They're foundational for philosophical arguments. I've seen way too many examples on this forum where arguments go nowhere since people just bash opinions and doesn't listen to the other side. — Christoffer

Yes, there's alot here beneath engagement. It's the gems one must look out for. It's simple self-respect to know when to ignore someone and their argument when it leads to no interesting discussion. The problem here is not fallacies. It's misplaced pride and an inability to ruthlessly discriminate. No pinned post can fix that.

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen.

--

That said, a link tacked on to the rules as a resource is not a bad idea at all.

It's patronizing and overbearing and has a whiff of... Let's just say it has a whiff of Sapientia about it :razz:

Having a sound logical structure is the bare minimum requirement for an argument, so bare indeed that it is hardly worth noting - unless the argument itself is so bare that a sound logical structure is all that it has going for it. Most disagreements that are worth arguing about are not over logic, and those that are not worth arguing about shouldn't be argued. (ETA: Just saw that said the same thing.)

Besides, I doubt that such hectoring will be pedagogically effective.

Having a sound logical structure is the bare minimum requirement for an argument — SophistiCat

...and these things are not only a tool in order to spot counter-arguments that doesn't work, but it can also be used to help someone who's interested in a dialectic to improve their own argument. An argument free from fallacies and biases helps the one who wrote the argument to communicate the idea. People treat it as a negative, but as I mentioned earlier, it's not limiting to the argument, it's focusing.

Yes, there's alot here beneath engagement. It's the gems one must look out for. It's simple self-respect to know when to ignore someone and their argument when it leads to no interesting discussion. The problem here is not fallacies. It's misplaced pride and an inability to ruthlessly discriminate. No pinned post can fix that.

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen. — StreetlightX

LOL. Post-truth BS in a logical format.

Truth.

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful. — Harry Hindu

Of course you don't.

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

"An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself."

From that same link:
True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid.

Thanks for that. Feel like consensus on this may not materialize though...

So, it seems to me that some people in this thread want this forum to have discussions be more like what we see on Facebook.
:confused:

:vomit:

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid. — Harry Hindu

Which is in line with what Baden said.

Except that it isn't.

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

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

Baden mentioned that it's not correct to say valid premises and true arguments. Harry then countered by a quote that says just that, which made him counter himself. That was the point.

and with what I have said. So, we're both right?

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

Yes. He just managed to be wrong again with this.

So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid. — Harry Hindu

I agree with @TheWillowOfDarkness and @Hanover and @StreetlightX.

Among the bad posts and obnoxious posters, I suspect that fallacies and biases are far from being the biggest problems. In fact, the identification of fallacies can be part of a bad argumentative style, and a preoccupation with fallacies seems sometimes to indicate an interest in critical thinking at the expense of philosophy.

And there's just something so middlebrow about it, like a preoccupation with "correct" grammar.

So I say no way.

The new post-truth meme:

On his way down the slippery slope to the straw man festival, the one true Scotsman felt a rumble in his tummy, he had forgotten to eat today and thus had an undistributed middle. Unfortunately, he could not attribute his hunger to his eating habits today; so he quenched his thirst with some fine post hoc( k ) and fried up some red herring, though he felt some hesitation in having both - he could not decide if it was a constructive dilemma or a false one. Anyway, he affirmed the consequence that his hunger was sated due to the meal, and after he finished his fried fisking he sat down in a circle with the rest of the smoking guns and retired hazily with them to their tent. Unfortunately, their activities in the tent were an enthymeme and he awoke with an illicit minor.

The quote is "True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun)."

The conclusion that is Harry's and not part of the quote, but not distinguished clearly is "So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid." Harry repeats the error just pointed out by Baden and pretends that it is either said by the source or follows from what is said by the source. And he is wrong, as I have just demonstrated. All of which demonstrates both the importance of logic, and the futility of reducing it to a checklist of fallacies. You have to study it and think, and you can still go wrong.

:love:

Also, how great of a word is enthymeme?

All fallacies are originally derived from argument. One of the dangers of learning a list of fallacies is that you miss out on the ability to identify why they are fallacies in the first place -- it's a common sophomoric mistake to dismiss arguments by quickly categorizing them into their respective domains of invalid inference.

The names are better served for self-criticism than as a list of do's and don'ts for others. Especially because most fallacies are of the informal variety, anyways, and so whether or not they apply is a matter of judgment to the particular argument rather than a solid proof of invalidity.

Which is to say -- I don't think it would change our penchant for making mistakes in thinking to have a list pinned up. I think all it would accomplish would be to endorse the bad use of fallacies. So I voted no.

And among the bad posts and obnoxious posters, I suspect that fallacies and biases are far from being the biggest problems. In fact, the identification of fallacies can be part of a bad argumentative style, and a preoccupation with fallacies seems sometimes to indicate an interest in critical thinking at the expense of philosophy.

And there's just something so middlebrow about it, like a preoccupation with "correct" grammar.

So I say no way. — jamalrob

I only see fallacies used in arguments when the other one is actually brutally bad at making a point without totally bonkers reasoning or ad hominems. I don't see fallacies as part of a bad argument, they can be, as any language can be used in a bad way, but they can also be used in a good argument, especially counter-argument. If someone has fallacies and biases within their argument and it's pointed out, then the OP poster might have a very clear understanding of what is wrong with their argument.

This is part of a healthy dialectic in my opinion.

And it's not really about rules that must be followed, but tips for being a better participant in philosophical discussions and dialectics. If I want heated brawls and extreme focus on opinions there are thousands of other forums, FB and Twitter. Having tips on how to improve your argument and participation of discussions I can't see what's wrong with having such tips. It's also good for newcomers who are new to philosophy and get blasted by others for their way of reasoning and they have no idea how to really improve.

Tips aren't rules, they're just tips for those who want them. I never suggested them to be rules we must follow without exception, i.e you get banned if you don't use them, that's not it at all.

Yeah, it's good to know about those fallacies, but I don't think it's a case for pinning.

it's a common sophomoric mistake to dismiss arguments by quickly categorizing them into their respective domains of invalid inference. — Moliere

But can also be used to point out holes in an argument in a very clear and to the point way than incomprehensible counter-arguments that goes on for pages after pages.

The names are better served for self-criticism than as a list of do's and don'ts for others. — Moliere

Tips aren't do's and don'ts, rules are. These things should be tips on how to improve your way of creating arguments and participate in discussions. There are many who don't even seem to know what fallacies and biases are.

I think all it would accomplish would be to endorse the bad use of fallacies. So I voted no. — Moliere

That's a sound counter-point though, hard to know if it's gonna go down that road, but.... isn't that a slippery slope? :wink:

Yeah, it's good to know about those fallacies, but I don't think it's a case for pinning. — jamalrob

I think the general idea that was proposed earlier was to include them in the already pinned guidelines as "General tips on how to improve your writing" or something like that. So no new post pinned and clear point that they are tips and not rules that must be followed. Just like there are guidelines to include an actual argument in the first point, which can't be a rule since sometimes there's a question to be asked and discussed rather than making an argumentative point.

At least you seem to recognise the limitations of syllogistic form when arguing for a point. :P

This is why a fallacy list is a stupid idea. The most interesting deductions don't even work with pre-established logical rules. If you doubt this, try going through Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and put the argument into a series of syllogisms. Even Spinoza's Ethics, which was explicitly written to ape Euclid's Elements' axiomatic style, relies heavily on footnotes and often does not explicitly spell out how one thing follows from another, just what things depend on other things - and even then, there's lots of footnotes that don't fit into the structure he wants which are nevertheless essential to understanding the text.

On a more basic level, logic alone doesn't let you derive 'it is coloured' from 'it is red'...

It reminds me of urethra for some reason. Spoils it a touch for me.

I think the misconception about this is that they should be rules, but they are tips. It's not about limiting people's ability to write philosophy, but focusing an argument when focusing is needed.

That's a sound counter-point though, hard to know if it's gonna go down that road, but.... isn't that a slippery slope? — Christoffer

On the contrary -- if it were a slippery slope I would be substituting what the proposal is for some other proposal. So something along the lines of "If we post a list of tips, then this is just one step on the road to making them rules, which is surely just a way for the socialists to take over the forum"

Which is basically a non-sequiter, and is fallacious because I am not addressing what a person said but rather what I would rather talk about -- usually because it is easier to dismiss or scarier to the audience I wish to influence.

But I believe that a list of tips wouldn't encourage the good, but would rather encourage the bad. Perhaps my prediction is wrong, but I am addressing the proposal put forward. I don't believe you are saying these should be rules, nor do I believe that it will eventually lead to socialism.

On the contrary -- if it were a slippery slope I would be substituting what the proposal is for some other proposal. So something along the lines of "If we post a list of tips, then this is just one step on the road to making them rules, which is surely just a way for the socialists to take over the forum" — Moliere

Sure, was just making a bit of a meta-joke :wink: