What qualifies as a fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/



Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Labossiere (ontologist@aol.com).

Other sites that list and explain fallacies include:

Constructing a Logical Argument
Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion.

If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy.

They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Don't we all argue at times from the platform of a general fallacy (MY COMMENT)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, I've been reading Mike Labossiere's stuff for decades and never knew (or even suspected) he was a Dr. OR a philosopher.
Thanks for that Alan.
Learn something new everyday...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Note:

Alan,

Though I'm sure there are some members here that appreciate your post here, we generally try to avoid purely didactic posts. There are a number of excellent resources available to members if they are seeking to better understand logical fallacies.

My question to you is: beyond the obvious, was there a point of discussion you wanted to address?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why yes, many scientific theories start out as a perceived fallacy but lead one to a truthful discovery.

Think of the cellphone, take that back to the middle ages and you would be burned at the stake

Please be a little patient with me as I am still learning how to negotiate correctly via this great forum

Alan

 

No problem at all Alan.
I meant no offense, and I do appreciate your thoughts.
Typically however, it's best to make clear in your OP what it is that you wish to discuss (as opposed to developing your topic in the OP...).

Welcome, and we look forward to your posts.

 

I think a thread starter should be posed as a question, rather than a statement like I have been doing

Thanks so much

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Alan

 

Bullshit. Theories are based on observations, not fallacies.

Yes, by good Christians doing their Fathers work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The scientific approach is
1. To begin with a question.
2. Gather data on the topic.
3. Form a hypothesis as a trial attempt to answer the question.
4. Use the hypothesis to create a testable prediction.
5. Design and carry out a novel experiment or observation in the real world to test the prediction. Use this process to try to falsify the hypothesis.
6. Repeat 4 and 5 as many times as necessary.
7. If the hypothesis survives (is not falsified), it becomes a scientific theory.

Of course, humans are inherently 'messy' and it is rare for a new theory to come into existence quite in this way. More likely, the originator of a hypothesis will fight tooth and nail to try to prevent it being falsified, and it will take other scientists to carry out an honest attempt to falsify it.

It is also true that most professional scientists will not be directly involved in this process in its entirety. Most scientists and science technicians are mostly involved in stage 2.

However, if an approach is made to science that does not, more or less, follow this process, it is probably fallaceous.

The late, great Dr. Carl Sagan said : "the core of science is prediction". I am certain that the smart people of this forum can see how that applies.

 

That's the answer to your question.

That's why a set of arguments can be true and a conclusion can be true, but the argument is still a fallacy if the conclusion does not follow logically from the arguments.
Nothing can be proved by a fallacy.
You are right in saying that some scientific truths were first proposed following fallacious reasoning.
But in order for them to be accepted as true, they must subsequently have been proved logically.

 

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

 

Do you have a point to all this, Alan? Just curious as to why you are merely posting links rather than continuing the line of the discussion that you introduced?

 

This isn't a stalking horse argument is it Alan?

 

I apologise, I have spread myself too thin in my internet discussions I will try to concentrate more on each thread I have introduced myself in the future

Coming back to the subject, Copernicus came up with prove that the earth was not the center of the universe, a statement the RC church most definitely considered a dangerous fallacy. As we now know his findings were a truth and the RC church was wrong.

 

The RC Church apologised for their harassment of Galileo over the Copernican theory in 1992.
Can't you accept a genuine apology?

have you decided what the point of this thread is yet?

 

A bit late dont you think?

 

Alan, surely one's perception of an argument as fallacious or not is irrelevant to whether the argument is fallacious or not?

As I have heard it said: one can not legislate for another person's ignorance / stupidity.

In this case, the church's own argument/claim (that Galileo's theory was fallacious) was itself fallacious - predominantly being an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity, as well as appeals to (supposed) authority.

Science quickly weeds out fallacious arguments - and those theories that can withstand sustained acts of weeding end up being widely accepted.

But how those theories might have been perceived in the first instance says far more of the perceiver than the theory itself.
The trick is to be willing to say "I don't know" rather than appeal to ignorance, authority, consequence etc.

 

I agree with you, but don't you think that there are things out there in the dark void that will always be beyond scientific proof

 

Positive arguments, yes. Science is good at eliminating or tabling arguments that state X is___________, or X is caused by Y. And so on. But it is much slower at weeding out negative arguments. So judgments about what is not and what is not possible can float around for long, long periods as if they had survived scientific scrutiny, when in fact they have not. Or I could put it: as if they are supported by deduction.

 

Are you talking about under your bed or in your closet? LOL!

 

Showing us all just how dangerous and wrong it is to follow religions and their psychotic beliefs.

Will this change your mind about gods and beliefs? Fat chance.