Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 29th June 2017, 04:59

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AF Hall of Fallacies
#31
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
The appeal to authority doesn't really work at any level when trying to establish absolute truth. I could just as easily lie about the ethics of hacking as Rayaan could do some good research and write an accurate essay on the subject.

Appeal to authority seems to me to be a fallacy when you are trying to make absolute truth claims, but if all you are trying to do is establish trust in a claim, then it's fine. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so what he says about hacking is true" is a clear fallacy. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so he likely knows more about hacking than Rayaan" isn't.
Reply
#32
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(24th May 2013, 15:11)Tiberius Wrote: Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so what he says about hacking is true" is a clear fallacy. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so he likely knows more about hacking than Rayaan" isn't.

Tiberius is a hacker!?! OMG! Guard your cookies!


Reply
#33
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Hell, it's entirely possible that one might not do any research whatsoever and still manage to write an accurate essay on a subject. It's also entirely possible that one might be rather well studied on a subject... and still manage to write an inaccurate essay on a subject.

Not probable, but if a set of words might be deemed accurate or not: it can be done. Ultimately, what matters is the essay, and not who wrote it. The argument, and not the person who writes it, the organization what endorses it, or how well-researched it was.

And that's why we have a scientific method of highly-critical peer review and retest claims others have made Tiger Not that any number of people meeting the same conclusion makes it right, of course... Sleepy
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#34
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
So what you're saying Lilly is... nothing?

Logic is all that helps us reach conclusions. If we can follow what is said and agree on the conclusion, a sound argument is made. Identifying fallacies helps weed out false logic.
Reply
#35
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Logic is only -one- of the things that help us to reach conclusions (so..false premise?). We can agree upon a conclusion all day long, but that has little to do with whether or not a sound argument led to that conclusion (non sequitur?) - ergo nazis.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
#36
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Agreed. Look at my big gun. Can we agree?
Reply
#37
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Agreed.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
#38
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(23rd May 2013, 19:23)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Well, really... all knowledge and trust is faith, and logic really only applies as a justification for our beliefs, or as a tool by which we might test our beliefs/that which we might yet believe in.

As long as people recognize that their knowledge may one day be upset, and that their trust may one day be broken: I don't mind that they know everything and trust everyone. Smile

But I understand what you're saying, and yes: we're usually more inclined to trust someone with knowledge and/or experience in a subject. Infact, it's so hilariously ingrained in many people that one might observe this, and then claim they have knowledge and/or experience of/with <subject matter> such that the otherwise illogically arguing individuals will give them the time of day. I really should head to college and get myself a PHD in sociology/psychology, because this shit is fascinating and surprisingly understudied Big Grin

I have no disagreements with the above, especially with the part in bold which is exactly what I told you earlier.

And yeah ... I know that there are many people who push this authority thing a little too far, so much that oftentimes they don't even try to reason/think for themselves nor spend some time to examine the argument itself. They might go to a doctor or a psychologist right away for their *smallest* problems because they think that everything they say is right, as opposed to seeing if there are ways that they can help themselves first.

Dodgy

(23rd May 2013, 19:23)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: It's not unreasonable at all, but it certainly is illogical Smile

That doesn't make sense.

If something is illogical, then it has to be unreasonable.

Everything that is illogical is unreasonable, but everything that is unreasonable is NOT necessarily illogical.

Try to refute THAT. Wink

(23rd May 2013, 19:23)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Tiberius every time. Every time. And if he doesn't do a good job, I'll ask him to try it again before I would ask you. I still love you though! Heart

But ... in this post, you said that what matters is the essay, and not who wrote it. So why would you choose Tiberius to write the essay?

It seems you also contradicted yourself when you said the following:

"And if he doesn't do a good job [...]," the key words being "good job" which imply that you do believe that Tiberius is most likely to do a better job than I would, right?

Regardless, the the question is, why did say that you would much prefer Tiberius to write the essay, and later say that it doesn't matter who writes it?

(23rd May 2013, 19:23)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: First, I'd head to the internet, and check a few sites to get an idea of what it might be. If I think it's bad, I'd probably head straight to a lawyer and write down my will.

Let's imagine you have two options now, and I'll ask the question again (more clearly):

If you had a serious heart condition, who would you first go to for helpful information about the situation of your health: a doctor or a lawyer?

And why?
Reply
#39
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(24th May 2013, 15:11)Tiberius Wrote: The appeal to authority doesn't really work at any level when trying to establish absolute truth. I could just as easily lie about the ethics of hacking as Rayaan could do some good research and write an accurate essay on the subject.

Appeal to authority seems to me to be a fallacy when you are trying to make absolute truth claims, but if all you are trying to do OS establish trust in a claim, then it's fine. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so what he says about hacking is true" is a clear fallacy. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so he likely knows more about hacking than Rayaan" isn't.

I agree with you; that's pretty much the same thing I said in my previous post. Appeal to authority doesn't work when trying to establish absolute truth.

My quote (with the addition of bolding):

(23rd May 2013, 19:03)Rayaan Wrote: That being said, one aspect that comes to my mind is the issue of knowledge and trustability: It's natural for us to think that a person who has an abundant amount of knowledge and experience on a subject (such as photography, for example) is more likely to be right in regards to something that he said about the field of study that he is qualified in, although not necessarily, because that would be a fallacy.
Reply
#40
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Rayaan Wrote:That doesn't make sense.

If something is illogical, then it has to be unreasonable.

Everything that is illogical is unreasonable, but everything that is unreasonable is NOT necessarily illogical.

Try to refute THAT.

I'm using 'a reason' = 'a cause, explanation, or justification', which translates to 'using reason' or 'being reasonable' = to cite a reason for (one's) <conclusion(s), belief(s), law(s), etc>...

I don't use reason as it applies only to logic... seems shortsighted, and horribly myopic of the process as it obsesses over the subject Smile I'd first have to know why something being illogical means it's unreasonable to judge your argument on it's merits... and I'm willing to use your definition to do it (though expect it to be critiqued) if you should feel up to providing it Smile

Quote:But ... in this post, you said that what matters is the essay, and not who wrote it. So why would you choose Tiberius to write the essay?

It seems you also contradicted yourself when you said the following:

"And if he doesn't do a good job [...]," the key words being "good job" which imply that you do believe that Tiberius is most likely to do a better job than I would, right?

Regardless, the the question is, why did say that you would much prefer Tiberius to write the essay, and later say that it doesn't matter who writes it?

Because I'm being reasonable, and not logical. Logically, you're both equally capable of writing me an essay that I will consider 'good'... but I have cause to believe (faith, btw) that Tiberius would do a better job of it than you.

I would prefer Tiberius to write the essay, but ultimately: both of you can write the essay. I would still have Tiberius do it if I were to be any sensibly illogical business person... but should you come up to my front door as a total stranger, essay in hand: I should think that I'd read it regardless. Smile

Quote:Let's imagine you have two options now, and I'll ask the question again (more clearly):

If you had a serious heart condition, who would you first go to for helpful information about the situation of your health: a doctor or a lawyer?

And why?

Doctor, if I'm looking for information. Lawyer if I think getting information is secondary to telling people what to do with my shit Smile

Why: I have faith that a person who has spent their life studying medicine might give me a more informed opinion on health issues, and may be able to treat possibly dangerous conditions on the spot (or, failing that, inform me of how to treat such conditions, if possible). As for the lawyer, I don't trust them, but I don't know enough legalese to write my will myself, to be read and enacted by only those who I do trust Dodgy
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Logic Fallacies: A Quiz to Test Your Knowledge, A Cheat Sheet to Refresh It Rhondazvous 0 213 6th March 2017, 18:48
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  All Logical Fallacies Heat 20 1057 3rd April 2016, 10:45
Last Post: robvalue
  Flashy site for logical fallacies. Tiberius 12 3414 27th August 2012, 05:07
Last Post: Tempus
  Logical Fallacies Chris.Roth 45 12469 8th July 2012, 09:03
Last Post: dean211284
  Common Apologist Fallacies DeistPaladin 20 7774 9th July 2011, 18:56
Last Post: DeistPaladin



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)