Are Logical Fallacies Making You Wrong More Than You Think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the impact of logical fallacies on reasoning and the pursuit of truth, particularly in the context of scientific discourse. It highlights the tendency of individuals to prioritize winning arguments over seeking truth, a phenomenon attributed to human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the fundamental attribution error. Participants debate the role of humility and discipline in scientific inquiry, emphasizing that failure is integral to discovery and growth. The conversation also critiques the interpretation of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, which suggests that reasoning evolved more for social persuasion than for uncovering truth. The dialogue reflects on the challenges scientists face in overcoming biases and the cultural dynamics within academia that can prioritize winning over truth-seeking. Overall, the thread underscores the complexities of human reasoning and the importance of fostering open discussions to mitigate biases.
  • #31
wuliheron said:
Lighthearted is a gross generalization and characterization. Spoofs can sometimes be the only means of criticizing things openly but, otherwise, have nothing light hearted about them other than form.
I said a spoof can be lighthearted. I did not say spoofs are automatically all light hearted.

spoof 
noun
1.
a mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody: The show was a spoof of college life.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spoof

Notice it says "usually light and good humored".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:
I said a spoof can be lighthearted. I did not say spoofs are automatically all light hearted.

Last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day to prevent them from covering protests against massive institutionalized corruption and congress debated empowering the military to arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus altogether and round people up like cattle. These days I wouldn't count on any spoofs being particularly lighthearted.
 
  • #33
wuliheron said:
Last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day to prevent them from covering protests against massive institutionalized corruption and congress debated empowering the military to arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus altogether and round people up like cattle. These days I wouldn't count on any spoofs being particularly lighthearted.
You still have no clear idea what the word means.

Spoof ≠ political satire.

There can be spoofs of Star Trek, Moby Dick, Shakespeare, California Valley Culture, people who get plastic surgery, McDonald's, football players, etc. The list is infinite. Spoofs aren't limited to politics.
 
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
You still have no clear idea what the word means.

Spoof ≠ political satire.

There can be spoofs of Star Trek, Moby Dick, Shakespeare, California Valley Culture, people who get plastic surgery, McDonald's, football players, etc. The list is infinite. Spoofs aren't limited to politics.

Politics IS the personal. These days even the Muppets have been accused of being a communist plot and not long ago when I criticized a Christian film as having no artistic value I was accused of being anti-Christian. Spoofs are not limited to things necessarily commonly or explicitly thought of as political, but nothing is. Those creating a spoof may even have no intention whatsoever of making any kind of political statement, but their audience may see things otherwise. In so doing the spoof by definition becomes political. Keeping it at least somewhat easier for people to interpret as lighthearted or completely miss the fact it is intended as humor at all gives spoofs a rather unique place in political dialogue which is infamous for its vitriol, biting sarcasm, and other extremes.
 
  • #35
wuliheron said:
Politics IS the personal. These days even the Muppets have been accused of being a communist plot and not long ago when I criticized a Christian film as having no artistic value I was accused of being anti-Christian. Spoofs are not limited to things necessarily commonly or explicitly thought of as political, but nothing is. Those creating a spoof may even have no intention whatsoever of making any kind of political statement, but their audience may see things otherwise. In so doing the spoof by definition becomes political. Keeping it at least somewhat easier for people to interpret as lighthearted or completely miss the fact it is intended as humor at all gives spoofs a rather unique place in political dialogue which is infamous for its vitriol, biting sarcasm, and other extremes.
So what? If I say "red" and you misinterpret that to mean "blue", it doesn't change the meaning of the word "red".
 
  • #36
So what's the bottom line here? Am I allowed to do any more spoofs?
 
  • #37
Jimmy Snyder said:
So what's the bottom line here? Am I allowed to do any more spoofs?
How can you worry about spoofs when there are problems like this in the world:

PRINCETON, NJ—According to a new report published this week, researchers at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study have definitively concluded that it—all of it—is some kind of sick joke.

The comprehensive study, which carefully analyzed fields as varied as physics, theology, history, economics, sociology, and philosophy, is said to have found overwhelming evidence that it is all just one big sham specifically designed to humiliate us and cause us as much misery as possible.

"The results are clear and irrefutable: Everything from the unfathomable expanses of the universe to our own continuously deteriorating bodies is apparently nothing more than an elaborate and perverse joke that's being perpetrated on us repeatedly and entirely against our will," said Faisal Ahmed, a quantum physicist and lead author of the paper. "Furthermore, research suggests there's not a single goddamned thing we can do about it."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-it-all-some-kind-of-sick-joke,26592/
 
  • #38
zoobyshoe said:
So what? If I say "red" and you misinterpret that to mean "blue", it doesn't change the meaning of the word "red".

Never heard of the theory of Relativity I take it. A thing can be both red and blue simultaneously depending on our relative velocities. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts allowing their meaning to likewise be relative to the observer. A Martian's eyes might perceive what we call red as blue. They could then learn to call what they see as blue "red" when speaking English and it's possible nobody would ever suspect they don't see the same color we do. At any rate, I'll have to go with what is demonstrable rather than make unfounded assumptions about words having some sort of absolute meaning.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Although the discussion of humor has been enlightening, this thread has gone way off topic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 111 ·
4
Replies
111
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
40
Views
6K