AF Hall of Fallacies

[Mister Agenda]

Does it surprise you in the least that my opponents in this case would state that my conclusions don't follow from the presmises? You seem to be oblivious to the reality that an atheist is always going to disagree with my belief, is always going to claim they have 'debunked' my arguments, is always going to say the evidence I present has no merit. You seem to be under this strange delusion that atheists are nuetral and objective about this issue and would happily agree with me if I only made a case. Does it surprise you that the head of the DNC always disagrees with the Republicans and vice a versa? Does it surprise you that lawyers on an opposing case will always claim there opponent has failed to make a case?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

But yes, Christians believe scripture is an infallible authority.

Whether or not the bible is an infallible authority, can you think of any other instances of infallible authorities? I'm just wondering if the category is meaningful apart from the claims attributed to holy books.

Even if someone is in prime position to have seen an event, can we be sure there is no alternative event which could have given rise to what was seen? For that matter, can we be sure that someone in the position to provide authoritative witness to an event will have no motive to give false witness?

I can make sense of someone being an expert witness, who can speak with a great deal of knowledge on a subject. But "infallible"? I don't see how you can be sure of that. Of course I understand that you don't really care how the bible is able to provide infallibly authoritative answers. You're just very certain that it does. However your certainty doesn't assure me that the category "infallible authority" is not in fact an empty set as I suspect.

---

These are all very good questions, but I do not want to take this particular thread off purpose, is there a better place we can discuss this?

Does it surprise you in the least that my opponents in this case would state that my conclusions don't follow from the presmises? You seem to be oblivious to the reality that an atheist is always going to disagree with my belief, is always going to claim they have 'debunked' my arguments, is always going to say the evidence I present has no merit. You seem to be under this strange delusion that atheists are nuetral and objective about this issue and would happily agree with me if I only made a case. Does it surprise you that the head of the DNC always disagrees with the Republicans and vice a versa? Does it surprise you that lawyers on an opposing case will always claim there opponent has failed to make a case?

I think it helps if you identify what fallacy you think has been committed by the poster. Although I do not understand the entire context of that quote, I do not see a very obvious fallacy there.

[Rayaan]

Essentially: you've removed emotional cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning, you've removed fake logic as cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning. That is to say: unless it uses logic (correctly), it cannot be considered as a cause, a justification, or an explanation for anything, and still be declared 'reasoning'.

I didn't intend to give that impression, though, because I've already stated before that reasoning is much bigger than logic. I agree with you that there is much more to human reasoning than just formal and symbolic logic. Our emotions, justification, and experiences are also embedded in the process of our reasoning.

And yeah, the act of reasoning can be very subject sometimes, whereas logic is much more objective because it is based on certain rules.

That being said, I realized that my earlier statement "if something is illogical, then it has to be unreasonable" needs a little more clarification of what I meant. I said that because we know whether or not something is logical by using reason. If a statement is illogical (and we know it), or if it's a logical fallacy (and we know it), then it's not reasonable to use those illogical arguments in order to support something.

You can use your own reasons in order to explain something that you believe in, yes, but it would be unreasonable to use illogical arguments (while you yourself knowing that they are illogical) in order to explain and/or support your beliefs.

By "illogical," I simply mean something which is against logic. There are some things which are reasonable, but not "illogical" ... because logic does not apply to them.

Let's look at one of the examples that you used:

Sometimes women get hired because the person's opinion on them is better because they're pretty(er than a man also applying, say: they fancy her), sometimes women do not get hired because the person's opinion on them is that they have to demonstrate that they're better than an equally talented man <sexist economical reasons, and the like... not logical, but reasoning of the employer nonetheless>.

So, an employer hires a women because he has a better opinion of her, i.e. he thinks that she is pretty and sexy.

You said that's not logical - but I disagree. Why? Because logic plays no role here in the first place. That was only an opinion. And there is no right or wrong to it, so it won't be accurate to consider it "illogical." It's only an opinion, a reasoning.

It won't be illogical unless the man has made a claim of absolute truth such as: "Hey, that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!"

Do you know whether or not he is using that kind of logic? ^ No.

Maybe he just thinks that she is smart - based on her looks - but you can't say that that opinion is "illogical" because there is no evidence of him making a claim of absolute truth on the matter nor of making any illogical arguments. And because there is no right or wrong to his opinion.

*Not my actual opinion, but nothing about it is unreasoned: I've explained why arabs aren't sexy ('cause you dirty).

But isn't that subjective (i.e. that Arabs aren't sexy)?

And where you said "cause you dirty," it won't be correct if the "you" was written in reference to me, since I am not an Arab, in case if you didn't know.

I don't consider myself to be that sexy actually ... but it's not like I really care about that, unlike you, hehe.

There are other aspects of myself that I value more than my sexiness.

Unless your point is that 'people do things for illogical reasons', you probably shouldn't be saying that I'm confirming your point.

My point is that you can't call something "illogical" when the action/decision/idea of a person had no application of logic to begin with, and is ... wait for it ... irrelevant to logic. The example that you gave about hiring women falls under "No logic was involved" as opposed to "illogical." It was just a subjective decision, a reasoning. There is no right or wrong involved here - nothing logical/illogical about it - because the issue is purely subjective.

For it to be illogical, it has to be proven wrong, which can only be done if there is evidence of a truth claim.

[Violet]

First bit owned you a kudos. Good job I apologize for mistaking your argument

So, an employer hires a women because he has a better opinion of her, i.e. he thinks that she is pretty and sexy.

You said that's not logical - but I disagree. Why? Because logic plays no role here in the first place. That was only an opinion. And there is no right or wrong to it, so it won't be accurate to consider it "illogical." It's only an opinion, a reasoning.

I would offer contention to this point... anything that isn't logical: isn't logical. That has nothing to say about whether it be right or wrong, true or false, a triangle or a bedsheet: it only says that it is free of logic. Logic has nothing to do with it in the first place? Exactly. And that's why it shouldn't be judged on logical grounds, but upon other grounds

It's completely accurate to consider it 'illogical'... but I would agree that the word implies a wrongness, a falseness, a BEDSHEET: there is no reason to call it out on its illogicity, as the only proper response to such is to say 'logic doesn't enter into it.' Insofar as I've applied it to this exchange, it was only to note that there are reasonings beyond logic, and indeed that it was improper and even flatly ridiculous at times (usually) to evoke it's name. So... my contention is on a literalistic observation of tautology, but I agree with you wholeheartedly upon the implications of declaring <arbitrary> illogical.

It won't be illogical unless the man has made a claim of absolute truth such as: "Hey, that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!"

Do you know whether or not he is using that kind of logic? ^ No.

Actually, if you throw in the claim that pretty = smart as a premise (Pretty women are very intelligent, and that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!), he's been quite logical. Logic is to say that, should premises hold true: result is so. If a premise does not hold true, the system registers that the conclusion is not necessarily so. The former system is one that is 'sound', the latter is one that is 'unsound'... but both of these are valid. However, if you swapped only the word 'illogical' with the word 'logical': you would be correct: Nothing could be logical unless a claim of truth is made

Oftentimes, a person will base their conclusions off of premises that they believe to be true. Infact, it's a rare person indeed who would base their conclusions off of anything else.

Maybe he just thinks that she is smart - based on her looks - but you can't say that that opinion is "illogical" because there is no evidence of him making a claim of absolute truth on the matter nor of making any illogical arguments. And because there is no right or wrong to his opinion.

Logic isn't based upon right and wrong... it is only upon that which is and is not. He didn't make a logical argument at all, therefore he must have made an illogical argument if an argument did he make at all

But isn't that subjective (i.e. that Arabs aren't sexy)?

And where you said "cause you dirty," it won't be correct if the "you" was written in reference to me, since I am not an Arab, in case if you didn't know.

I don't consider myself to be that sexy actually ... but it's not like I really care about that, unlike you, hehe.

There are other aspects of myself that I value more than my sexiness.

Of course it is. Everything is subjective, after all.

You're not an Arab?! :0 Well, I learned something new. What are, Mexican?

I actually do consider you to be sexy, and I really do care about that, which is why I would only suggest you be otherwise in jest. What aspects are those?

My point is that you can't call something "illogical" when the action/decision/idea of a person had no application of logic to begin with, and is ... wait for it ... irrelevant to logic. The example that you gave about hiring women falls under "No logic was involved" as opposed to "illogical." It was just a subjective decision, a reasoning. There is no right or wrong involved here - nothing logical/illogical about it - because the issue is purely subjective.

For it to be illogical, it has to be proven wrong, which can only be done if there is evidence of a truth claim.

No logic being involved is identical to no logic being involved... even if logic is claimed but not so (false logic), it is still not logic, and therefore logic is uninvolved My initial argument was wholly off of when you said that one couldn't have reasoning without logic (or something to that effect, been a while and I'm still a bit sick), which I considered to be quite spectacularly untrue, hence I made issue of it

Even purely subjective issues can be logical, infact: how any objective issues involve logic eludes me. Any belief that is subjective could be intersubjective if so much as two subjective beings believe the same. Anyway... it is not upon that which is claimed to be proven false: it is upon that which is claimed to be proven true.

[fr0d0]

But yes, Christians believe scripture is an infallible authority.

Whether or not the bible is an infallible authority, can you think of any other instances of infallible authorities? I'm just wondering if the category is meaningful apart from the claims attributed to holy books.

Even if someone is in prime position to have seen an event, can we be sure there is no alternative event which could have given rise to what was seen? For that matter, can we be sure that someone in the position to provide authoritative witness to an event will have no motive to give false witness?

I can make sense of someone being an expert witness, who can speak with a great deal of knowledge on a subject. But "infallible"? I don't see how you can be sure of that. Of course I understand that you don't really care how the bible is able to provide infallibly authoritative answers. You're just very certain that it does. However your certainty doesn't assure me that the category "infallible authority" is not in fact an empty set as I suspect.

I think the problem is that everyone doesn't and cannot see it the same way. in an open forum, it cannot therefore be authoritative. But it can if both sides are prepared to assume that it is for the sake of the argument.

It is of course also a fallacy to exclude something because it us unique.

[Something completely different]

ohhh sweet.

I`ll just add my Kraut here:

What!! Love the way you shout EXPLAIN! like some 1940's grammar school teacher. Why for instance not judge the Roman invation of Britain with our current ethics ? I can't be bothered to go on but I will. You are the type of person that I assume atheisists to be. A total pedant picking over every one of my words to try to catch me out. I am sorry that you find my dislike of Monty Python offensive to you. Ironical that you think that world history should be measured in Judeao-Christian ethical terms. Go and watch 'Life of Brian' again for the 846th time (what did the Romans blah, blah, blah, peoples judea blah, blah the knights that go fucking nee!, this parrot! ) What a pedantic

[Tiberius]

That's true as long as your authority is fallible. If you have an infallible authority then you can appeal to it all day long.

True, though as fallible beings there is no way of knowing whether any other being is infallible, so the point is kinda moot. This is why I don't find the "because God said so" type arguments convincing. Even if everything in the Bible was entirely accurate, and we could verify everything God supposedly said, we can't make any conclusions about his infallibility. I can equally write a book which contains nothing but truths, but it doesn't make me infallible.

Likewise, even if God were to manifest himself in front of us, and answer our questions 100% accurately, our inability to see into the future means we can't ever say that this seemingly infallible being will always be correct. Additionally, we have limits on our verification abilities. If God was to say "there is a small creature named Jeff on a planet 1,000 light years away", we are (at this point in time) incapable of verifying whether the statement is true.

All you can say about God's infallible nature is that it is an assumption. If it's an assumption, you can appeal to it all you want in your argument, but it doesn't mean your argument is necessarily correct. It's only correct if the assumption turns out to be true.

[Faith No More]

Don't forget to put links to the posts you quote, people. It helps to be able to read them in context.

[Rayaan]

Actually, if you throw in the claim that pretty = smart as a premise (Pretty women are very intelligent, and that girl is very pretty, therefore she must be smart!), he's been quite logical. Logic is to say that, should premises hold true: result is so. If a premise does not hold true, the system registers that the conclusion is not necessarily so. The former system is one that is 'sound', the latter is one that is 'unsound'... but both of these are valid. However, if you swapped only the word 'illogical' with the word 'logical': you would be correct: Nothing could be logical unless a claim of truth is made

Oftentimes, a person will base their conclusions off of premises that they believe to be true. Infact, it's a rare person indeed who would base their conclusions off of anything else.

I get what you're saying, and it made more sense to me after thinking about it for a while. I also agree with you that even purely subjective issues can be logical sometimes; the thing is that my use of the word "logic" in this thread was limited to the formal and symbolic types logic only, not in the wider sense of the word - so I guess it was just a disagreement over semantics.

I recently came across a passage in an article about the scope of logic as viewed by Stoic philosophers and it reminded me of what you said, which is the following:

For the Stoics, the scope of what they called ‘logic’ (logikê, i.e. knowledge of the functions of logos or reason) is very wide, including not only the analysis of argument forms, but also rhetoric, grammar, the theories of concepts, propositions, perception, and thought, and what we would call epistemology and philosophy of language.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Log

[Statler Waldorf]

True, though as fallible beings there is no way of knowing whether any other being is infallible, so the point is kinda moot. This is why I don't find the "because God said so" type arguments convincing. Even if everything in the Bible was entirely accurate, and we could verify everything God supposedly said, we can't make any conclusions about his infallibility. I can equally write a book which contains nothing but truths, but it doesn't make me infallible.

Likewise, even if God were to manifest himself in front of us, and answer our questions 100% accurately, our inability to see into the future means we can't ever say that this seemingly infallible being will always be correct. Additionally, we have limits on our verification abilities. If God was to say "there is a small creature named Jeff on a planet 1,000 light years away", we are (at this point in time) incapable of verifying whether the statement is true.

All you can say about God's infallible nature is that it is an assumption. If it's an assumption, you can appeal to it all you want in your argument, but it doesn't mean your argument is necessarily correct. It's only correct if the assumption turns out to be true.

That is a fair enough point, but when you have two people in a discussion who axiomatically both agree scripture is infallible (which is a Christian doctrine), neither of them is committing a fallacious appeal to authority when they appeal to scripture. Now things get a bit more tricky when one person doesn’t agree that scripture is infallible. My point was just that making an appeal to the authority of scripture is not automatically a fallacious appeal to authority.