Why fallacious reasoning matters

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".

The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?

Just pretend that the premise is valid?

Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?

What?

If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.

That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that? 

   

[BeRational]

Well put.

I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.

My bet is no.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi BR,

Well put.

I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.

My bet is no.

Mine too. Wouldn't it be nice though if one of the usual suspects at least had the decency to address the issue?

[Hope]

Well put.

I wonder if the usual suspects that rely on this faulty reasoning take heed.

My bet is no.

I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.

[BeRational]

I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.

Then all you have to do as suggested, is the rebut the argument and show that you are NOT using a fallacy.

That is all that is being asked.

If you use a fallacy in your argument, then it FAILS automatically for ALL time, not question.

Until you grasp this simple point I think you will just repeat your mistakes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding, or whether they regard it as lacking in anything.

Your problem there being that you and others think that your personal "understanding" should also be accepted as a means of establishing objective truths for other people.

When you rely on logical fallacies to demonstrate that it doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily wrong (a stopped clock is still right twice a day and all that) but it does mean that your means of establishing that your understanding is also an objective truth is necessarily wrong.

Aside from undermining any credibility you might have hoped for, that takes you straight back to a "true for me only" claim.

Your choice then is either to stay there, or instead to attempt an argument that isn't demonstrably false.   

[Hope]

Then all you have to do as suggested, is the rebut the argument and show that you are NOT using a fallacy.

Many have simply rebutted the argument.  Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one. 

If you use a fallacy in your argument, then it FAILS automatically for ALL time, not question.

Until you grasp this simple point I think you will just repeat your mistakes.

Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.

[BeRational]

Many have simply rebutted the argument.  Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one. 
Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.

This is something you must STOP doing. Stating something was shown somewhere else before. It's tiresome!

Try here, make your argument and let's see if it contains any fallacies.

Can you do that without referring to something said somewhere that cannot be checked?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Many have simply rebutted the argument.

You make this claim a lot yet, so far as I recall, neither you nor anyone else actually has rebutted the finding that you've relied on one or more logical fallacies for your premise. If you do genuinely believe this to be the case though, why not finally show us one of these supposed rebuttals?   

Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one.

I find your dishonesty and hypocrisy to be breathtaking here. You've described precisely your approach - just ignore the fallacies you've tried when they've been pointed out to you, go quiet for a bit, then return only to repeat them. The only reason that I and others repeat the fact of your fallacious thinking is that you repeat it over and over again. Only when you finally either show that you can actually rebut the charge or just abandon the attempt and try a different argument instead will it cease to be necessary to tell you where you've gone wrong again.   

Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.

In what way do you think that people "confuse logic and real life"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

So to summarise where we are so far Hope has weighed in with, "the fallacies on which I rely aren't fallacies at all and I know that because some posts I can't cite have rebutted those charges, and by the way it's bad form therefore for people to keep pointing them out when I use them."

So is that it? Every time Hope or others trot out the negative proof fallacy, an argument from ignorance, an argument from personal incredulity, an argument from consequences, a post hoc ergo propter hoc etc and wearily etc the rest of us are supposed to take seriously the conclusions they've led them to on the basis that these arguments aren't fallacious after all?

Really?   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Many have simply rebutted the argument.  Unfortunately, having had their argument rebutted, some on your side of the debate simply restate their argument sometimes later in the same thread, sometimes by starting a new thread a few weeks later with a similar title to the previous one. 

Unbelievable, may I remind you that you still have several questions awaiting responses. 

Whilst I believe that you and others will continue to confuse logic and real life.

Not sure what the hell that is supposed to mean but should we take it that you are admitting that non-naturalistic/ supernatural claims cannot be supported by logical arguments?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Unbelievable, may I remind you that you still have several questions awaiting responses.

Worse, he's even asked before to be reminded about where the rebuttals have been posted and then just ignored the reminder too.

Not sure what the hell that is supposed to mean but should we take it that you are admitting that non-naturalistic/ supernatural claims cannot be supported by logical arguments?

As I understand it, he seems to be suggesting that because the finding that he relies almost entirely on fallacious reasoning for his premises has supposedly been rebutted (though he never seems to be able to identify those rebuttals) then the arguments that we, the published literature etc think to be fallacious aren't fallacious at all and so he can carry on blithely using them and then complain when we don't deal "properly" with the conclusions to which his premises have led him. 

It really is that wrong.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".

The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?

Just pretend that the premise is valid?

Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?

What?

If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.

That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that? 

 

Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.

If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.

In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.

If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.

In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?

What at you on about? Each claim should be assessed on it's own merits, shouldn't it.

BHS is raising a specific example I think. The evidence is obvious that, in this case, the reasoning is fallacious. Therefore, why should we accept the conclusions?

Why don't you follow the links I gave and answer the questions if it is that easy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look Hillside this could all be settled if you could plainly state what logical fallacy religion is.

No-one says that "religion" is a logical fallacy. It's a common enough practice worldwide, and it speaks to our pattern and explanation-seeking nature. What's actually being said though is that when the content of religious beliefs is argued to be objectively true, then relying on false reasoning to do the job is a bad idea.   

If religion itself is not a logical fallacy then shut up about it.

Er, nope - because you've missed the point. See above.

In any case aren't you bordering on the genetic fallacy merely accusing the religious of logical fallacies?

No. Either logical fallacies are being used or they're not. Leaving aside Hope's mythic rebuttals, when they are used to establish premises then the arguments that rely on those premises are nullified a priori. Simple enough I'd have thought. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What at you on about? Each claim should be assessed on it's own merits, shouldn't it.

BHS is raising a specific example I think. The evidence is obvious that, in this case, the reasoning is fallacious. Therefore, why should we accept the conclusions?

Why don't you follow the links I gave and answer the questions if it is that easy?

Isn't BHS begging the question in his OP though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one says that "religion" is a logical fallacy. It's a common enough practice worldwide, and it speaks to our pattern and explanation-seeking nature. What's actually being said though is that when the content of religious beliefs is argued to be objectively true, then relying on false reasoning to do the job is a bad idea.   

Fair enough.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Isn't BHS begging the question in his OP though.

No.

When someone says, "When X, then Y" that's not begging the question at all.

[BeRational]

Can it be assumed that everyone now agrees that it is important that any argument put forward should be free of logical fallacies?

[Owlswing]

Another thread that was and is doomed to the interminable refusal of the dyed-in-the-wool falacist to admit that their arguments and proofs are falacious!

In other words another thread that is a total and complete waste of time and a fiurther demonstration of why the forum is descending, rapidly, into a total waste of time in the "Religion" part of its title and the reason that its membership is inexorably dwindling to extinction. No matter how hard those who recognise this fact try to prevent it.

But to name those who are contributing most to this situation is a Moderatable offence! 

[BeRational]

I think we know the names of the guilty.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Seems to me that we have an impasse with some religious members here regarding their indifference to logical fallacies. Essentially when an argument relies on a logically false premise and the fallacy is pointed out in response, the position seems to be either just to ignore it or to complain that the subsequent argument itself isn't being engaged with "properly".

The point though is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. The premise that relies on a fallacy collapses and so any ensuing argument that relies on that premise is nullified a priori. How then should we respond to the "yeah yeah, but never mind all that fallacy stuff let's talk instead about my faith belief that relies on bad thinking for its premise"?

Just pretend that the premise is valid?

Abandon the conversation and watch the Olympics instead?

What?

If you want an honest and fruitful conversation you can't just carry on as if the premise hadn't been undone. The only response is either to rebut the rebuttal - argue cogently that the fallacious thinking isn't fallacious after all - or to try a different argument to establish the premise.

That's it really. If neither occurs, then any discussion has lost its moorings and floats free from reason and rationality. And what's the point of that? 

 

As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.

Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.

[Owlswing]

As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true. We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.

It IS the point of the forum! But those most guilty of propounding these various fallacious arguments refuse point-blank to "discuss" anything with regard to the truth or otherwise of their beliefs.

They do not "discuss" - they state as incontrovertable "fact".

Thast is the problem, and, regardless of how many threads that they destroy with these fallacies, nothing, no action whatsoever, is going to change that fact.

There is, unfortunately, one simple choice to make - keep trying to show the errors of these arguments to their perpetrators or quit the forum.

Unless, perhaps, the Moderators can come up with some sort of limit to the numbers of "pro" and "con" posts that are to be allowed (say, three of each) before a thread is locked as an impassable dead-end.   

[Owlswing]

Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.

Another dead-end! No, correction! There are no dead-ends - just impassable bogs of fallacious "facts".

This applies equally to the religious!