Why fallacious reasoning matters

[jeremyp]

No I'm not

Yes you are.

There is a difference between telling people what to post and trying to control someone by telling them how to think. I'm not telling anyone to post something, just as,I got them not to try and control how others think.

You spend plenty of time telling people what not to post though. How is that not trying to control them?

No, because it's a bit patronising like correcting someone's spelling, instead of looking at their argument, I'd disagree with them and give them my POV and why I thought something was as it was.

No. That's just so wrong. If somebody makes a fallacious argument here, I'm not going to let it go just because you think proper debate is patronising.

No not quite, I'm admonishing you because you are so completely negative on the subject of Brexit

See, you are telling me what to think.

It's not good to be too negative.

Telling me what to think again.

There are so many fallacies that instead of holding interesting discussions on what people believe you can always find a fallacy to accuse them of instead.

If an argument contains a fallacy, it is wrong. Full stop.

It then becomes an intellectual exercise, bashing the person over the head with fallacies instead of ingaging in what is actually being said.

Sorry but exposing fallacies in the opponents arguments is a form of engagement.

[Bubbles]

The adventures of fallacy man!

Dun! dun! dun!

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

Jeremy, fallacy man 

 

[Owlswing]

I'm not!

Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.

People don't all have to think alike.

There are more ways of constructing arguments.

Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty! This is what the fallacious argumentors have been doing to the non-believers and non-Christians for yonks.

I e - you MUST MUST MUST believe in OUR GOD or you perish in the fires of Hell! Don't under any circumstances whatsoever disagree with us for any reason as we are only trying to save your immortal soul!

Yeah - and Donald Trump is the tooth-fairy in dusguise!

[jeremyp]

The adventures of fallacy man!

Dun! dun! dun!

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

Jeremy, fallacy man 

 

So you think people here should be allowed to wallow in their wrongness with no comeback from the rest of us?

I'm actually finding your posts on this thread quite offensive. You admonish people for "telling others what to think" and yet you are the worst offender in that regard so far.

Incidentally, your posts are a beautiful example of the problem described in the OP. Wake up and smell the roses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty! This is what the fallacious argumentors have been doing to the non-believers and non-Christians for yonks.

Assuming that Christians are fallacious augmentors is the genetic fallacy as is assuming non believers and non Christians aren't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's funny Hillside.....when you refer to Leprechauns as small Irishmen dressed in green supposedly at the end of rainbows I find I don't believe in them. When you change your definition and equate them completely as God I believe in them.......although they presumably cease to be a ''them'..............Surely changing your definitions depending on and during an argument is fallacious.....Antitheist fallacy hunters where are you?

Try to focus here. Really, really, really try to focus.

OK? Good.

The characteristics, properties, behaviours or anything else about the outcomes of bad arguments has nothing whatever to do with those arguments being bad arguments.

"God", leprechauns, unicorns, whatever - it matters not a jot. Ascribe any characteristics you like to any of them for all I care.

The point though is that when you use an argument - Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy for example - to get to one of them then pointing out that exactly the same argument can lead to outcomes we all think are ridiculous should give you pause about using that argument for the outcome you don't think to be ridiculous. 

I have very little hope that this will ever sink in for you, but by all means let me know if ever it does.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Assuming that Christians are fallacious augmentors is the genetic fallacy as is assuming non believers and non Christians aren't.

No-one assumes that. Either the Christian or anyone else makes an argument that's logically false or s/he doesn't. The arguments stands alone regardless of the personal beliefs of the persons making them.

Here for example you've made the false argument of the straw man. Whether you happen to be a Christian, a muslim or Melanesian Tree Frog worshipper makes no difference to that - it's still a false argument   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try to focus here. Really, really, really try to focus.

OK? Good.

The characteristics, properties, behaviours or anything else about the outcomes of bad arguments has nothing whatever to do with those arguments being bad arguments.

"God", leprechauns, unicorns, whatever - it matters not a jot. Ascribe any characteristics you like to any of them for all I care.

What they have in common is that they are believed to be mythological to some people Hillside.
But it would only be intellectual slovenliness of Hillsidian proportions to leave things at that.

Outside that all you are doing is saying look A is ridiculous therefore B is ridiculous on the grounds that I am insinuating that there is an equivalence between A and B.

[Bubbles]

So you think people here should be allowed to wallow in their wrongness with no comeback from the rest of us?

I'm actually finding your posts on this thread quite offensive. You admonish people for "telling others what to think" and yet you are the worst offender in that regard so far.

Incidentally, your posts are a beautiful example of the problem described in the OP. Wake up and smell the roses.

No I'm not telling people "what" to think, they can think whatever they like.

What I'm admonishing is the telling of  how to think..... ( not what.... How)


There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.

People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.

In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP? 

Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What they have in common is that they are believed to be mythological to some people Hillside.

That's one thing they have in common, yes. But it's not the thing they have in common for the purpose of the argument that actually being made here.

What that thing in common is is that certain bad arguments can produce "God" and "leprechauns" alike. The negative proof fallacy for example will do that. I merely point out that if you want to use that argument for just one of them nonetheless, you should probably have a re-think.

But it would only be intellectual slovenliness of Hillsidian proportions to leave things at that.

Then - as ever - you would say wrongly. The only "intellectual slovenliness" here is your insistence on looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Turn the thing around and finally engage with what's actually being said and you might stand a chance of not falling flat on your face again. And again and again.

It really isn't a good idea to cling on to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it. Really, it isn't.

Outside that...

Sadly, your "that" in this case has collapsed completely again but ok...

...all you are doing is saying look A is ridiculous therefore B is ridiculous on the grounds that I am insinuating that there is an equivalence between A and B.

You're leaving me no choice but to conclude that your lying here is deliberate. What else can I think when I've told you over and again why this is precisely not what I'm doing?

I make no insinuation, arguments, statement, anything to say that there's an equivalence between A and B. A and B can be as un-equivalent as you can possibly make them for this purpose. Really, fill your boots - make them as different as you like.

Done that? OK. Good.

Now then, back to the actual issue: when the argument that gets you to A and to (the completely different remember) B is exactly the same argument for each, and you agree that either A or B is ridiculous, then you have no choice but either to accept both A and B as true nonetheless, or to abandon the argument completely.

Look, I'll even put it in bold and in big letters so you don't have to lie about it again: 

When the argument that gets you to A and to (the completely different remember)B is exactly the same argument, and you agree that either A or B is ridiculous, then you have no choice either but to accept both A and B as true nonetheless, or to abandon the argument completely.

You're welcome.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not telling people "what" to think, they can think whatever they like.

What I'm admonishing is the telling of  how to think..... ( not what.... How)


There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.

People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.

In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP? 

Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. 

So my nephew's opinion (he's two and half and when he was here on Saturday announced poo tasted good) is just as valid on global warming as my cousin who is a Ph.d in Climate Sciences - and my cousin should not try to explain how to do scientific analysis to his students  because that's showing people how to think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

What I'm admonishing is the telling of  how to think..... ( not what.... How)

There is a subtle difference you are not picking up on.

The issue isn't "telling" them but rather it's showing them. The methods of science for example work, and we teach that by showing pupils the experiments that demonstrate it. If a pupil wants to conclude that, say, crystals are made by pixies rather than by natural chemical processes nonetheless they're free do so so, but it's the evidence that tells them how to think rather than the authority of the teacher (pretty much the opposite of theology by the way).     

People can wallow in their wrongness ( perceived) if they wish too, variety is what makes people interesting.

Well yes, provided they don't try to do anything with that wrongness - treat cancer by burning sage leaves for example - and it's not just "perceived" wrongness when the patients consistently die.

In what way are my posts on this thread so far a good example of the OP? 

Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point.

It's not "chucking around" the fallacy argument. Some arguments demonstrably are fallacious - and when they are, there is no ensuing point to address.

[BeRational]

Other than you don't agree with me and chuck the fallacy argument willy nilly around the room and avoiding dealing with my point. 

If your argument contains a fallacy, then you have no point.

Do you understand this concept. The fallacy is not just checked at you, the fallacy has a name and a definition, and anyone saying you have used a fallacy must explain which one and why it applies to you.

They cannot just cry "FALLACY"

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

They cannot just cry "FALLACY"

FALLACY!

Oh, sorry 

[BeRational]

BR,

FALLACY!

Oh, sorry 

Actually is sounds a bit rude when you shout it like that.

Sorry Phalus is what I was thinking