Fallacies of Logic

[sjastro]

I suppose this could be put in the General Chat forum but there are plenty of examples that occur here.

http://www.2012hoax.org/fallacies

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Goodness me !!

The list just keeps getting longer every time we look a this aspect.

This list has 63 entries !!

It seems almost daunting to even attempt to frame a logical, justifiable argument based on past theory/empiricism. This being because we do rely heavily upon the previous authors to have observed and avoided these fallacy/errors.

I guess my angle here, is the more subtle trap of relying on others' theories, as opposed to theories sourced from self-generated ideas, which are frequently embedded within a sea of such errors in logic.

I do agree that I've seen quite a few discussions lately, containing elements of these distinctions. (I won't necessarily exclude myself in all of this, either).

It is also interesting to note that a science discussion can:

i) be based on empirical evidence, and still be fraught with logical fallacies and;
ii) be free from logical fallacies, and yet have no empirical evidence basis. (The legal process is one to think about here).

Thanks for the reminder Steven !
Cool.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Steven. No doubt I offend but I am willing to learn to be better and see your link as very helpful.
alex

[sjastro]

It seems almost daunting to even attempt to frame a logical, justifiable argument based on past theory/empiricism. This being because we do rely heavily upon the previous authors to have observed and avoided these fallacy/errors.

It one of the advantages for a peer review process. The works with logical fallacies are filtered out in the process.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Thanks for that Steven. No doubt I offend but I am willing to learn to be better and see your link as very helpful.
alex

Alex,

If it makes you feel better a former in law of mine who has an IQ of 175, and is the most gifted individual I have ever come across, thinks I am a regular exponent of "Non Causa Pro Causa" fallacy.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Another, more humanistic observation of this, is that why are we assuming that a logical argument is somehow superior ?

I mean, we are all humans exhibiting illogic !

Are there any 'Spocks' out there with whom we can have purely illogic free conversations with ?

Politicians, (and lawyers), all seem to exhibit vast knowledge of all these fallacies, and actually exploit them to gain 'power'. (Which seems to be of course, their main goal in life ).

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Another, more humanistic observation of this, is that why are we assuming that a logical argument is somehow superior ?

I mean, we are all humans exhibiting illogic !

Well I suppose I may fall victim to the "False Analogy" fallacy here, but a logical argument generates a far higher signal/noise ratio.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

You have to laugh.

Here at my mates (tarot reader) and another chap turns up excited about the 2012 thing, and how the carbon change in the Sun will cause us to mutate into more wonderful beings capable of manifesting anything we want thereby eliminating the need for money or assisted transport.

Guess what I heard him out and said nothing. It seemed the easiest way out
alex

[CraigS]

Interestingly, my point is that there seems to be relationship between one's goals (in a discussion) and the use of logic. Steven's example is to achieve a higher 'signal-to-noise'. Politicians, I think actually seek to decrease the signal-to-noise.

But there seems to be an implicit relationship between a quest for 'truth' and the application of logic to get there.

I have maintained that Science is not about 'Truth'.

Hmm …

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Guess what I heard him out and said nothing. It seemed the easiest way out

OMG !!!
Our conversations may have a measurable outcome, after all !!

(Just kidding with you again, Alex )

[xelasnave]

Selling is not always telling.
In my view few are totally free of "leaps in logic" my general term for any offense that we could find in the list.
alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

OMG !!!
Our conversations may have a measurable outcome, after all !!

(Just kidding with you again, Alex )

I guess I respect your view of the Universe a little more and so I will continue to help all understand it is a push universe now that I am happy that GR fits it like a glove..well it would if we leave out the attraction and push aspects.

Maybe this should have gone in general chat but a little comic relief is warranted given the generally serious stuff we do here
alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Interestingly, my point is that there seems to be relationship between one's goals (in a discussion) and the use of logic. Steven's example is to achieve a higher 'signal-to-noise'. Politicians, I think actually seek to decrease the signal-to-noise.

Politics and logic are mutually exclusive. The Rennaisance gave birth to the Scientific Method, but an unfortunate gift from the same period is Machiavellianism to which politicians adhere to.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

You have to laugh.

Here at my mates (tarot reader) and another chap turns up excited about the 2012 thing, and how the carbon change in the Sun will cause us to mutate into more wonderful beings capable of manifesting anything we want thereby eliminating the need for money or assisted transport.

But are we going to mutate into more logical beings.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

But are we going to mutate into more logical beings.

Yes anything you want I guess?
alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Politics and logic are mutually exclusive. The Rennaisance gave birth to the Scientific Method, but an unfortunate gift from the same period is Machiavellianism to which politicians adhere to.

I think this is a terminology/label difference only.

The area of overlap is surely, the truth.

If there is no truth, ie: that there is no-one who has the actual, hard story of it all, then the difference between Machiavellianism and logic disappears.
As a 'random' example: "Is there exo-life out there ?"
or:
"Did the Big Bang happen ?"

No one knows … so there is no truth, so there is no distinction between Machiavellianism and 'scientific' logic .. its a matter of 'personal taste' (to quote Sir Ed .. Witten, that is …)

Theory, with supporting empirical evidence, would then seem to be the differentiator, I guess.

Cheers

[CraigS]

But wait …

There's another dimension to this one …

Mathematical Logic !!

So, I kind of view Maths as 'hard-core' logic. There are proofs in Maths.
I think many people overlook the intrinsic logic in Mathematics. All they see is numbers and they get lost in the machinations.

However, maths upholds logic (in the background) whilst 'other' things are happening, during say, a maths procedure.

But if an attempt at a mathematical proof is flawed (or in logical error), it is much easier to see, for all observers. (Ie as compared with some kind of verbal debate and the necessity to apply 'Logical Fallacy' distinctions, to reveal the flaws).

I'll use Mathis as an example. His 'proofs' seem to be a direct attack on the logic intrinsic to mathematics. Or is it that he adopts a Machiavellian stance to some aspect of it before he starts out ?

Whatever he's up to, it is certainly destructive, and seems to be a direct attack on the intrinsic logic which operates throughout mathematics in general.

Cheers

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Another, more humanistic observation of this, is that why are we assuming that a logical argument is somehow superior ?

I mean, we are all humans exhibiting illogic !

Are there any 'Spocks' out there with whom we can have purely illogic free conversations with ?

Politicians, (and lawyers), all seem to exhibit vast knowledge of all these fallacies, and actually exploit them to gain 'power'. (Which seems to be of course, their main goal in life ).

Cheers

It is not. If the ability of logical thinking were superior, the natural selection would eliminate non- logical traits in humanity long time ago. We would be all Spocks by now
The only system where logic unarguably works is in binary logic. As any system gets more complex – what’s logical and what is not become harder and harder to define.
The human society is so complex that if the individual try to justify everything he does or said as logical – he would probably die of starvation, as he would not have
time for anything else.
That begs for the question – What is Logic? And who or what defines what is it?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Karls48

It is not. If the ability of logical thinking were superior, the natural selection would eliminate non- logical traits in humanity long time ago. We would be all Spocks by now
The only system where logic unarguably works is in binary logic. As any system gets more complex – what’s logical and what is not become harder and harder to define.
The human society is so complex that if the individual try to justify everything he does or said as logical – he would probably die of starvation, as he would not have
time for anything else.
That begs for the question – What is Logic? And who or what defines what is it?

Karl;

Logic is invented by humans. I believe it serves to maintain the integrity of a discussion, so us humans don't fall into a complete delusionary world.
It serves the purpose of staying 'true' to the original premise of an argument.

In this sense, it may not be 'superior', but it does cleverly force us to be consistent by giving us a tool to expose flaws publically, thereby using fear as a demotivator for being publically untruthful.

I don't see much in common with natural selection. Evolution may have given us the minds to invent logic, in order for us to separate our perceptions from reality, or at least, that's how we tend to make use of it.

Human society is complex. The rules of logic make it simpler for us to separate the leaves from the trees. In our communications. It is simply a tool, as are the rules of fallacy.

Arguing whether it is 'superior' over something else is not logical.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I think this is a terminology/label difference only.

The area of overlap is surely, the truth.

If there is no truth, ie: that there is no-one who has the actual, hard story of it all, then the difference between Machiavellianism and logic disappears.
As a 'random' example: "Is there exo-life out there ?"
or:
"Did the Big Bang happen ?"

No one knows … so there is no truth, so there is no distinction between Machiavellianism and 'scientific' logic .. its a matter of 'personal taste' (to quote Sir Ed .. Witten, that is …)

Theory, with supporting empirical evidence, would then seem to be the differentiator, I guess.

Cheers

Machiavellism is based on deceiving others irrespective of whether the statement in question is a truth or a supposition.

For example opponents of the BB at that other website engage in a whole plethora of logical fallacies to justify their arguments.
One particular disturbing aspect is the Staw Man argument where scientists are dishonest corrupt individuals who invented the BB to preserve their careers and paychecks.
Since opponents of the BB don't engage in such nefarious activities, their version of events must be correct.
It's a very attractive line to gain converts.

You can't get more Machiavellian than this.....

Regards

Steven