Total Posts:139|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ixbos philosophy class: Fallacies

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:27:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok, I realized shortly after making the last lesson on KCA, that the majority on here did not seem to have the appropriate prerequisite course. People did not understand what a fallacy is, they constantly thought that saying something is a fallacy means the conclusion must be false.

A fallacious argument can and many times will stumble upon correct answers. Here is a clearly fallacious line of reasoning:

All dobermans are dogs
rover is a dog
therefore rover is a doberman.

The conclusion does not follow therefore the argument is fallacious. It would be ridiculous to point out that this is rover http://www.dobermanndog.com...

and claim that since rover actually was a doberman that the reasoning was good.

Likewise when we discuss the fallacy of composition. someone pointed out this example:

the parts of a bus have color
therefore the bus has color

We will temporarily forgive this person if premise 1, is clearly false.

lets look at a counter example:

buses are made of atoms
all atoms are colorless
therefore buses are colorless.

The point here is obvious, we can't draw conclusions solely off of the parts of something. In order to know the conclusion is true we must use other information.
I think a clear example is Contradictions example:

Bricks are red
We make brick walls out of bricks
therefore brick walls are red.

The actual reasoning he is using is fallacious, though the conclusion is to some extend true, ignoring the caulking that makes them white and red.
The reason we know brick walls are red is not this fallacious argument, but we have a set of things we know are brick walls, we have built many brick walls with red bricks and they have constantly come out red, so based on our inductive reasoning using the set of walls built of bricks, now we are justifying in believing a brick wall will be red, when made of red bricks. The original argument in itself does not get to the conclusion, you need further information.

In conclusion, all a fallacy is, is an argument in which the premises do not justify the conclusion.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:33:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To attempt to do that, is to try and get me to rely on the argument to fallacy, which in itself is a fallacy, and in my own mind do a reductio ad absurdum that since there are examples where it is true the it can't be fallacious. Problem is that actually doesn't reduce the fact that it is a fallacy to absurdity, since claiming something is fallacious does not say anything about the actual truth value of the conclusion, it merely states the reasoning was not sufficient to get to that conclusion is true. Sorry, you guys should really study this lesson hard before commenting on the fallacy of composition again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:45:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:33:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
To attempt to do that, is to try and get me to rely on the argument to fallacy, which in itself is a fallacy, and in my own mind do a reductio ad absurdum that since there are examples where it is true the it can't be fallacious. Problem is that actually doesn't reduce the fact that it is a fallacy to absurdity, since claiming something is fallacious does not say anything about the actual truth value of the conclusion, it merely states the reasoning was not sufficient to get to that conclusion is true. Sorry, you guys should really study this lesson hard before commenting on the fallacy of composition again.:

Izbo, most people on DDO are in agreement with you that KCA is propagated under fallacious pretenses. We all know this already, and in many cases have deduced that years ago. You seem to have just gotten the memo yesterday, and in your giddy excitement in learning something new, you regurgitate it to all of us.

What we take exception to is your insistence with trying to "teach" everyone on principles you know so little about. It's your arrogance that gets you the responses you receive. Stop acting like such a pretentious c*ck holster and no one would have any reason to treat you as such.

Notice how everyone meets you with hostility? Figure out that you're the common denominator. Which of the two scenario's aligns best with Ockham's Razor?

1. That everyone on DDO is an @sshole to you for no apparent reason.

2. Or that the problem is with you, and they're simply giving you a dose of your own medicine?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:47:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:45:18 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:33:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
To attempt to do that, is to try and get me to rely on the argument to fallacy, which in itself is a fallacy, and in my own mind do a reductio ad absurdum that since there are examples where it is true the it can't be fallacious. Problem is that actually doesn't reduce the fact that it is a fallacy to absurdity, since claiming something is fallacious does not say anything about the actual truth value of the conclusion, it merely states the reasoning was not sufficient to get to that conclusion is true. Sorry, you guys should really study this lesson hard before commenting on the fallacy of composition again.:

Izbo, most people on DDO are in agreement with you that KCA is propagated under fallacious pretenses. We all know this already, and in many cases have deduced that years ago. You seem to have just gotten the memo yesterday, and in your giddy excitement in learning something new, you regurgitate it to all of us.

What we take exception to is your insistence with trying to "teach" everyone on principles you know so little about. It's your arrogance that gets you the responses you receive. Stop acting like such a pretentious c*ck holster and no one would have any reason to treat you as such.

Notice how everyone meets you with hostility? Figure out that you're the common denominator. Which of the two scenario's aligns best with Ockham's Razor?

1. That everyone on DDO is an @sshole to you for no apparent reason.

2. Or that the problem is with you, and they're simply giving you a dose of your own medicine?

Not really, this thread is a direct response to the type of ignorance this site displays. At least 3 members attampted to show that the argument was not fallacious, by using examples where the conclusion was true. They clearly did not understand this point I am making here. I highly doubt you understand it either.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:51:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not really, this thread is a direct response to the type of ignorance this site displays. At least 3 members attampted to show that the argument was not fallacious, by using examples where the conclusion was true. They clearly did not understand this point I am making here. I highly doubt you understand it either.:

It's nice to see that you think so highly of me :)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:53:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:51:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Not really, this thread is a direct response to the type of ignorance this site displays. At least 3 members attampted to show that the argument was not fallacious, by using examples where the conclusion was true. They clearly did not understand this point I am making here. I highly doubt you understand it either.:

It's nice to see that you think so highly of me :)

Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:57:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In the previous thread so many of the counters relied on this flawed syllogism:

premise 1: an argument which has a correct conclusion cannot be a fallacy
Premise 2: this argument has a correct conclusion
conclusion: this argument is not fallacious.

But alas those idiots didn't realize premise 1 of this syllogism is completely false.

That is why showing an example of the argument form getting a correct answer is not a good rebuttal to something being a fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:55:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:27:00 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Ok, I realized shortly after making the last lesson on KCA, that the majority on here did not seem to have the appropriate prerequisite course. People did not understand what a fallacy is, they constantly thought that saying something is a fallacy means the conclusion must be false.

A fallacious argument can and many times will stumble upon correct answers. Here is a clearly fallacious line of reasoning:

All dobermans are dogs
rover is a dog
therefore rover is a doberman.

This is not what Kalam's does.


The conclusion does not follow therefore the argument is fallacious. It would be ridiculous to point out that this is rover http://www.dobermanndog.com...

and claim that since rover actually was a doberman that the reasoning was good.

Likewise when we discuss the fallacy of composition. someone pointed out this example:

the parts of a bus have color
therefore the bus has color

But all parts of a Bus do have color.
All buses have color too.
Have you seen a bus without color?
Send me a picture of a real bus without color please.


We will temporarily forgive this person if premise 1, is clearly false.

lets look at a counter example:

buses are made of atoms
all atoms are colorless
therefore buses are colorless.

Obviously you are dealing with a symantic.
Atoms could indeed have color, however we have never seen an atom.
We do indeed realize that when atoms come together they display a color.
It is completely reasonable to assume they have color.


The point here is obvious, we can't draw conclusions solely off of the parts of something. In order to know the conclusion is true we must use other information.

We most certainly can draw such conclusions when we have no evidence to the contrary and have a zillion examples to support the premise.
We cannot special plead against the premise with no evidence.

I think a clear example is Contradictions example:

Bricks are red
We make brick walls out of bricks
therefore brick walls are red.

The actual reasoning he is using is fallacious, though the conclusion is to some extend true, ignoring the caulking that makes them white and red.
The reason we know brick walls are red is not this fallacious argument, but we have a set of things we know are brick walls, we have built many brick walls with red bricks and they have constantly come out red, so based on our inductive reasoning using the set of walls built of bricks, now we are justifying in believing a brick wall will be red, when made of red bricks. The original argument in itself does not get to the conclusion, you need further information.

You are only stating that your approved form of evidence is having a red brick wall.
Smart people can look at the stack of red bricks and ascertain the outcome of the color of the wall.
You would be a moron to look at the stack of red bricks and state.... "I do not know the color Obi-wan. Lets build it and see!"


In conclusion, all a fallacy is, is an argument in which the premises do not justify the conclusion.

Tsk. Tsk.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:59:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:47:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:45:18 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:33:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
To attempt to do that, is to try and get me to rely on the argument to fallacy, which in itself is a fallacy, and in my own mind do a reductio ad absurdum that since there are examples where it is true the it can't be fallacious. Problem is that actually doesn't reduce the fact that it is a fallacy to absurdity, since claiming something is fallacious does not say anything about the actual truth value of the conclusion, it merely states the reasoning was not sufficient to get to that conclusion is true. Sorry, you guys should really study this lesson hard before commenting on the fallacy of composition again.:

Izbo, most people on DDO are in agreement with you that KCA is propagated under fallacious pretenses. We all know this already, and in many cases have deduced that years ago. You seem to have just gotten the memo yesterday, and in your giddy excitement in learning something new, you regurgitate it to all of us.

What we take exception to is your insistence with trying to "teach" everyone on principles you know so little about. It's your arrogance that gets you the responses you receive. Stop acting like such a pretentious c*ck holster and no one would have any reason to treat you as such.

Notice how everyone meets you with hostility? Figure out that you're the common denominator. Which of the two scenario's aligns best with Ockham's Razor?

1. That everyone on DDO is an @sshole to you for no apparent reason.

2. Or that the problem is with you, and they're simply giving you a dose of your own medicine?

Not really, this thread is a direct response to the type of ignorance this site displays. At least 3 members attampted to show that the argument was not fallacious, by using examples where the conclusion was true. They clearly did not understand this point I am making here. I highly doubt you understand it either.

Your syllogism to refute KCA was structured poorly.

All of Kalam's premises are indeed true and the conclusion follows. Nothing about your rebuttal showed that it was.
I am willing to learn from a four year old child if they have truth.

Please educate me.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 10:25:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I love how izbo spelled his name wrong!
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:11:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

By your definition objecitvity is a fallacious concept because it is an appeal to the majority, but then that is because you are absolutely retarded. Delete your account.
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.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:14:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 11:11:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

By your definition objecitvity is a fallacious concept because it is an appeal to the majority, but then that is because you are absolutely retarded. Delete your account.

Amen.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 12:28:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 11:11:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

By your definition objecitvity is a fallacious concept because it is an appeal to the majority, but then that is because you are absolutely retarded. Delete your account.

retard.retard.retard still conflating the label we put on a concept. with the actual concept. this is why you don't get my argument. You think because morality are things that benefit society and we have labeled them as such, no things that benefit society exist, you really aren't bright are you?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 12:44:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 12:28:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 11:11:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

By your definition objecitvity is a fallacious concept because it is an appeal to the majority, but then that is because you are absolutely retarded. Delete your account.

retard.retard.retard still conflating the label we put on a concept. with the actual concept.

Where did I do that?

this is why you don't get my argument.

What argument?

You think because morality are things that benefit society and we have labeled them as such, no things that benefit society exist, you really aren't bright are you?

No I don't... who even mentioned morality or society?

May I remind you of your stated position.

I asked you,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

And you replied,
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now do you...
a) Stand by this statement and admit that you do not understand what we mean when we say objective?
b) Retract this statement as being false, and admit that before joing this site and being berated by me you did not understand what we mean when we say objective. You have since realised your error.
c) Cry like a big fvcking baby.

(Also I have challenged you to take part in a logic and intelligence quiz... you are ignoring me, what do you say, man up and prove yourself).
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.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 1:08:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.

I'm not sure if you just misunderstood my post detailing where certain properties do not commit the fallacy of composition or if you are responding to other people.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 2:18:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 1:08:34 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.

I'm not sure if you just misunderstood my post detailing where certain properties do not commit the fallacy of composition or if you are responding to other people.

mostly other people but it does apply to you, those examples are true, yet are not really exceptions to it being fallacious. It just happens the conclusions are true, and we need further information to demonstrate them to be true.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 12:44:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2011 12:28:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 11:11:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

By your definition objecitvity is a fallacious concept because it is an appeal to the majority, but then that is because you are absolutely retarded. Delete your account.

retard.retard.retard still conflating the label we put on a concept. with the actual concept.

Where did I do that?

this is why you don't get my argument.

What argument?

You think because morality are things that benefit society and we have labeled them as such, no things that benefit society exist, you really aren't bright are you?

No I don't... who even mentioned morality or society?

May I remind you of your stated position.

I asked you,
Do you believe that if the entire world listened to you for moral guidance, and you wrote a great big book of moral laws that were universally accepted, and never changed, but were followed by all of humanity for evermore that such moral laws would become objective?

And you replied,
It would be a moral system based on an objective set of morals

Now do you...
a) Stand by this statement and admit that you do not understand what we mean when we say objective?
b) Retract this statement as being false, and admit that before joing this site and being berated by me you did not understand what we mean when we say objective. You have since realised your error.
c) Cry like a big fvcking baby.

(Also I have challenged you to take part in a logic and intelligence quiz... you are ignoring me, what do you say, man up and prove yourself).

intellectual honesty is not your strong suit, this all boils down to my argument for objective morality and you know it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:09:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 2:18:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 1:08:34 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.

I'm not sure if you just misunderstood my post detailing where certain properties do not commit the fallacy of composition or if you are responding to other people.

mostly other people but it does apply to you, those examples are true, yet are not really exceptions to it being fallacious. It just happens the conclusions are true, and we need further information to demonstrate them to be true.

Not exactly...

The fallacy of composition arises because for most things the jump from component to whole property is unwarranted and does not deductively (or even inductively follow).

But some properties are such that they do create a valid deductive argument. The fallacy only arises when the conclusion does not deductively follow from the premises. Thus:

Fallacious - All parts of this car are light; therefore this car is light.
Valid - All parts of this car are heavy; therefore this car is heavy.

The difference lies in that the premise of the first one does not guarantee the conclusion, but the premise of the second does.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:25:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 4:09:26 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:18:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 1:08:34 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.

I'm not sure if you just misunderstood my post detailing where certain properties do not commit the fallacy of composition or if you are responding to other people.

mostly other people but it does apply to you, those examples are true, yet are not really exceptions to it being fallacious. It just happens the conclusions are true, and we need further information to demonstrate them to be true.

Not exactly...

The fallacy of composition arises because for most things the jump from component to whole property is unwarranted and does not deductively (or even inductively follow).

But some properties are such that they do create a valid deductive argument. The fallacy only arises when the conclusion does not deductively follow from the premises. Thus:

Fallacious - All parts of this car are light; therefore this car is light.
Valid - All parts of this car are heavy; therefore this car is heavy.

The difference lies in that the premise of the first one does not guarantee the conclusion, but the premise of the second does.

the argument you say is valid is actually fallacious, the conclusion is only justified through inductive reasoning about things made by heavy parts. If you don't have a set of things made by heavy parts, the conclusion would not follow.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:26:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 4:25:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 4:09:26 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:18:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 1:08:34 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:28:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:
So, to point out examples where a fallacy has a true conclusion is in effect a ridiculous way to refute a fallacy. The exceptions to the fallacy are always known to be true through other means then the fallacy, there usually is some form of other reasoning the person is relying on to know that conclusion is true.

I'm not sure if you just misunderstood my post detailing where certain properties do not commit the fallacy of composition or if you are responding to other people.

mostly other people but it does apply to you, those examples are true, yet are not really exceptions to it being fallacious. It just happens the conclusions are true, and we need further information to demonstrate them to be true.

Not exactly...

The fallacy of composition arises because for most things the jump from component to whole property is unwarranted and does not deductively (or even inductively follow).

But some properties are such that they do create a valid deductive argument. The fallacy only arises when the conclusion does not deductively follow from the premises. Thus:

Fallacious - All parts of this car are light; therefore this car is light.
Valid - All parts of this car are heavy; therefore this car is heavy.

The difference lies in that the premise of the first one does not guarantee the conclusion, but the premise of the second does.

the argument you say is valid is actually fallacious, the conclusion is only justified through inductive reasoning about things made by heavy parts. If you don't have a set of things made by heavy parts, the conclusion would not follow.

To actually make it valid the argument would have to be:

all things made of heavy parts are heavy,
the car is made of heavy parts
therefore the care is heavy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:29:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:58:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:57:00 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I have failed to see you make one argument that is not a fallacy, so I highly doubt you recognize how to determine a fallacy.:

That's really amusing coming from the King of Fallacies.

Name one fallacious argument I have used?

You are aware of the Ad hominem fallacy, right?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 4:26:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 4:25:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:

the argument you say is valid is actually fallacious, the conclusion is only justified through inductive reasoning about things made by heavy parts. If you don't have a set of things made by heavy parts, the conclusion would not follow.

To actually make it valid the argument would have to be:

all things made of heavy parts are heavy,
the car is made of heavy parts
therefore the care is heavy.

No - the second premise is not needed. Because the firs premise states that ALL parts of the car are heavy, the car is therefore made of heavy parts. Furthermore, with a property like "heavy" if even 1 part of the car is heavy, the car is heavy. Let's try an expanded example for "wooden" :

1) All parts of this table are wooden.
2) Therefore, no part of this table is non-wooden.
3) Therefore, it is impossible for the table to contain non-wooden parts.
4) Therefore, the table is wooden.

The additional premises you refer to are truths about the property - not additional premises needed to move from inductive to deductive. Or, put another way, the truth of P1 above entails the necessary truth of P4.

"Heavy" may actually be a poor example because it doesn't work the other way (i.e. This car is heavy; therefore all parts of this car are heavy??). But properties like wooden would - this table is wooden, therefore all parts of this table are wooden.

I'm curious though if you can think of an example where the conclusion would be true and necessarily entailed, but still be fallacious??
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:52:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose, as part of my trolling, I can easily point how ironic it is that a member who wasted writ and ink on "This debate was intended for matt, but JCMT took it instead..." is calling us out on fallacies, in spite of his blunders and errors in debates...

So, Izbo10, reform or condemn yourself?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:13:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 4:44:15 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 4:26:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/17/2011 4:25:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:

the argument you say is valid is actually fallacious, the conclusion is only justified through inductive reasoning about things made by heavy parts. If you don't have a set of things made by heavy parts, the conclusion would not follow.

To actually make it valid the argument would have to be:

all things made of heavy parts are heavy,
the car is made of heavy parts
therefore the care is heavy.

No - the second premise is not needed. Because the firs premise states that ALL parts of the car are heavy, the car is therefore made of heavy parts. Furthermore, with a property like "heavy" if even 1 part of the car is heavy, the car is heavy. Let's try an expanded example for "wooden" :

1) All parts of this table are wooden.
2) Therefore, no part of this table is non-wooden.
3) Therefore, it is impossible for the table to contain non-wooden parts.
4) Therefore, the table is wooden.

The additional premises you refer to are truths about the property - not additional premises needed to move from inductive to deductive. Or, put another way, the truth of P1 above entails the necessary truth of P4.

"Heavy" may actually be a poor example because it doesn't work the other way (i.e. This car is heavy; therefore all parts of this car are heavy??). But properties like wooden would - this table is wooden, therefore all parts of this table are wooden.

I'm curious though if you can think of an example where the conclusion would be true and necessarily entailed, but still be fallacious??

Actually the first part is absolutely necessary, as it is the part of the syllogism that anchors the car to set of things you can draw conclusions from, without it you are drawing conclusions from the parts and that is the fallacy of composition. In reality the syllogism I put forth is not sound as the premise all things that are made of heavy parts are heavy. a ton of one chemical mixed with a ton of another chemical could result in an explosion hence the result would not be heavy.

To, answer your question, no a argument cant be fallacious and necessarily entailed, the thing is your argument is not that way at all.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:13:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

To, answer your question, no a argument cant be fallacious and necessarily entailed, the thing is your argument is not that way at all.

Removed the other stuff - really it boils down to arguing about how some properties work...

But I think you are incorrect in the above statement:

Fallacious: All parts of this thing are heavy; therefore this thing is heavy.
Valid: All bricks in this house are heavy; therefore this house is heavy.

All admit that your chemical example is a weak refutation to the first one. I can envision heavy things that react with each other - i.e. heavy chunk of sodium + heavy vat of water might equal explosion & light steam - but for other things like bricks that don't react, the heaviness of the whole is necessarily entailed by the heaviness of the part.

So maybe we add a "reactive" qualifier to the exceptions. It's pretty clear that there ARE exceptions to the composition fallacy, but people have a hard time coming up with hard-line rules to describe what the exceptions are.

Wikipedia has a decent description of how the exception works, but it's mostly taken from elsewhere. Trying to outline the exceptions would make an interesting paper.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:35:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:30:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:13:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

To, answer your question, no a argument cant be fallacious and necessarily entailed, the thing is your argument is not that way at all.

Removed the other stuff - really it boils down to arguing about how some properties work...

But I think you are incorrect in the above statement:

Fallacious: All parts of this thing are heavy; therefore this thing is heavy.
Valid: All bricks in this house are heavy; therefore this house is heavy.

All admit that your chemical example is a weak refutation to the first one. I can envision heavy things that react with each other - i.e. heavy chunk of sodium + heavy vat of water might equal explosion & light steam - but for other things like bricks that don't react, the heaviness of the whole is necessarily entailed by the heaviness of the part.

So maybe we add a "reactive" qualifier to the exceptions. It's pretty clear that there ARE exceptions to the composition fallacy, but people have a hard time coming up with hard-line rules to describe what the exceptions are.

Wikipedia has a decent description of how the exception works, but it's mostly taken from elsewhere. Trying to outline the exceptions would make an interesting paper.

The fact that you need more to determine the exceptions is exactly why it is always a fallacy. The argument is not enough on its own grounds. You need additional information to determine that it is an exception.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.