Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Logical fallacy or no?

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

I would say that it is a personal attack (ad hominem) and non sequitur.

(wtf spell check I'm pretty sure I spelled it right....?)

Now I understand that you have the premise and the conclusion, but you also have attack on the person, and a step that makes no logical sense.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:16:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You have a circular argument as well. It is raining, because there is water on the sidewalk, but there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:19:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:16:13 AM, Sky_ace25 wrote:
You have a circular argument as well. It is raining, because there is water on the sidewalk, but there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining.

There is no circular argument. She never states the "there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:29:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:19:20 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:16:13 AM, Sky_ace25 wrote:
You have a circular argument as well. It is raining, because there is water on the sidewalk, but there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining.

There is no circular argument. She never states the "there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining."

^
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:37:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:19:20 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:16:13 AM, Sky_ace25 wrote:
You have a circular argument as well. It is raining, because there is water on the sidewalk, but there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining.

There is no circular argument. She never states the "there is water on the sidewalk because it is raining."

Fair enough.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:41:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

I would say that it is a personal attack (ad hominem) and non sequitur.

(wtf spell check I'm pretty sure I spelled it right....?)

Now I understand that you have the premise and the conclusion, but you also have attack on the person, and a step that makes no logical sense.

You seriously had to ask? Come on now.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 11:43:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:41:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

I would say that it is a personal attack (ad hominem) and non sequitur.

(wtf spell check I'm pretty sure I spelled it right....?)

Now I understand that you have the premise and the conclusion, but you also have attack on the person, and a step that makes no logical sense.

You seriously had to ask? Come on now.

Its a dispute between me and someone on a facebook debate group that I made.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 1:05:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Looks like a pretty sound argument to me.

>.>
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 1:57:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk:

Not necessarily. For instance, there could be something blocking the rain (a tarp, for instance), or there is not enough information available. The rain and sidewalk could be in different countries for all we know.

Not enough information.

2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him:

Subjective argument.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 1:59:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Matt is stupid and ugly.

That ties the whole argument together.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 2:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 1:57:41 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk:

Not necessarily. For instance, there could be something blocking the rain (a tarp, for instance), or there is not enough information available. The rain and sidewalk could be in different countries for all we know.

Not enough information.

The question isn't whether or not it's sound, but whether or not it's valid, which it is. Having a faulty premise doesn't make an argument fallacious.

2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him:

Subjective argument.

Just an irrelevant, useless step. Doesn't detract from the argument, though.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:49:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Valid argument, sure.
The only thing thing that matters is if the person making said argument tried to phrase the second premise as integral to the entire syllogism.
Then you have another problem entirely.
I miss the old members.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 2:27:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/29/2011 1:57:41 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk:

Not necessarily. For instance, there could be something blocking the rain (a tarp, for instance), or there is not enough information available. The rain and sidewalk could be in different countries for all we know.

Not enough information.

The question isn't whether or not it's sound, but whether or not it's valid, which it is. Having a faulty premise doesn't make an argument fallacious.:

The ocean looks blue. The oceans are made of water. Therefore water is blue.

Is that valid? If you were to scoop up sea water in a glass, would it be a deep blue?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:56:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him

Wow... that's not nice.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:00:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

Yes, there is a fallacy, ad hominem.

Note that if you remove 2 since it is not a part of the argument, pointless and has no relevance to the conclusion, you would effectively 'cure' your argument .
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:05:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:00:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

Yes, there is a fallacy, ad hominem.

Note that if you remove 2 since it is not a part of the argument, pointless and has no relevance to the conclusion, you would effectively 'cure' your argument .
I checked and a informal fallacy doesn't require all the truths to be coherent.

Scratch the first comment.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The syllogism is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. The only issue is that it's poorly constructed because there is an irrelevant premise.

And btw, J.Kenyon's response to Paradigm is correct.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:14:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:10:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The syllogism is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. The only issue is that it's poorly constructed because there is an irrelevant premise.

And btw, J.Kenyon's response to Paradigm is correct.

This.
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:15:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:55:09 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:27:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/29/2011 1:57:41 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk:

Not necessarily. For instance, there could be something blocking the rain (a tarp, for instance), or there is not enough information available. The rain and sidewalk could be in different countries for all we know.

Not enough information.

The question isn't whether or not it's sound, but whether or not it's valid, which it is. Having a faulty premise doesn't make an argument fallacious.

The ocean looks blue. The oceans are made of water. Therefore water is blue.

Is that valid? If you were to scoop up sea water in a glass, would it be a deep blue?

That's a completely different type of argument. The one lovelife presented was a simple modus ponens statement. It doesn't matter how absurd the premise is, it's still a valid argument. For example.

All dogs have green fur and three heads.
Sparky is a dog.
Therefore, Sparky has green fur and three heads.

Obviously, this argument is unsound insofar as dogs don't have green fur and three heads, however, that doesn't make it fallacious, it's merely predicated on a faulty premise. Your example only works if "water" and "ocean" are analytically equivalent, which they're not. That's called a modo hoc fallacy.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:38:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:00:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

Yes, there is a fallacy, ad hominem.

No there isn't. It is an insult, not an ad hom. An ad hom must be tied into the argument itself, from a property of the target. There is no 'because Matt is X' portion of the argument.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:38:34 PM, Puck wrote:
At 1/29/2011 5:00:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

Yes, there is a fallacy, ad hominem.

No there isn't. It is an insult, not an ad hom. An ad hom must be tied into the argument itself, from a property of the target. There is no 'because Matt is X' portion of the argument.

Darn you, Puck! This what I was going to say.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:49:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:46:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/29/2011 5:38:34 PM, Puck wrote:
At 1/29/2011 5:00:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 1/29/2011 11:14:53 AM, lovelife wrote:
"the following argument is NOT fallacious:
1. If it is raining, then there is water on the sidewalk
2. Matt is stupid and ugly and everyone hates him
3. It is raining
Therefore, 4. There is water on the sidewalk"

Yes, there is a fallacy, ad hominem.

No there isn't. It is an insult, not an ad hom. An ad hom must be tied into the argument itself, from a property of the target. There is no 'because Matt is X' portion of the argument.

Darn you, Puck! This what I was going to say.

puck is too clever for us :(
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 8:59:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 8:54:16 PM, Grape wrote:
Apparently I have to post to sig something?

No. You just have to click the "Review" button to change your sig. No need to actually post.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat