument is acceptable or not is to find out if each of the premises are true. This tests the soundness of an argument. You can have an argument that is totally valid according to the rules of logic but because it has untrue premises the argument is unacceptable.
This applies to deductive reasonsing, I imagine that inductive reasoning is more complicated to prove or disprove depending on the analysis of the reasoning.
In the real world showing an argument is invalid can sometimes be easy or sometimes be difficult depending on how complex the argument is and how many premises it contains. Showing an argument is unsound should be straightforward, you have to attack the truths of the premises, perhaps with scientific or mathematical reasoning.
M: Where did you attack my premises with any of these things. You attacked me because I scared you. That's what comments like 'Whisky Tango Foxtrot' imply. I rocked your security blanket and made you feel crazy and you projected that feeling of being crazy on me. You have never examined yourself so you don't see. You haven't studied yourself with out mercy. It's easy to spot a phony if you know how you used to lie, if you've cut down all the useless props that keep you from falling into the empty pit of realization that one knows nothing at all.
D: So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes or thousands of pounds of cabbage.
M: You haven't arrived at truth, you arrived at a parlor trick. You can prove that 1+1=2 by definition. Big F'ing deal. What is the meaning of life, my friend? Apply your rational logic to that. You are attached to logic because it makes you feel important. You actually know nothing important. What is important! Nothing. Importance is an illusion, no?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter