common fallacy which occurs too often in Wikipedia and other forums: namely, the assertion that Euclid's Postulate 5 and the parallel postulate are logically synonymous. — alan1000
The greatest of all, and the the most damaging of all, is the idea that metaphysical problems are formal dilemmas. — FrancisRay
Common fallacy? It occurs too often in Wikipedia???one common fallacy which occurs too often in Wikipedia and other forums: namely, the assertion that Euclid's Postulate 5 and the parallel postulate are logically synonymous. — alan1000
nteresting! Could you expand on that a little? :smile: — 0 thru 9
Let's see ...Of every contradictory pair one member is true and one false — FrancisRay
Based on the above, has the system been violated? How can a rule be violated if it its validity is not established?This is the input rule for his system, and when it is violated the entire system breaks down. — FrancisRay
Of course.If we ask whether we have won or lost the lottery then the answer will be yes or no.. — FrancisRay
This is not about contratictory pair --of the kind of Aristotle's "Of every contradictory pair one member is true and one false"-- that I commented on. It's about alternatives.If we ask whether two plus two equals three or five then we are abusing the rule for legitimate pairs. — FrancisRay
OK, but something and nothing are too vague and abstact. So, I don't think that this can be used as an example in our case, either. Your first example (lottery) was good.If we ask whether the universe begins with something or nothing then we are assuming one of the answers is correct but do not know this. — FrancisRay
I don't think that logic can enter in the above example. As I said, the contrassting elements are too abstract to be considered as evidence for truth or falseness. So, saying that neither answer is correct has no meaning.Logic tells us that neither answer is correct. — FrancisRay
What is the "second assumption"? That the universe begins with nothing? If so, what rule exactly does it break and why? And what about the first assumption, i,e, that the universe begins with something? Why's not that breaking the rule?In metaphysics the second assumption is generally considered to break the laws of logic. — FrancisRay
It's just a mistake. Lack of knowledge. A false statement. Not a fallacy. A fallacy is an unsound argument. A single assumption alone cannot consist argument. it can only be part of an argument. "I assume that you are English" is not an argument. An argument would be "The name "Francis" is English. So you must be English."If we make the wrong assumption in such cases this is either a fallacy or a basic mistake. — FrancisRay
Right. But why are you mentioning that? In my example of "1) Man is white. 2) Man is not white" the two elements are mutually exclusive. In a most explicit and direct way.For sound reasoning we must know that a contradictory pair of propositions are mutually exclusive and exhaust the possibilities. We never know this for metaphysical questions. . — FrancisRay
I don't think that logic can enter in the above example. As I said, the contrassting elements are too abstract to be considered as evidence for truth or falseness. So, saying that neither answer is correct has no meaning. — Alkis Piskas
I would respect your opinion if it weren't evasive and meaningless: "I don't undestand your comments" means nothing. There's a big difference between us in how we handle comments and debating in general. You would thrive as a (Greek) politician! :smile:You;re right - I don't understand your comments. They seem to miss the point. — FrancisRay
I would respect your opinion if it weren't evasive and meaningless: "I don't undestand your comments" means nothing. There's a big difference between us in how we handle comments and debating in general. You would thrive as a (Greek) politician! :smile:
Anyway, it's better this way. We'll both avoid wasting more time. — Alkis Piskas
What's fun here is how few folk on a philosophy forum understand what a fallacy is. — Banno
↪FrancisRay
More wasted time ...Bye, bye for good now. — Alkis Piskas
You invited people to participate to your discussion.
Basic courtesy demands that you reply to someone who has responded. Even with just a "Thanks" ... — Alkis Piskas
This side conversation could be fascinating, but I’ll try to steer the discussion back to the OP (which is giving examples of bad logic and informal fallacies, and then explaining).I was talking about my response to your topic. What the hell has FrancisRay to do with it?
That's totally crazy. — Alkis Piskas
Sorry, I have no answer for this yet. You may ask everyone again, or give the answer if you’d like.Find why Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise is such a pseudo paradox ... — Alkis Piskas
Find why Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise is such a pseudo paradox ... — Alkis Piskas
It is actually very simple. (Describing it sounds more complicated though. :smile:)What passes as a rigorous explanation for why Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox? — Nils Loc
This is exactly the point: There are no finite distances or tile periods. It is we who arbitrarily define them as such for the purposes of description or physical phenomena, geometric problems, etc., based on measuring units, which we have arbitrarily created, such as meter, yard, day, hour, etc.One can race a man against a turtle and see that men and turtles traverse finite distances over time. — Nils Loc
Exactly, it's just a dream. :smile:This is the dream of some mathematician, who introduces infinity as a problem to a real world scenario. If a finite distance is infinitely divisible in the realm of maths, so be it, but it doesn't apply in a way that makes motion in time impossible — Nils Loc
A lot of you are missing the point when they start applying Zeno's paradox to real world circumstances. It was an allegory for a mathematical argument he was having with other Greek philosophers. It isn't intended as a theory of motion but as argument against the then prevailing idea that a mathematical line is build up of points (atoms) and a finite number could not be divided infinitely (again, atoms!). It's an argument against there existing an indivisible mathematical quanta that they thought existed at the time.
As a mathematical argument it's quite good and easily imagined but the allegory is just an aid for understanding the mathematical argument not intended as to say anything sensible about the real world. So once you realise it isn't about physical reality, the paradox disappears. — Benkei
I undestand that you mean this in a figurative way. But still, you have not answered any question. I have mentioned Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise paradox as a challenge for "spotting the falacy" which is the motto of this topic. Your message has nothing to do with that. It's just out of place and time.I already answered your question 5 years ago: — Benkei
Zeno assumes falsely --but I believe for us only, not for himself-- that time and space are finite and have a discrete (discontinuous) form, and so they are divisible. But this is a fallacy. They are not; they are infinite and continuous, so they are indivisible. — Alkis Piskas
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.