Logical Fallacy and You!

[Vendetta21]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.

Tangentially, note that due to the rapid nature of attrition in any theoretical argument you quickly will come to a point where there is a boolean answer based on a need for some evidence to prove the seminal statement for the entire theory, and the only human way to support a stance with this answer is to use the Petitio Principii fallacy, or begging the question, or to intentionally not take a stance based on the lack of evidence.

Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement. It should be noted that statements aren't really "critical thinking." A statement is any claim that is either true of false, and when we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, develop a method for determining the truth value of the statement, the statement is therefore not worth discussing, because it is simply just a convoluted discussion in which the only real result is a series of complex and superfluous statements which the content only really contains the ideas of "I agree." or "I disagree."

In general, any statement is not really worth discussing in the realm of "critical thinking" because this forum is about arguments (in the technical sense of the word.) It is not really about illuminating to people the mechanics of arguing, it is for those who already wish to argue, and know how.

To simplify for those who do not have the capacity to grasp what I'm explaining, imagine me saying the following statement:

"The UW is the coolest college in Washington."

This statement may have a truth value, but it does not illuminate the ambiguity of the word "coolest," therefore the only true discussion that can follow is based on individual perceptions of what the word "coolest" means, and there can be no true argument made because you cannot argue against someones personal definition of "coolest," because they believe it's cool simply because they believe it's cool. These types of things do not beget arguments, they beget discussion, and this forum infers that it is for arguments, not statements and loosely associated claims.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that there really is nothing critical about discussing topics such as God, infinity, Eternity, or really any purely philosophical belief. This forum is not the "post-modern feel-goodery club" or the "comparative religion club." The stickies are quite clear about the intent of the forum. To make arguments within a belief set with the determination that everyone arguing will assume statements A, B, and C for arguments sake of statements D, E, and F clearly does not fall under the Petitio Principii problem, as clarification for those who might not think critically about what I said.

[MilfeulleSakuraba]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

A statement is any claim that is either true of false, and when we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, develop a method for determining the truth value of the statement, the statement is therefore not worth discussing, because it is simply just a convoluted discussion in which the only real result is a series of complex and superfluous statements which the content only really contains the ideas of "I agree." or "I disagree."

This seems to (at least attempt to) throw philosophical discussion out the window entirely, and I hope it is not what you are trying to get at. I don't see anything inherently wrong with discussing life philosophies, at least not that would make doing so not "thinking critically". If people out there that partake in such discussions do not do so beyond "hay me 2" then they will be reprimanded accordingly by those appointed to do so while the rest of us can simply ignore them and move on at no cost to ourselves if we wish. Hopefully some will stick around and learn more about what they believe - perhaps they will even change their mind. The experience may not necessarily be beneficial to the highest thinkers of the forum but nothing in the rules says they're the only ones that should be allowed to benefit.

Besides, reducing allowed topics of discussion to those where truth values can be readily determined by those who partake risks drifting toward the Algebra homework help forum direction, and I don't think any of us want to see that.

[Vendetta21]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

This seems to (at least attempt to) throw philosophical discussion out the window entirely, and I hope it is not what you are trying to get at. I don't see anything inherently wrong with discussing life philosophies, at least not that would make doing so not "thinking critically". If people out there that partake in such discussions do not do so beyond "hay me 2" then they will be reprimanded accordingly by those appointed to do so while the rest of us can simply ignore them and move on at no cost to ourselves if we wish. Hopefully some will stick around and learn more about what they believe - perhaps they will even change their mind. The experience may not necessarily be beneficial to the highest thinkers of the forum but nothing in the rules says they're the only ones that should be allowed to benefit.

It does not throw philosophical discussion out the window. Nothing is thrown out the window. You've misunderstood what I'm saying. For instance, discussing "romanticism" in terms of its truth value is arbitrary, but discussing "romanticism" in terms of other values is fine, such as the impact it would have on a follower of the ideas of "romanticism." If we are to allow people to discuss arbitrary things in terms of truth value, we perpetuate a two-tiered system for this forum in which there are the morons and the teachers. I don't feel like perpetuating this place as the "A concise introduction on why your statement cannot be supported, 101" forum.

Besides, reducing allowed topics of discussion to those where truth values can be readily determined by those who partake risks drifting toward the Algebra homework help forum direction, and I don't think any of us want to see that.

I didn't say where truth values can't be "readily determined." Nothing in what I said implies that. I said where truth values CANNOT be determined under any methodology. There is a very, very big difference. If you honestly don't understand the difference I will illuminate it for you.

I think that you are unsure about the types of things that I wish to see less of, and that is an error in my communication. I am trying to get rid of the periodical "Does God Exist?" threads for one, and a lot of the other threads that have the aroma of being brought up by a 14 year old or someone who is sophomoric in their belief set who come in with an agenda to make a claim, and then stick to that claim despite their lack of evidence, rhetoric, fluency, etc. It is one of the things that I think many of us feels plagues this forum, and I'm just trying to develop a concise logical defense against this kind of thing. Critical thinking is not for rampant apologetics, and I think we all commonly agree of that. I know what I am saying is probably a basic statement taken to technical levels, but I'm saying it for the purpose of discussion. This is a thread on logical fallacies, and thus I used the logical fallacy that is akin to this kind of apologetics in general, the Petitio Principii fallacy, to try and show the lack of argumentative value in someone who posts with that sort of aroma.

[Skeleton-GotW]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Here's a cool new logical fallacy I just randomly thought of... I can't seem to name it well though... seeing as I only speak English and French (not Latin... haha.)

The False Based on Use of Fallacies Fallacy - Believing that what the other debater is saying is wrong, because of their use of logical fallacies or lack of arguing ability.

Example Below:

Idiot: HEY GUYS 2 + 2 = 4 BCUZ IT IS!!!!!! KAY!?

In this situation, Idiot is right despite his immense lack of support behind what he said.

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

It does not throw philosophical discussion out the window. Nothing is thrown out the window. You've misunderstood what I'm saying. For instance, discussing "romanticism" in terms of its truth value is arbitrary, but discussing "romanticism" in terms of other values is fine, such as the impact it would have on a follower of the ideas of "romanticism." If we are to allow people to discuss arbitrary things in terms of truth value, we perpetuate a two-tiered system for this forum in which there are the morons and the teachers. I don't feel like perpetuating this place as the "A concise introduction on why your statement cannot be supported, 101" forum.

Well, first of all I object to your use of 'morons' in this context. Simply being unfamiliar with how to properly carry out a discussion does not make one a moron. That said, is there something wrong with a subsection of the forum topics following along student/teacher lines? How do you think students stop being students? When they've been taught what they need to know.

If we lock out everyone who isn't up to your stringent standards, how will any of them ever become more reasoning, critical thinkers?

I didn't say where truth values can't be "readily determined." Nothing in what I said implies that. I said where truth values CANNOT be determined under any methodology. There is a very, very big difference. If you honestly don't understand the difference I will illuminate it for you.

Philosophy as a field has spent several thousand years discussing the potential ramifications of various theories whose truth values cannot be determined. I'm not sure where you feel justified in saying that such actions are bad or wrong, or that they shoudln't be allowed in this forum.

I think that you are unsure about the types of things that I wish to see less of, and that is an error in my communication. I am trying to get rid of the periodical "Does God Exist?" threads for one,

I, and quite a few others in this forum find such discussions interesting and enjoyable to take part in, even knowing full well that no conclusion is going to be reached in such a thread. Sometimes the process and the analysis of other viewpoints is worth doing in itself, even though no solid conclusion will result.

and a lot of the other threads that have the aroma of being brought up by a 14 year old or someone who is sophomoric in their belief set who come in with an agenda to make a claim, and then stick to that claim despite their lack of evidence, rhetoric, fluency, etc.

This forum has a lot of 14 year olds. A lot of threads will therefore be started by 14 year olds. It happens. Some of them will stick to their claim. This is not remotely a failing unique to 14 year olds. However, some of them do re-evaluate their beliefs in light of the reasonable evidence that this forum provides. Explain to me how that is not a boon to humanity in general? Many people have improved dramatically their ability to put forward a reasoned argument, and expanded their viewpoint substantially because they were -allowed- even -encouraged- to make their "sophomoric" thread.

It is one of the things that I think many of us feels plagues this forum,

Some sort of petition or other source to back up the claim that -many- people would like to see well over half of the kinds of threads made here be completely disallowed would be warranted here, I think.

and I'm just trying to develop a concise logical defense against this kind of thing. Critical thinking is not for rampant apologetics, and I think we all commonly agree of that.

Um...apologetics is an integral part of any and every philosophical or critical discourse. Apologetics is the process of addressing objections which have been stated or are likely to be stated in opposition to your point. If nobody practiced apologetics, we'd see a thread go:
I make statement A
I object, on grounds B
Um...I make statement A!

Apologetics is the art of dealing with objection B within the context of statement A, and without the ability to respond to people's objections, CT would stop being about discussion or debate and start being a collection of un-responded to essays.

I know what I am saying is probably a basic statement taken to technical levels, but I'm saying it for the purpose of discussion. This is a thread on logical fallacies, and thus I used the logical fallacy that is akin to this kind of apologetics in general, the Petitio Principii fallacy, to try and show the lack of argumentative value in someone who posts with that sort of aroma.

So here it looks like you're trying to forward the claim that "Everybody who practices apologetics begs the question to do so" Which is clearly hogwash. You've practiced apologetics in this very thread, as soon as you said that you were forming "a defense" against "this kind of thing." You were anticipating an objection to your stated point, and then addressed it in advance. That's one of the most common ways to practice apologetics.

You'll forgive my saying so, but this entire post sequence comes across as quite superior and elitist. To claim that some large number of the threads in this forum ought not to be allowed simply because they occasionally -start- speaking to some larger context than you feel they ought to?!

(Further, calling people morons, your line about 'those who do not have the capacity to grasp what I'm explaining', and your dramatic overuse of "hundred-dollar words" doesn't lend you the credibility you seem to think it does. Instead of seperating yourself from the "14 year old aroma" you disdain so much, you instead paint yourself with a "14 year old with a thesaurus" aroma that is pretty unappealing itself.)

A thread entitled "Does God Exist?" implies a question that has no concrete answer. Yes, we know. Presumably the person who made the thread also knows that. If there -were- proof, the answer would already be known.

But please, explain to me how discussion along the lines of "If God -did- exist, what would the ramifications be" and "If God -didn't- exist, what would the ramifications be?" is somehow not worthy of you or this forum.

[Vendetta21]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

A thread entitled "Does God Exist?" implies a question that has no concrete answer. Yes, we know. Presumably the person who made the thread also knows that. If there -were- proof, the answer would already be known.

But please, explain to me how discussion along the lines of "If God -did- exist, what would the ramifications be" and "If God -didn't- exist, what would the ramifications be?" is somehow not worthy of you or this forum.

That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.

This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.

And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church, and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument. I have no problems with the defense of an argument.

My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.

And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.

In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.

You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum.

Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch.

[chunky_cheese]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I agree with pretty much everything devonin has posted in this thread.

You see, a majority of the time, I'm just making things up as I go along, so I'm pretty sure everything I say is just one big fallacy after another. And if we started implementing all these rules, I'd probably end up having to ban myself from the forum.

Pretty much, if someone puts some effort into their post, I'm fine with it. If their argument sucks, it gets dissected and rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Keep in mind, FFR's userbase is predominantly teenagers; not exactly the brightest bunch.

dont mak fun o me.

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.

People use the former, are corrected, and either learn from it, and contribute, or don't learn from it, and are generally summarily ignored. If the other random people pile on random comments, what should you care? Just do as we do, pass the thread over in favour of more appropriate discourse, and it will eventually sink down off the page, or be closed by a mod.

This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.

So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church,

Christian apologetics is as large a field as it is, because christianity is a large religion, and has many supporters as well as many detractors. I hardly think that constitutes "rampant" apologetics.

and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument.

Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

I have no problems with the defense of an argument.

But this is the fundamental definition of apologetics. If you have a problem with apologetics but no problem with defending your argument, perhaps you should restate your argument in a way that actually says what you want it to.

My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.

People who post threads whose only support assumes you grant them their view as correct tend to attract two things: People pointing out the untenability of the argument and mods closing the thread, depending on who got to it first. Many times, if the more practiced critical thinkers don't want to turn the discussion into something more valid, the thread is simply closed. At the worst case, it lives on the front page for a week or two, with the odd person poking their head in to correct the more egregious errors, and try to get them onto a useful track. I fail to see how this is necessarily a bad thing.

And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.

If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as youv'e taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.

I think I've done a fairly adaquate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. As Abraham Lincoln said: "For the people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like." I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.

[Vendetta21]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?

Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.) It sends the message that the forum expects more. That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.

Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

I have misapplied the term.

If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.

At this point I think if we continue to keep arguing this point it will go further off on a tangent than we already, but I think that there is a personal disagreement here, and not necessarily a logical one. Yes, I know it disposes people against me, but sometimes a dry insult makes a rhetorical effect, sometimes an insult invokes humor. Sometimes it may do exactly what you're saying, but that's a case by case thing, not a blanket rule. Just like my choice of inflammatory words and pretension are not always used and applied the same way. In this instance, it worked for my intended purposes. If I were to do this in the exact same manner repeatedly it would not work.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as you've taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.

I think I've done a fairly adequate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.

It does not necessarily change to suit just myself. This was based on conversations with upstanding, regular forum members (of FFR in general) and what we felt to be the problem with Critical Thinking. I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..." The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.

I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.

I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.

[Cavernio]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

"Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement."

And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin?

Also, your standards are way too high for an online DDR simulator site, and I also think that if stricter standards were adopted, we'd be cutting out the majority of users from CT, and some wouldn't even know why. If you think the quality of FFR's CT forum is too low, then I'm sure there're thousands of higher quality CT threads to frequent where you'd fit in better. If not, feel free to start more threads of your own, and ignore the stupid ones.


Anyways, about the OP, I totally thought I had some inkling of an idea what it meant when someone said something like "That's just a straw man fallacy" when I totally didn't. I've learned a lot of new terms.

What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory?

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?

Since the moderators have direct vested authority from Synth, it is absolutely a case that it is invalid because the moderators don't like it. The original quote you're paraphrasing loses some of its elan when you apply it to a situation in which the "god" in question is provably here and exercising authority in an objective measurable way. In its original context, your quote was trying to get at a question of whether objective morality exists outside of even the Gods, or if what is right and wrong is simply an arbitrary creation of the gods. Well, on FFR, Synth makes rules, we follow them or leave or are made to leave, as simply as that. He could state that everyone must speak in rhyme or be banned forever, and we would -have- to comply or face the consequences.

Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.

As soon as you say "This is invalid" and not "I think this is invalid" you are assuming some level of authority. You are not claiming authority by disagreeing with authority, you are claiming authority by making absolute statements about what is and is not acceptable in these threads. My statements aren't even necessarily agreeing with authority, and certainly aren't assuming authority, I'm just pointing at the existing authority and saying "There are authorities, take it up with them"

I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.)

That will almost certainly result in a) Many locked threads and b) Very few unlocked threads and c) Very few active participants in this forum.

It sends the message that the forum expects more.

Does it actually expect more, or do you just wish that it would?

That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.

The example you keep quoting is both one that we know you're making (So you can stop quoting it every time) and one that is explicitly stated in the rules of the forum as being not allowed by the rules of the forum. (So I don't know why you keep bringing it up)

I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.

Perhaps instead of reading the posts -below- the original post, you might try reading the original post, which clearly seperates the two. Alternatively, you could read the discussion about how they are different, and by then seeing my edit (which took place -after- that discussion) in conjunction with the discussion, to critically evaluate the situation, and conclude that I was convinced, changed my mind, and edited the main post to reflect that.

No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.

"Taking great pains" doesn't involve pain or pains in the sense you seem to think it does. "Taking great pains to" is analogous to "Going to great lengths to" or even simply "Going out of your way to" It doesn't imply difficulty of process, it implies you writing a very long-winded and overly verbose statement when a private message to the usual forum moderators would have been just as good.

I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..."

And limiting the creation of topics yet further will somehow change that? Suddenly a loyal cadre of philosophers in exile will come spilling in from the Garbage Bin where they've been waiting for the chance to finally recreate the Aristotalian academy they've been dreaming of?

The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.

I'm making a claim about the beliefs of many people, not just my own, despite nobody else jumping on this bandwagon once I got the ball rolling, and despite my not furnishing names of these old CT veterans who've been turned away by all this chaff in the forum?

I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.

Well, this could have and likely should have been a new thread created specifically for this point, rather than a hijacking of an existing thread that was intended primarily to be a simple resource listing informal logical fallacies, but I'm happy to defend the right of less "qiualified" critical thinkers to discover the way they should do things by having them pointed out during the process of discussion, instead of making mods lock a thread and then spell out exactly what things they did right or wrong, so they can try again.

I'd rather have 9 bad threads out of 10, in which we slowly turn them into good threads by demonstration, example, and helpfulness, than have 10 good threads, and 90 locked threads.

I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.

The shortcomings that are usually the case when applying inductive logic, and why deductive logic is generally stronger and more useful a tool.

[devonin]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

And yet that doesn't mean that every statement is a result of the petitio principii, which is what you basically went on to say Vendetta. Have you labelled that one yet Devonin?

I think that what Vendetta was getting at is saying that begging the question is very often done through circular logic, which is one of the ways you can beg the question. it doesn't need another label, the one is just a subtype of the other.

What if I appeal to the Probability Fallacy but then say I'm just appealing to Chaos Theory?

Well...you don' so much 'appeal' to fallacies, as you do fall afoul of them. I'm not sure how the appeal of yours would work...The appeal to probability is when you conclude that because it is possible for something to happen, that its happening is inevitable. (This is a fallacy because there is no way to prove that it is inevitable simply because there is a chance that it will happen) While chaos theory (correct me if I'm wrong) tends to state that outcomes are inherantly unpredictable, which seems to -support- why the appeal to probability is a fallacy.

[Vendetta21]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

As soon as you say "This is invalid" and not "I think this is invalid" you are assuming some level of authority. You are not claiming authority by disagreeing with authority, you are claiming authority by making absolute statements about what is and is not acceptable in these threads. My statements aren't even necessarily agreeing with authority, and certainly aren't assuming authority, I'm just pointing at the existing authority and saying "There are authorities, take it up with them"

I think it was quite clear that I was always stating my belief. Whether or not I title each claim with "I believe this..." or "I think this..." is arbitrary given the content we are discussing. That kind of label is necessary for things such as math. You can assume, and have, that I believed it. Anyone who reads my post automatically assumes that it is my own personal belief. And there is no doubt in my mind that had I, or had I not "claimed" authority, that the argument would still remain the same in terms of the content value, and be objected in the same way. This point is moot. I don't have authority, so even if I did imply that I "claim" it, it doesn't make any difference. It is readily apparent that I don't have authority.

Does it actually expect more, or do you just wish that it would?

That's a very good question, and I'm honestly not sure. But I will deliberate on it and tell you in a PM sometime. The latter is obviously true, but whether or not it practically does expect more would take a bit of thought to conclude.

Perhaps instead of reading the posts -below- the original post, you might try reading the original post, which clearly seperates the two. Alternatively, you could read the discussion about how they are different, and by then seeing my edit (which took place -after- that discussion) in conjunction with the discussion, to critically evaluate the situation, and conclude that I was convinced, changed my mind, and edited the main post to reflect that.

That is my mistake.

I hope it is clear that we both intend for the same thing, though. Our goals are not different: higher level of content and thinking. Methodology is where we differ. So don't think I am at odds with you for your goals, or methods for that matter, I just am seeking a more effective method, for I think yours isn't as effective as others might be.

I feel that we are really becoming overly tangential at this point, so if you would like to continue this discussion, please send me a PM. If this were the original topic of discussion, I would have no problem continuing on, but I think that at this point the argument is more personal than anything, so if you wish to continue, don't hesitate to in a PM.

[Kinnishian]

Re: Logical Fallacy and You!

I can see much of this has been covered. However, my english teacher offered me this site which has even more thorough explanations of logical fallacies. Thanks to gmail I can retrieve it in my archives

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html