I wasn't saying you committed a "red herring" fallacy.

My point was the idea that lots of fallacies make it hard to discern a truth claim was mistaken. "Red-herring" was referring to how your truth claim was wrong, that you are supposing a problem in identifying truth claims which isn't there.

So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly?

"Red-herring" was referring to how your truth claim was wrong, that you are supposing a problem in identifying truth claims which isn't there. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I wasn't talking about identifying truths (or truth claims) in texts, but about discovering truths or insights in texts. The point is that you actually have to read the text in order to discover whether there are even any potential truths or insights there, before you can actually identify them as such.

Only if you don't clusterfuck off!

Agreed.

I was saying the amount of fallacies present in the text don't affect the truth claims. One just reads it and focuses in on the truth claims, ignoring the fallacious moves to get at what at stake for the claim. It's not hard to isolate them, assuming someone has made the truth they are interested clear.

(obviously, in some cases, a person might be committing fallacies in a way that makes the truth claim opaque, but that's just issue of communication. As with any text which didn't commit fallacies but was similarly opaque, you would have to wait to find a way in or just leave it alone because you didn't want to waste time trying to understand it and failing).

So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly? — Janus

Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.

The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.

Fair point.

Only if you don't clusterfuck off! — Janus

Really, if a piece of writing is literally a clusterfuck, does this qualify as a fallacy?

The problem with fallacies is not they aren’t real or that logic somehow doesn’t work, it’s they don’t address a claim being made. If I’m talking about which shops are in my local area, I’m not making claim about how fallacious my argument is or not. My subject of interest is another fact entirely, one which is not actually a fact of my argument at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But if your claim about which shops are in your local area is false, then it isn't a fact at all, but a falsehood. Your "subject of interest" would be lacking in facts.

I asked this a while ago:

Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true or invalid and true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument? — Harry Hindu

And so far, I've only seen these two examples:

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.) — unenlightened

I am a poster of The Philosophy Forum. Since I dislike fallacies, I am an idiot who can never be trusted. Ergo, there is a fruit shop on my street.” — TheWillowOfDarkness

If these topics are so "interesting", then I'd love to see a thread started on these. :rofl:

I’m sure the fallacy minded will have a lot of fun picking that one apart, finding all the different sorts of missteps in logical inference I’ve made. But what have we said/learnt/discovered about whether there is a fruit shop on my street? Absolutely nothing. The metric which justifies the claim “There is a fruit shop on my street” or gives a reason to reject it hasn’t even been addressed. The fallacies of my argument doesn’t actually give us a reason to conclude the claim should be rejected. I could commit all those fallacies in my argument and it might be true there is a fruit shop on my street. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:clap: You just explained the fallacy fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Isn't it strange that you can't seem to avoid referring to some logical fallacy when it comes to making claims about how to determine what is true or not?

I don't know...maybe a clusterfallacy? Or a clusterphallusy?

An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy. — Harry Hindu

So induction is a logical fallacy? Poor science.

No! It could all be valuable philosophical work. Of course you could still do this work in an obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow and all the rest of it" way, but then the good part of your work might be wasted. The "obnoxious, etc, etc......" is more a matter of style than substance. — Janus

Obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, middlebrow? Sure, whatever. I'm not everyone's cup of tea. But stupid? Never! :grin:

That's not really doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" is actually an evidence/knowledge based claim. If we take the concept of "reasonable doubt" in law, for example, it is actually based on the expectation that if someone performed a crime, it amounts to empirical states which we can observe and investigate. It actually rejects someone committed a crime on the basis we know empirical states we would expect from the crime haven't occurred. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure, there'd be two sides to the argument. This isn't a one sided thing. But I may have already gone over my side, leaving the problem of trying to figure out whether this claim of the other person has anything going for it. Left to my own devices, there would be little chance of acheiving a different outcome. I don'taccept it, and I have my reasons. I've gone through that process and reached a conclusion. But I could be wrong, hence giving an opportunity for the other person to make their case. You expect me to argue against myself? Kind of an odd take. Anyway, this is where you miss the importance of the burden of proof.

If I've done all that, which is to take a reasonable approach, and then they produce a fallacious argument in reply, then the other reasonable thing to do is as I've described.

I just don't think you're seeing what reasonable behaviour looks like in these situations. Or you're just kind of being a contrarian for the sake of it. Maybe you have an axe to grind, a chip on your shoulder. Logic bad, fallacies good. Yeah, right... :brow:

No, no, enthymeme reminds me of urethra.

This is a red-herring because the garbage of it being fallacious is unrelated to its truth claim. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. You're missing the point. People like myself and @Janus understand how the logic words. We understand that producing a fallacious argument in support of a claim doesn't mean that that claim is not true. You don't need to explain this to us. You shouldn't assume that we don't understand this.

They commit the fallacy in trying to demonstrate the supposed truth to the claim. That's what we're trying to find out: whether there's a good enough reason to believe that the claim is true. If I can't reasonably find one, which would be the charitable assumption in this situation, then I pass it over to you.

Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right". — Harry Hindu

Baden is not the kind of thing that can be 'right'. Baden can be good or bad. Directions can be right or left. Inferences can be true or false. Statements can be sound or unsound. And whole arguments can be valid or invalid, as well as true or false. I hope we can now draw a line under this.

@praxis

Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.

The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.

But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level. If you're looking for a club who only lets in elites, then this isn't it.

But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level. — S

On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign.

On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign. — praxis

This place isn't for them, then. We have a significant number of low levels here. (N.b. a significant number doesn't necessarily equate to most, and it doesn't in this case. It's a number of significance by my assessment).

It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy.

It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy. — praxis

No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves.

My argument is not the straw man that you addressed. It's not that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality, they should therefore be catered to. That obviously has one or more missing premises. The missing premise would be something along the lines that, regarding the actions we take for the forum itself, we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic, especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy, and it wouldn't make a significant difference in how the front page looks, and although it might put some people off, these people would be of a bad, snobbish attitude, and they would have the wrong priorities, and this site would very likely continue to attract those higher levels you have in mind who do not have that bad attitude and probably think nothing of a little sticky note about logic on a philosophy forum.

When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities.

No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves. — S

This is a poor analogy because a hazardous wet floor is equally relevant to both the hillbilly and the ivy league academic. Indeed it may be more relevant to the achademic who, being so often lost in their deep thoughts, may be less likely to notice floor hazards. The hillbilly, on the other hand, is likely to be continually scanning the floor for food scraps and cigaret butts that might still have a buff or two left in them, and being so focused on the floor are much less likely to fall pray to its potential pitfalls. In fact, if the floor cleaner were sufficiently toxic they may lick it off the floor in the hopes of attaining a cheep high, inadvertently providing a public safety service.

we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic — S

If prominently posting basic instruction gives the impression that this site is for beginners and this consequently discourages potential participants more skilled in logic it could have the effect of increasing the ratio of illogic.

... especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy, — S

It may be simple and easy to post some basics but would it be effective? In order to improve critical thinking you need to value critical thinking. It's not simple and easy to make people value logic, critical thinking, knowledge, truth, wisdom, etc.

When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities. — S

I doubt anyone wants an elitist club. For one thing, the membership fees would likely be outrageous. I do think that many members, including myself, would like to see interesting topics that are discussed deeply and reasonably.

:heart: