All of these brilliant people learned from Christianity:
St. Augustine
Thomas Aquinas
St. Anselm
Meister Eckhart
Chaucer
Dante
Boccaccio
Shakespeare
John Milton
Andrew Marvell
John Donne
T.S. Eliot
William Blake
W.B. Yeats
J.R.R. Tolkien
Sylvia Plath
Flannery O’Connor
Cormac McCarthy
Martin Scorsese
Frederico Fellini
Ingmar Bergman
Please try to show how a single one of these people is idiotic?
Here’s where fallacies fail, you see.
Anecdotal fallacy - using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]
^the above are called structural fallacies, problems with the argument’s form.
But it doesn’t take into account the weight of the anecdote.
If the personal experience had a lot of weight, it might be relevant.
Probability is relevant. The argument for probability is not structurally unsound
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[13]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[14]
Often times the argument is absurd. While it’s ignorant to say “preposterous” when someone presents a new idea, the idea that planes exist was absurd at the time. Absurd, but not impossible.
Science bases itself on argument from ignorance, after you repeat an experiment ten times you deem it to be true. Gravity has not been proven false. Therefore, gravity is a fallacy. Fallacy is a fallacy.
I learned this about Trixie from another thread. He has no idea what “fallacy” or any other philosophical term means. He’s adorable that way… 
If you wanna get people to stop acting like apes, fallacy is just another form of apes.
Instead, one must rephrase one’s sentences.
“The sky is blue” becomes
“I percieve the sky to be blue ”
“Obama is a bad presdident” becomes
“Obama is a bad president (77% of the time.)”
“Religious people are stupid” becomes
“Religious people are closeminded and ignorant, but some are mathematically gifted.”
“That guy above me is an idiot” becomes
“That guy above me is being an idiot right now.”
“Humans are doomed” becomes
“Humans are doomed (probability 90%).”
You think it makes more sense to make people speak in e-prime or whatever?
I disagree completely.
yes there is such thing as the fallacy fallacy. But I’m not guilty of it.
I’m not talking about whether something is wrong or right, true or false,
and I made that clear. I’m talking about firstly
whether there’s a fallacy in the logic, embedded assumptions, etc.
that’s not everything, but it’s something we can actually DO.
Sometimes people who smoke don’t die of lung cancer.
And sometimes statements riddled with fallacies are at rock bottom true.
Seems like a dumb reason to keep fallacy and cigarettes around.
I think you are guilty of the nirvana fallacy, which discounts an idea because it falls short of perfection.
I’m not suggesting this will make us perfect, but it will elevate us beyond apes.
Apes make all sorts of noises over and over, repeat the same mistakes and hurl shit.
Imagine a world where we all know how to live in the gray areas a little better.
We will always be human, always flawed, partly because meaning itself is a flawed concept
and yet we all need meaning like oxygen, and meaning requires a little fallacy now and again,
a little black and white, a little boundary-making, letting the power of words run rampant
so that we can believe in something, anything.
BUT, i’m talking about starting small, trixie. Plenty of low hanging fruit out there.
I’d like to hear, JUST ONCE, an expert come in and outline some previously held debate,
and break it down into the composite fallacies. I’d especially love to see this applied to
the most dangerous stuff, the pundits, the rabid, the angry. the bigots disguised as voices of reason.
and nationalists, loyalists, the left or right. Israel or islam. i’m anti-fallacy.
A fallacy is simply a false assertion made false by a substantial flaw in its syllogistic logic. Tricia thinks a fallacy is any statement with which he disagrees.
I don’t think all fallacies are syllogistic. But all fallacies tend to have it in common that they arrive at a conclusion that is not reasonably justified by the means they used to arrive at said conclusion.
This doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong. It just means you didn’t show your work. You’re just arriving at an answer for no demonstrably clear reason.
Often my wife will move the goal post. We start arguing about one thing and when I make headway she switches to another, ideally any other that can prolong her self-righteous indignation. As I untangle each accusation she hops to a new one. I consider this a kind of fallacious path but not syllogistic. She also straw mans quite a bit. Ad bacculum is also used. I’d just like to see more of these words in the mainstream. Philosophy could help prove once and for all how dumb many wifes are. Surely they are mad for a reason, and probably rightly so, but their reasons for anger are usually like religious reasoning.
It seems much of the arguments of the religious are chock full of fallacy. This doesn’t mean religion or God is wrong or false. It just means in most cases people firmly believe but have a hard time putting why into words, so being human they resort to something, anything. In the end, it’s more a question of loyalty to a vision/ideal and love for that thing, than a question of logic, but this is hard to sell to someone who doesn’t share that same subjective emotion. I find that loyalty beautiful, even more so that it’s rife with fallacy. Sam Harris does a good job pointing out fallacies.
Simply because I think most women are dumb (which they are) doesn’t actually make me a guy.
Periphreral demonastrate’s another fallacy - “disliking members of a group, does not make one not a member of a group, especially if said group is biological or rooted in nature.” THe fallacy is “X hates women therefore X cannot hate oneself, therefore X cannot be a woman.”
There are two logical contradictions, the first is the umbrella fallacy - the assumption that hating most of a group requires you to hate every single member, and the assumption that one cannot judge belittle mock or hate oneself.
Fallacies come about because of the every man’s lazy and sloppy word phrasing and syntax. Instead of saying “Obama is a bad president, but he has some good qualities” they just say “Obama is a bad president.” Rather than speaking in probabilities people speak in certainties, for dramatic flare.
Change the colloquialisms to what I suggested, robo-talk, and there won’t be any fallacies, or fallacy fallacies. Of course there won’t be any emotions, either. But I hear robots give good sex.
I will stand corrected, but I’m pretty sure they are. Any flaw in reasoning will be somewhat syllogistic. However, if you can show me a fallacy without a flaw in syllogistic reasoning, I will stand corrected.It has been said many times ignore the trolls and they will go away.
I never said the conclusion was just “wrong,” I correctly said not it was not reasonably justified by the means they used to arrive at said conclusion.
This is not necessarily fallacious; it is just evasive. Your considering it a “fallacious path” does not make it so.
.
A straw man could be seen as a fallacy based on a flaw of syllogistic logic–the assertion of a false statement as actual support when it is not.
The arguments of most people, religious or not, are chock full of fallacy. However, many brilliant religious people, including those whom i’ve listed have put intelligent religious thought into words. You, I imagine, are not religious. How would you put your system of ethical values into words?
No, you’ve completely simplified religious belief without any support whatsoever. Also, Sam Harris himself is excellent at fallacies. His assertion you can scientifically prove right or wrong, while he is unable to do so, is a perfect example.
It boggles my mind how a man with 200 IQ would set his life trying to prove the existence of god.
Even if such a god were real, why would he need to be proven? He’s completely useless actually, and if he was real he would rather have someone spend their 200 IQ talents elsewhere, rather than proving the existence of a mysterious being that wishes to remain anonymous and do little to nothing to alter the world, save anyone or reveal his identity in any matter.
You can be a dumbass regardless of how high your IQ is.
I’m not aware of any man with a 200 IQ who solely sought to “prove” the existence of God. The four theologians I mentioned earlier sure didn’t.
I believe that may be referring to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so… But nonetheless, he’s a “believer”. I find no intelligence in “believing”. I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.
True. Equally true; you can ‘truly’ believe in what your emotions tell you more than the knowledge of them. Possibly same concerning all senses in some measure.
We can truly “believe” in what our emotions tell us, but what do you mean by “More than the knowledge of them?” Lets say, we are happy. Are you saying, it is more useful to believe why we are happy than to know we are happy? Why can’t we simply just know why we are happy, and not need to believe in why we are happy?
Do you believe in any of these things?:
Because you can’t know any of them without some degree of belief.
Emotions tell us nothing, in terms of knowing. Emotions are feelings, not information.
When we are happy we usually make up convincing stories about why we are happy. Mostly its because the sun is shining; someone smiled at you; the dog did something funny; you are in love. None of these things necessarily result in happiness, but when we feel that way we like to try to point the finger at something. Same for when we are pissed off, which could also be the result of the sun shining, the wring person smiling at us and the dog acting in a way that others might find funny, but just pisses you off. Being in love, also can have negative repercussions.
But one thing is for sure’ emotions don’t tell us anything.
What do you mean “believe”?
You don’t have to know anything except what they are to believe: that’s why its belief and not knowledge.
I know enough about 2, 3 & 4 to know they are not subjects for belief, but opinion.
As for 1 this is a feeling you can have about something, I don’t see what the role of belief would do here.
Love is a concept, in what manner would I believe in Love? I experienced love, as described through this concept. I know love. I don’t see why I need to believe it first. You haven’t made that clear.
Right and wrong, is a judgment. I assume you mean morality here, not something like true/false. There is knowledge of morality, and judgment of morality, which lead to us to think is a certain moral claim true, such as “Its evil to kill babies”. Do I believe I am right when I make a moral claim? OR do I know I am right? Right and wrong are not subject to being true or false in a pragmatic sense of what it means to be true or false. Each moral claim is subject to values. It would be true that it would be evil to kill babies if we value babies, yes, from our perspective. But to someone who doesn’t value babies, and finds them… evil, would it be true? The subjectivity of morality and the sense of the word believe when dealing with morality somewhat obfuscates the matter. In this sense, it would be to hold an opinion of your moral claim; not necessarily that it is fact.
Truth - I know of truth. Believing in the truth isn’t really knowing the truth, it seems you have room for some doubt; if that is the case, then why believe something to be true if you don’t know?
Beauty in art, another subjective issue similar to morality. It depends on our perception yes? If I find a painting beautiful, I know I find it beautiful, I don’t really believe I find it beautiful if so, then I wouldn’t be sure of my judgment of beauty, which wouldn’t make much sense would it? But is it true that the painting is beautiful? In this sense, truth does not apply. It is neither true nor false that a painting is beautiful, it is true to me that it is beautiful, but not necessarily for everyone else.
I hope that answers your question? Perhaps I am amiss on how or what you wanted me to answer.
They certainly do tell us something. Perhaps it depends on how much insight you have…