|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 14, 2018 8:43:22 GMT
The internet is not a dependable source for information on types of arguments or types of "fallacies." It might be improving eventually.
Not so long ago and perhaps still there are people who think "No true Scotsman" types of arguments are "fallacies."
There is a need to be clear. There are types of arguments that can be prone to misapplication, but are not always misapplied.
These are types of arguments ...
argumentum ad hominem (some proponent of an idea has personal flaws)
argumentum ad populum (the majority is likely correct)
argumentum ad verecundiam (defer to experts)
Although those are indeed prone to misapplication they are not necessarily always fallacies. You might still find some internet sites that call them "fallacies" as though they are always misapplied. The truth however is that sometimes the majority is right largely because it is the majority, especially on certain political questions. Sometimes the personal flaws of a speaker are relevant to a discussion if not other people in similar discussions. Sometimes it is especially efficient and logical to defer to authority, experts or other success.
"Argument from incredulity" is not a fallacy and not even a "type" of argument. It is a lately invented term found mostly on the internet. Incredulity does not arise on one side of an argument. It arises between sides. People who accuse their opponents of "argument from incredulity" embarrass themselves by failing to understand how incredulity arises.
The "Association Fallacy" is a use of association of some idea with something wrong rather than an explanation why the idea itself is wrong. Ad hominem and "No true Scotsman" can involve association fallacies. Again, there can be relevant associations even though quite many attempts to win an argument that way are not relevant.
It can be confusing because an expression such as "ad hominem fallacy" is also not necessarily wrong either since some ad hominem arguments are not logical. It just remains important to understand that not all ad hominem arguments are illogical simply because some are indeed.
I have always recommended avoiding the labels. Rather than accuse an opponent with a label for what you believe he did wrong, explain it out yourself. That way you avoid committing argumentum ad verecundiam yourself.
Argument by association is particularly prevalent lately. (Thus this thread) Rather than using actual reasons some group is wrong there is an attempt to associate them with something obviously wrong. Democrats are less faithful in marriage (?). Republicans are misogynists (?). The religious failed science (?). I suspect the reason that type of argument is so prevalent is that far too many people on both sides of many issues are not capable of applying reason. Complicating the problem is that there might well be a few examples of people in those groups with those problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 14, 2018 8:57:09 GMT
LOL, Arlon thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 19:43:44 GMT
Moronic post.
However you're right the No True Scotsman "fallacy" isn't a fallacy"
People have all sorts of weird beliefs about langauge. There are people out there who think there is such a thing as correct grammar or correct pronunciation or definitions and throw Saussurean arbitrariness out the window. It's all very unscientific stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 19:56:11 GMT
Always amusing to watch Arlon try to redefine the world to make himself correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 19:58:25 GMT
Always amusing to watch Arlon try to redefine the world to make himself correct. Words mean different things to different people. You can't "redefine a word". There's no such thing as "correct definitions" or "actual meanings" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 19:59:12 GMT
Always amusing to watch Arlon try to redefine the world to make himself correct. Words mean different things to different people. You can't "redefine a word". Arlon thinks he can. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 20:00:03 GMT
Words mean different things to different people. You can't "redefine a word". Arlon thinks he can. Those who say he's wrong for coming up with his own definition are equally as illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2018 20:00:40 GMT
Always amusing to watch Arlon try to redefine the world to make himself correct. Words mean different things to different people. You can't "redefine a word". There's no such thing as "correct definitions" or "actual meanings" Words having different meanings/context is one thing, completely misusing a word is something else. By your reasoning, if I call a cat a "giraffe" that's not incorrect, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 20:03:59 GMT
Words mean different things to different people. You can't "redefine a word". There's no such thing as "correct definitions" or "actual meanings" Words having different meanings/context is one thing, misusing a word is something else. By your reasoning, if I call a cat a "giraffe" that's not incorrect, right? What exactly is "completely missing a word"? You can call whatever you want a giraffe. The connection between the word giraffe and an actual giraffe is entirely arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2018 20:06:00 GMT
Words having different meanings/context is one thing, misusing a word is something else. By your reasoning, if I call a cat a "giraffe" that's not incorrect, right? What exactly is "completely missing a word"? You can call whatever you want a giraffe. The connection between the word giraffe and an actual giraffe is entirely arbitrary. I said "misuse". You know what that means, don't play dumb.
"You can call whatever you want a giraffe."
That doesn't mean you're using it correctly though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 20:07:48 GMT
What exactly is "completely missing a word"? You can call whatever you want a giraffe. The connection between the word giraffe and an actual giraffe is entirely arbitrary. I said "misuse". You know what that means, don't play dumb.
"You can call whatever you want a giraffe."
That doesn't mean you're using it correctly though.
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? If you gathered people of different nationalities and ask them what was in the cage and they all answered monkey but in their own language they wouldn't be "misusing" words, would they? So how is calling a monkey a giraffe any different? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2018 20:16:14 GMT
I said "misuse". You know what that means, don't play dumb.
"You can call whatever you want a giraffe."
That doesn't mean you're using it correctly though.
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? "Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey?"
Because logic and reasoning often depends on using langauge correctly. Imagine you sell wild animals to zoos/collectors, someone orders a girrafe and you send them a monkey instead, and they get upset and confused. Do you not see the problems using words however you want would create? Otherwise language would just be a bunch of random gibberish (which is more or less what the OP wants).
"How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not?"
If it fits within how society generally uses it. If for whatever reason the word "monkey" somehow evolved to mean "girrafe", then you would be using it correctly withint that context.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 20:18:57 GMT
I said "misuse". You know what that means, don't play dumb.
"You can call whatever you want a giraffe."
That doesn't mean you're using it correctly though.
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? If you gathered people of different nationalities and ask them what was in the cage and they all answered monkey but in their own language they wouldn't be "misusing" words, would they? So how is calling a monkey a giraffe any different? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? Oh my god, you are an idiot in every field. Language is mutually agreed upon otherwise we cannot communicate. or if I was to go by your logic, and have any word I want have any meaning: potato fish house, when academics breed sausage how drink green. giraffe can bark dog superlative joy orange transport tank. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 20:21:06 GMT
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? If you gathered people of different nationalities and ask them what was in the cage and they all answered monkey but in their own language they wouldn't be "misusing" words, would they? So how is calling a monkey a giraffe any different? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? Oh my god, you are an idiot in every field. Language is mutually agreed upon otherwise we cannot communicate. or if I was to go by your logic, and have any word I want have any meaning: potato fish house, when academics breed sausage how drink green. giraffe can bark dog superlative joy orange transport tank. I'm not talking about prescriptivism (assuming you even know what this is). |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 14, 2018 20:22:09 GMT
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? "Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey?"
Because logic and reasoning often depends on using langauge correctly. Imagine you sell wild animals to zoos/collectors, someone orders a girrafe and you send them a monkey instead, and they get upset and confused. Do you not see the problems using words however you want would create? Otherwise language would just be a bunch of random gibberish (which is more or less what the OP wants).
"How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not?"
If it fits within how society generally uses it. If for whatever reason the word "monkey" somehow evolved to mean "girrafe", then you would be using it correctly withint that context.
I'm not talking about prescriptivism. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 14, 2018 20:23:34 GMT
You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? If you gathered people of different nationalities and ask them what was in the cage and they all answered monkey but in their own language they wouldn't be "misusing" words, would they? So how is calling a monkey a giraffe any different? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? Oh my god, you are an idiot in every field. Language is mutually agreed upon otherwise we cannot communicate. or if I was to go by your logic, and have any word I want have any meaning: potato fish house, when academics breed sausage how drink green. giraffe can bark dog superlative joy orange transport tank. You're wrong about how communication works. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2018 20:27:00 GMT
"Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey?"
Because logic and reasoning often depends on using langauge correctly. Imagine you sell wild animals to zoos/collectors, someone orders a girrafe and you send them a monkey instead, and they get upset and confused. Do you not see the problems using words however you want would create? Otherwise language would just be a bunch of random gibberish (which is more or less what the OP wants).
"How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not?"
If it fits within how society generally uses it. If for whatever reason the word "monkey" somehow evolved to mean "girrafe", then you would be using it correctly withint that context.
I'm not talking about prescriptivism. Then what else were you refering to? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2018 20:27:25 GMT
tpfkar You can't "misuse" words. Why should I call a giraffe a giraffe and not a monkey? If you gathered people of different nationalities and ask them what was in the cage and they all answered monkey but in their own language they wouldn't be "misusing" words, would they? So how is calling a monkey a giraffe any different? How would you measure whether a word is being used "properly" or not? You can and often do misuse the hell out of words.
No it's not, if there was no pain, holding your hand above a lit candle wouldn't be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 14, 2018 20:27:27 GMT
Re fallacies, the whole idea behind them, Arlon, is whether the approach fuels validity--validity in the logical sense a la impossible for premises to be true and a conclusion false, and additionally there's a relevance requirement in this case. Arguments are fallacies if they have nothing to do with an argument's validity.
So no, there aren't exceptions to argumentum ad populum being a fallacy, for example, because the fact that a majority says something has no impact on validity.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2018 20:29:32 GMT
tpfkar Re fallacies, the whole idea behind them, Arlon, is whether the approach fuels validity--validity in the logical sense a la impossible for premises to be true and a conclusion false, and additionally there's a relevance requirement in this case. Arguments are fallacies if they have nothing to do with an argument's validity. So no, there aren't exceptions to argumentum ad populum being a fallacy, for example, because the fact that a majority says something has no impact on validity. If the vast majority think somebody's a freak, they probably are.
As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about. |
|
