Tutorial on Argument and Fallacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument Tutorial
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various logical fallacies and the nature of argumentation, including resources for understanding these concepts. Participants share links to external materials and provide examples of specific fallacies, exploring the implications of these fallacies in argumentation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants share links to resources on logical fallacies, highlighting the importance of providing evidence in arguments rather than merely opposing positions.
  • One participant mentions using Wikipedia for logical fallacies, suggesting it has valuable content, and references a past interaction regarding a specific fallacy.
  • A participant introduces the "Fallacy of Stolen Concept," providing examples to illustrate how certain arguments can be self-defeating or contradictory.
  • Another participant reiterates the "Fallacy of Stolen Concept" with the same examples, emphasizing its significance in discussions.
  • One participant references a website that categorizes various fallacies, suggesting it as a useful resource.
  • A later reply suggests a strategy for dealing with individuals who rely on fallacious arguments, advocating for a respectful approach despite the presence of logical errors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants share resources and examples of fallacies, but there is no clear consensus on the effectiveness of specific arguments or strategies for addressing fallacies in discussions.

Contextual Notes

Some examples provided may depend on specific interpretations of language and logic, and the discussion does not resolve the complexities surrounding the application of these fallacies in real-world arguments.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
22,524
Reaction score
7,501
Science news on Phys.org
Astronuc said:
I stumbled across this and thought some might find it useful.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

and this as well

The Argument Clinic - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html

The objective of argument or disputation is not only take an opposing position, but to provide evidence to support one's position. Otherwise, as is pointed out in the MP sketch, it's simply contradiction.

That's cool, I use wikipedia for logical fallacies, it's got some really great posts about them, and they are logical which makes a change for wikipedia, I accused Vanesch of being guilty of one not two weeks ago :smile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

In relation to MWI :smile: as the theory assumes QT is correct :smile: I don't think he agreed though.
 
Last edited:
Here is one that they missed:

Fallacy of Stolen Concept - An argument where your argument against the truth value of something implicitly demands that you accept the truth value of the thing you are trying to disprove in order to disprove it, making the argument incoherent and contradictory.

ex.

- "language is meaningless" - If language is meaningless, then the statement "language is meaningless" is itself meaningless. When making the argument, you presuppose the meaningfulness of language.
- "Truth does not exist" - If there is no such thing as truth, then it cannot possibly be true that there is no such thing as truth.
- "I do not exist" - The speaker makes a statement about herself, and as such, presumes her own existence.
- "Reality is an illusion" - The very concept "illusion" is derived from the concept "reality"; that is, the concept "illusion" makes absolutely no sense, unless there is indeed "reality" with which it may be contrasted"

etc.
 
Moridin said:
Here is one that they missed:

Fallacy of Stolen Concept - An argument where your argument against the truth value of something implicitly demands that you accept the truth value of the thing you are trying to disprove in order to disprove it, making the argument incoherent and contradictory.

ex.

- "language is meaningless" - If language is meaningless, then the statement "language is meaningless" is itself meaningless. When making the argument, you presuppose the meaningfulness of language.
- "Truth does not exist" - If there is no such thing as truth, then it cannot possibly be true that there is no such thing as truth.
- "I do not exist" - The speaker makes a statement about herself, and as such, presumes her own existence.
- "Reality is an illusion" - The very concept "illusion" is derived from the concept "reality"; that is, the concept "illusion" makes absolutely no sense, unless there is indeed "reality" with which it may be contrasted"

etc.


Don't tell those to the new agers. They thrive on these concepts.
 
"www.fallacyfiles.org"[/URL] does a lot of categorization of the various fallacies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And when debating with someone who repeatedly relies on fallacious arguments despite your best efforts to point out the error in their logic, it's best to take the upper road and refrain from sending them http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Borg, jim mcnamara and Enigman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
15K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K