Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Logic 101

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Logic 101

    I have decided to open a thread relating to logic, or the lack therof. I know I have a tendancy to jump into threads and point out the logical fallacies presented by people, and often it hijacks the thread, so I am now going to use my own little logic thread to dissect the logical inconsistancies posted.

    I also think it would be fun to have a "Fallacy of the Day"

    Today's fallacy is:

    Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

    http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

    Definition:

    Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

    Examples:

    (i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

    (ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

    (iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

    Proof:

    Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't.
    (I would like to point out that the sections entitled "PROOF" in these links refers to how to prove that an argument was presented using said fallacy. The proof has nothing to do with the truth of the argument in question.)

    I present this fallacy of the day for the BB's review. Now, a fallacy of the day would not be any fun if we didn't find examples, would it? So, here is an example from a BB member of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, or, an assertion presented as a logical argument that is fallacious because it ASSUMES that since something was not proven true, it is false:

    The NHL linesman you speak of did NOT get a call to start as you said in your initial post. This means there are 3 and only 3 possibilities:
    That the linesman did not get a call to start work was supported only by circumstantial evidence, and meets the requirements defined above to be the logical fallacy of "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam."

    Stay tuned for tommorow's Fallacy of the Day.






  • #2
    Boooooooorrrriiinnng. I hope tomorrow's is more interesting

    Comment


    • #3
      When is Argumentum Ad NekkidChiks coming up? Then I'll tune in.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have made it farther in hockey than you!

        Comment


        • #5
          Do you really think anyone is going to read this and actually apply any of these "lessons" you're giving?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by hunster71
            I have made it farther in hockey than you!

            Dude, anyone who has a cat with a lime-helmet avatar is obviously more secure in their game than I ever will be, but remember, even if it's true, it has to be germane, or it is a fallacy.



            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gort
              Do you really think anyone is going to read this and actually apply any of these "lessons" you're giving?

              Hmmm....read it AND apply it? Sounds like a tall order. I know I'm out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Clyde
                Dude, anyone who has a cat with a lime-helmet avatar is obviously more secure in their game than I ever will be, but remember, even if it's true, it has to be germane, or it is a fallacy.
                Mmmmmmmmm, Lime Cat kabobs (drools.............)

                the gr8sav

                Comment


                • #9
                  "I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Leave it to a Scotch drinker...


                    ...but then I can't really prove he's a Scotch drinker.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good job, but bad example Clyde.

                      "The NHL Linesman did NOT get a call to work..."
                      Is a fact.

                      First:
                      The initial statement that jawbone made from "Devon" made was:"the NHL linesmen were called to work." BUT THEN IT WAS RETRACTED BY THE PERSON WHO PRESENTED THAT INFORMATION.

                      Here's the proof:
                      Originally posted by jawbone
                      OK, so my friend Devon was misinformed.
                      If the person presenting the data has RETRACTED his own data because even HE says it is false, then how can you rationally claim it to be reasonable to say it still happened?

                      If I say "I know that Clyde shoved a pickle up Moto's butt yesterday" and then the very next day I say "Ooops, I was misinformed about clyde shoving a pickle up motos butt" then I don't see how one can argue very strongly at all that it is almost certain much less even likely at all that this happened.


                      Now for those of who DO want to learn a logic fallacy: Here's one that I don't even know what it's name is:
                      WHO CAN NAME THIS FALLACY? I'd LIKE TO KNOW THE NAME OF IT:
                      Person X claims person Y has logic fallacy Z because the premise B is not conclusive. But then, Person X HIMSELF gives proof that premise B is conclusive.
                      Yet somehow person X still doesn't concede he's wrong.

                      Here's an example:

                      Say I claim the following:
                      Originally posted by bernie
                      the NHL linesman you speak of did NOT get a call to start as you said. This means there are 3 and only 3 possibilities.......
                      1. Devon is a liar
                      2. You are a moron
                      3. You are a liar
                      Now let's say Clyde argues with this:
                      Originally posted by clyde
                      "What Logical Fallacy Did Bernie Use?!?!?!"
                      I present as evidence to help you figure it out a fourth option: The linesman in question DID get a call and devon was just misinformed
                      (and thus of course Clyde's point is that devon would not be a moron in that case, which means I missed a 4th possible premise and lose the argument)
                      The problem is, if you can think logically, you will see that EVEN IF the lineman really got a call, devon is still a moron, and premise two still holds.
                      Originally posted by bernie
                      Sorry clyde, you are wrong. The possibilities still hold. My point #2 is that Devon was a moron. It holds so regardless of if the linesman really got a call.
                      Of course this is easily supported by the following
                      Originally posted by bernie
                      even if the linesman REALLY got a call to go to work, the evidence at the time was so overwhelming that this could not possibly be, and Devon was a moron not to look into it before spreading that information.
                      (If there was 7 feet of snow in the streets, and you got a call that there would still be school for your kids tomorrow, you would be a moron to think the call were true without checking further).

                      BUT it doesn't matter: BECAUSE CLYDE AGREES WITH ME ANYWAY THE NEXT DAY

                      Originally posted by clyde
                      I submit to the BB that Bernie's assertion that someone is a moron has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the information posted on the BB
                      and
                      Conclusion: Being a moron is irrelevant to a discussion of access to information related to the end of the lockout.
                      Clyde originally argued that I had a fallacy because it was possible the linesman DID get a call and thus devon could not possibly be a moron. Then he proves that whether or not a linesman got the call it doesn't matter- either way devon can still very well be a moron!

                      What fallacy would that be? Please tell me.

                      Bernie
                      Last edited by Bernie; 02-22-2005, 06:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."
                        I really do not miss our hapless ole' PM... mind you he's was a shrewd as they came as a politician...

                        Almost as good as slick Willy's assertion "I did not have sexual relations with that girl"....

                        Clyde: keep up the good work, I was always a fan of logik in school...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bernie,

                          If you want to keep screaming louder and louder that "X is a moron" is a great logical argument, do it in the other thread.

                          I'm still waiting for GAW to come to your rescue. Heck, ANYONE. The silence is deafening.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Clyde
                            Bernie,

                            If you want to keep screaming louder and louder that "X is a moron" is a great logical argument, do it in the other thread.

                            I'm still waiting for GAW to come to your rescue. Heck, ANYONE. The silence is deafening.
                            X is a moron can well be a logical argument.
                            Disregarding X's argument "because he is a moron" is not.

                            I did not do the latter.

                            I would like to prove Clyde is a moron (fool, idiot whatever your fave word is)

                            1. A moron is a person who shows poor reasoning
                            2 Clyde shows poor reasoning
                            3. Therefore, Clyde is a moron.
                            That is a logical argument if the 2 premises hold true.

                            Now if Clyde counters saying "But aha bernie... I am not a moron because...."
                            and I say "Sorry clyde, your argument fails because you're just a moron" then, obviously, I have just made a logic fallacy there.

                            See the difference? I knew you would, it's logic 101 but even children can see the difference there.
                            Last edited by Bernie; 02-22-2005, 06:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm a fan of Logic but I agree with Bernie that I think your example is a bit off. I await the next lesson.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X