Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
142
Logic 101
November 22, 2011 at 4:26 pm
This is a thread which will serve as a kind of index for other threads which deal with certain aspects of logic. Anyone who wants to contribute should start a new thread dedicated to some part of logic (an argument, a fallacy, etc), and then contact a staff member so that this thread can be updated.
Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem
Whining "Ad Hominem" by DeistPaladin
No True Scotsman
A Quick Reminder About The "No True Scotsman" by Tiberius
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Logic 101
November 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2011 at 3:35 pm by Welsh cake.)
Does anyone know what the fallacy of presenting the phenomena/place in question as "ontological proof" of any given supernatural being's existence is?
Like for example: "The Universe is proof of a God."
"The Forest is proof of Unicorns"
And so on...
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Logic 101
December 3, 2011 at 11:55 am
(November 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Does anyone know what the fallacy of presenting the phenomena/place in question as "ontological proof" of any given supernatural being's existence is?
Like for example: "The Universe is proof of a God."
"The Forest is proof of Unicorns"
And so on...
Isn't that the argument from ignorance?
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: May 9, 2011
Reputation:
1
RE: Logic 101
December 4, 2011 at 2:46 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2011 at 2:48 pm by Emanuel.)
Here is a cool taxonomy of logical fallacies. I know I didn't follow the guideline and made a thread about it, but I just wanted to share this.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html
Posts: 1127
Threads: 20
Joined: May 11, 2011
Reputation:
14
RE: Logic 101
December 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm
(December 3, 2011 at 11:55 am)Epimethean Wrote: (November 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Does anyone know what the fallacy of presenting the phenomena/place in question as "ontological proof" of any given supernatural being's existence is?
Like for example: "The Universe is proof of a God."
"The Forest is proof of Unicorns"
And so on...
Isn't that the argument from ignorance?
Nope, argument from ignorance is "you can't prove It's false, thus its true" or "you can't prove it's true, thus it's false"
Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: Logic 101
December 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2011 at 5:23 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:Not every insult is an ad hominem.
Indeed.Man people don't seem to grasp the difference between "You are stupid BECAUSE you are a Christian (ad hominem) and
'You are stupid AND a Christian" (insult)
Not all believers are stupid,but most stupid people are believers.
Quote:Nope, argument from ignorance is "you can't prove It's false, thus its true" or "you can't prove it's true, thus it's false"
True enough,but 'argument from ignorance' is a lot broader than that. See Wikipedia.
Posts: 532
Threads: 5
Joined: January 30, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: Logic 101
August 10, 2012 at 3:27 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2012 at 3:33 am by CliveStaples.)
Quote:Indeed.Man people don't seem to grasp the difference between "You are stupid BECAUSE you are a Christian (ad hominem) and
'You are stupid AND a Christian" (insult)
Insults are usually irrelevant and thus usually fall under red herring.
Quote:Not all believers are stupid,but most stupid people are believers.
Well, most everyone is a believer, period. So I would probably agree that most stupid people are believers; my guess is that most smart people are believers, too.
(November 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Does anyone know what the fallacy of presenting the phenomena/place in question as "ontological proof" of any given supernatural being's existence is?
Like for example: "The Universe is proof of a God."
"The Forest is proof of Unicorns"
And so on...
Is that necessarily a fallacy? There is no phenomena or 'place in question' that gives an ontological proof for a supernatural being's existence?
If these are fallacies, I'd probably categorize them under non sequitur, since the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Posts: 527
Threads: 5
Joined: August 18, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: Logic 101
March 5, 2014 at 6:45 pm
Hey CliveStaples whats up?
Posts: 6300
Threads: 78
Joined: May 14, 2011
Reputation:
82
RE: Logic 101
March 5, 2014 at 7:43 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2014 at 7:43 pm by Kayenneh.)
discipulus, two things. Please don't necropost and Clive hasn't logged in since 13th December 2012, so don't hold your breath for an answer.
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: Logic 101
March 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm
On the other hand, Kay, it was nice to see Pad's name up in lights again.
|
