Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Can't find logical fallacy.

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 11:17:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

I looked up nirvana fallacy, and this doesn't seem to fit its definition. Nirvana fallacy is when something is held to the standard of an unrealistic and therefore irrelevant alternative, while this fallacy jumps to the conclusion that an object or idea has no use whatever if it is not implemented in its fullest form. That is, it judges them not for their position among unrealistic alternatives, but on the basis of whether they do or don't embody their ideal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 11:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

Basically, nirvana fallacy makes no comment on something's absolute function (which is what this fallacy does). Rather, it judges a proposition on the basis of its relation to alternatives which could theoretically fill similar roles, but which couldn't in practice - whether that be because of the circumstances the determination is bound by or because of the impossibility of the option itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 12:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

It's sort of the inverse of the fallacy of division -"assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts" - because it assumes that something true of a something's parts can't be true for something's whole.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:05:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

lol I know, that's why I said 'in the most general sense'. If I had intended it to be the exact answer, I wouldn't have qualified it with that.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:07:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

Basically, a non-sequitur is a fallacy with no name.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:36:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 1:05:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

lol I know, that's why I said 'in the most general sense'. If I had intended it to be the exact answer, I wouldn't have qualified it with that.

I know, its just a useless response. Obviously it's non-sequitur, if not, it wouldn't be a fallacy haha It just seemed pointless to even mention it, but, w/e.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 1:36:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 1:05:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

lol I know, that's why I said 'in the most general sense'. If I had intended it to be the exact answer, I wouldn't have qualified it with that.

I know, its just a useless response. Obviously it's non-sequitur, if not, it wouldn't be a fallacy haha It just seemed pointless to even mention it, but, w/e.

It's a tautology, and in that sense an answer adds nothing to understanding, but it might be the only answer to his question.
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 1:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

I am actually close to agreeing that this is could be a case of the "Nirvana Fallacy" or a "perfect solution fallacy." But the fallacy itself does not always have to be named. It is often enough to have simply had the skill to have spotted it.

It seems that you are describing a scenario that "makes the perfect the enemy of the good." I think that if you could call out the NF, you could damage the argument that you are researching, as well.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd go with slothful induction. It is essentially sounding like an inverse hasty generalisation.

A hasty generalisation goes from having 10% of the information, say, and concluding something wild. For example, if you saw only the first ten minutes of a CSI episode, and you conclude that the wife did it, then you're probably generalising too hastily without enough information. Another more formal example is, after learning that 2 of your friends from school studied German at York, and you study German at York, that all your friends from school are therefore studying German at York.

The slothful induction is the reverse. It is after seeing the video footage of the wife committing the murder, then her try to run from the police, then her admitting to it on tape, being still sceptical of the strong (albeit inductive) evidence. Or, after learning that all but one of your friends from school went to York to study German, and you not knowing whether that one person went to York to study German, deciding to conclude that your friend probably is not studying German in York. After all, if so many of your other friends are studying German at York, chances are there is some third factor that has meant you all are studying the same subject at the same place.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

Only formal fallacies are non-sequiturs. And most fallacies - such as the one noted above - are informal. Formal fallacies are generally only of the three kinds:

1) Denying the antecedent
2) Affirming the consequent

To put them in logical form:

(~ means not)

1) If P then Q
~P
Therefore ~Q

2) If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

The third is the nonsensical arguments where an additional proposition is added at the end (If it rains, I will get wet; it rains; therefore I am a goose).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 4:02:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 2:25:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 12/15/2013 12:58:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/15/2013 11:18:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

In the most general sense, it's a non-sequtuir.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, because if the conclusion logically followed from the premises then the argument would be valid. Your answer would be like if someone asked what I had for lunch and I said "food". Well, no crap lol

Only formal fallacies are non-sequiturs. And most fallacies - such as the one noted above - are informal. Formal fallacies are generally only of the three kinds:


Actually, it is a formal fallacy. The argument goes: if p (something) then q ( its function); Not p, therefore not q.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The argument stated is a biconditional, and not a conditional, statement. It makes the premise P biconditional Q, not P conditional Q.

The difference is awkward to explain without going into truth tables or some other form of expression that is very awkward via this chatbox, but the biconditional can be expressed as "Either P or ~Q". In other words, "Either we have perfect information, or we cannot know the outcome." This means that if P, then Q, and if Q, then P.

It's more charitable to assume a non-formal fallacy than a formal one, and I'd also say it's clearer in the general meaning of the proposition stated. Therefore, I'd stick to a biconditional interpretation, and therefore call it valid.

Moreover, my statement was discussing the claim that all fallacies are non-sequiturs, to be clear.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 2:00:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:02:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The argument stated is a biconditional, and not a conditional, statement. It makes the premise P biconditional Q, not P conditional Q.

Is presupposing a biconditional relationship not a formal fallacy? I'm actually asking. ... I haven't had a class in formal logic yet. It seems to be that presupposing a biconditonal relationship without evidence is no different than the fallacy I outlined.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 2:13:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 2:00:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:02:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The argument stated is a biconditional, and not a conditional, statement. It makes the premise P biconditional Q, not P conditional Q.


Is presupposing a biconditional relationship not a formal fallacy? I'm actually asking. ... I haven't had a class in formal logic yet. It seems to be that presupposing a biconditonal relationship without evidence is no different than the fallacy I outlined.

I guess they're different in the sense that the biconditional relationship allows for P and not Q while my fallacy doesn't, but in the context of this problem, I don't see how they are different.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 2:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:02:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
"Either P or ~Q". In other words, "Either we have perfect information, or we cannot know the outcome." This means that if P, then Q, and if Q, then P.

yeah...you're wrong. Only 'if Q then P' can be derived. P doesn't necessarily imply Q. Let me illustrate: consider the premise 'Either the car has wheels or it won't drive'. This means that if the car doesn't have wheels, it won't drive, and if it does drive, it has wheels. However, the car could have P (wheels) but still not have Q (ability to drive) if, for instance, it didn't have an engine.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:54:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
I am trying to find the name for a logical fallacy that states this: Since an object/idea isn't 100% complete, it therefore cannot perform its task at all.

Is that just another way of interpreting the Nirvana fallacy, or is there a better one to describe the situation?

It sounds like an all or nothing fallacy to me.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:13:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 2:00:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:02:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The argument stated is a biconditional, and not a conditional, statement. It makes the premise P biconditional Q, not P conditional Q.


Is presupposing a biconditional relationship not a formal fallacy?

A formal fallacy is one which makes an argument necessarily and always invalid. If you need to substitute in examples for the letters to make it fallacious, then it isn't a formal fallacy. Formal fallacies are generally only of the two kinds I mentioned.

Presupposing a biconditional material relationship when it is instead a conditional material relationship is not a formal fallacy, but would be an informal one. If I understand you correctly, presupposing a biconditional when it is conditional is just the premise being unsound. It is neither a formal nor informal fallacy, because a fallacy is a problem with the reasoning.

With your example, you've just given an example of something that isn't a biconditional. Your "illustration" is an example. It is also a biconditional. The statement simply isn't true.

Consider another biconditional statement: "Either Reagan was left-wing, or Thatcher is left-wing." This is a biconditional statement. It is just bluntly false, however. False dichotomies are usually examples of false biconditional statements.

A correct biconditional statement is always a definition: "A bachelor is a bachelor if and only if they are an unmarried man." This is a definition, and so is able to be expressed as a biconditional. I consider the OP a case of a definitional statement, rather than simply a character trait of the object or idea in question. For example:

"An object is able to perform its task if and only if we understand everything to do with that object." And this statement is clearly false.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...