frame

Have logical fallacies become too convoluted to the point of being self-defeating?

Opening Argument

edited July 6 in Philosophy
Logical fallacies are used to gauge consistent logical thinking but have these methods become self-defeating by becoming conflicting and convoluted? 
northsouthkoreajoecavalry
  1. Have logical fallacies become redundant?

    8 votes
    1. I don't know
      25.00%
    2. Yes
      37.50%
    3. No
      37.50%
«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • edited July 6
    I think that they could and have become self-defeating, an example of this can be seen in the definition of a logical fallacy - A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. If this is the definition then aren't all logical fallacies guilty of the Fallacist's fallacy? Which is basically the fallacy of not taking an argument seriously because it contains a fallacy.
    northsouthkorea
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    I guess it depends on what type of fallacy really. If an argument is based entirely on the appeal to authority fallacy but has empirical evidence against it, it's not unreasonable to dismiss the argument from authority. But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    Alternatively, an anecodotal fallacy that is commonly experienced that cannot be logically or empirically challenged, should not be dismissed. Best to use an argument that contains no logical fallacies to be safe.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.
    Nope, still fallacious.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • A fallacy (also, a "reaction" on this website in addition to informative, funny etc.) can be brought up when an argument seems to have morning reasoning or logic to it.
    SnakesOfferingApples
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited July 6
    Erfisflat said:
    But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.
    Nope, still fallacious.
    I didn't claim it was not fallacious, but if the authority is an expert on the subject (similar to your entire argument for climate change), and there is no empirical data that contradicts the claim, it shouldn't be dismissed. Like I said.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    DawnBringerRiven
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    Actual Data? You mean the graphs that experts put together for ya? Wow.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    @evidence This guy like a talking indoctrination pamphlet. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    Actual Data? You mean the graphs that experts put together for ya? Wow.
    You know that those graphs are based on data, right? They aren't just random pretty lines that people with doctorates have drawn, they represent information that has been collected.

    Contrary to what you might believe it isn't a case of experts picking numbers out of thin air, it's a case of data being gathered and presented in graph format. It doesn't matter who does the gathering and presentation, whether it's an expert of an amateur, as long as the methodology of how the data was gathered and presented is sound and it is documented so that it can be checked.

    That's the basis of what makes something worthwhile evidence, if there is factual data supporting it - not just because someone put their name behind it.

    Also you haven't clarified your equivocation.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect

    It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious. You need some empirical data?


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    "Also you haven't clarified your equivocation."

    I'm in the process.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect

    What you have in that Climate debate is pretty much "but, but, muh science book !"
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect
    I don't expect you to understand, you still think you're a monkey on a spinning ball. 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 235 Pts
    edited July 7
    @Erfisflat

    Sounds like sour grapes from someone who almost constantly relies on the argument of "A random unqualified person on the internet claimed this is true with no proof!" and has seen someone produce testable evidence to back up their views.

    Also, humans are apes. Like it's not even up for debate. Even if you don't believe in evolution, we classify animals based on their shared characteristics. Even if you think God just happened to create the great apes in a way where they share a lot of characteristics, those characteristics have lead humans, chimps, gorillas, etc to all be classified under the Hominadae family of great apes.

    Lastly, feel free to tout your flat eartherism all you want. It just makes me look better by comparison to the person insisting we live on a flat earth.

    That said, I do as always suggest you look to get the help of a mental healthcare professional as your disconnect from reality is genuinely worrying.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited July 7
    @Erfisflat

    Sounds like sour grapes from someone who almost constantly relies on the argument of "A random unqualified person on the internet claimed this is true with no proof!" and has seen someone produce testable evidence to back up their views.

    Also, humans are apes. Like it's not even up for debate. Even if you don't believe in evolution, we classify animals based on their shared characteristics. Even if you think God just happened to create the great apes in a way where they share a lot of characteristics, those characteristics have lead humans, chimps, gorillas, etc to all be classified under the Hominadae family of great apes.

    Lastly, feel free to tout your flat eartherism all you want. It just makes me look better by comparison to the person insisting we live on a flat earth.

    That said, I do as always suggest you look to get the help of a mental healthcare professional as your disconnect from reality is genuinely worrying.
    All those words and i dont see even an attempt to address anything I said, I dont think you said a thing. Fine display of dodgery friend, almost as good as your last rhetorical stone kicking fallacy. I'll consider that your concession. Have fun with your graphs and fallacies.

    Edit: Testable evidence he says!





    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 235 Pts
    edited July 7
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    joecavalryDawnBringerRiven
  • joecavalryjoecavalry 237 Pts
    Fallacies tend to be made as a last resort when all arguments for that side fail.
    SnakesOfferingApples
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    Oh, so you're going semantics now? Points you dodged, that still stand:

    " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."



    But you know the difference between a monkey and an ape! Tell me again, why do you believe you come from apes?

     
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • EvidenceEvidence 263 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    @evidence This guy like a talking indoctrination pamphlet. 

    @Erfisflat ; ha, ha, ha .. "indoctrination pamphlet", .. where you come up with this stuff, lol!? Love it, and so true.
    I mean come on, "look at the actual data"?

    Hey Erfisflat, lets you and I go to the beach with all kinds of gauges, cameras, petri dishes (make it look all science-like) and video the tide going out, and show how the "Ocean water level are falling" by the hour, signifying another Ice-Age. The data is there.
    Erfisflat
  • @ErfiErfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    Oh, so you're going semantics now? Points you dodged, that still stand:

    " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."



    But you know the difference between a monkey and an ape! Tell me again, why do you believe you come from apes?

     
    Ah, so you are illiterate.

    You claim that I am making a semantic difference. 'Not answering any of your points' and 'answering most of your points' are actually very different things, so obviously not a case of mere semantics.Rather, as always,  it's a case of you making false claims because you can't accept reality. And where is your reply to my rebuttal of your points? You show yourself to be a hypocrite by demanding responses to my points while refusing to give responses to mine.

    What's the matter, going to have to concede again?

    In your next sentence, you again make a load of false claims, seemingly because you don't even know what basic scientific words means.

    You state " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."

    However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." The data points referenced for the global temperate were collected by actual observatories, not just by theorising what it could be, hence it is empirical.

    Your claim that empirical evidence is automatically fact is of course equally proposterous to anyone who knows what they're talking about. As discussed, empirical means verified by actual observation e.g. scientific studies. Scientific studies can be wrong - indeed I could give examples of studies which are empirical but come to mutually exclusive results. This is because experiments, observations and empirical evidence can be flawed, hence the necessity to review the evidence critically.

    As to what comment you expect in relation to a random video presented without comment, I have no idea. More symptoms of your underlying problem, I would assume.

    Lastly, of course we come from apes. There is no argument that we don't. Even if you believe humans were created by god 6,000 years ago, presumably your parents were humans - Homo Sapiens, yes? And Homo Sapien is part of the ape family, yes?

    Humans being apes isn't something where we even reach evolution in the argument., it's down to the binomial classification system. If God created Humans and Gorillas and Chimpanzees 6K years ago, we're still apes because we classify genus, families, suborders, etc on shared characteristics and we share the same characteristics as apes whether you believe they came from evolution or magic.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 
    Can you sort out your hypocrisy and then come back to me with arguments that aren't mutually exclusive? Stating that you can't trust evidence you have't validated yourself and then trusting random youtube videos is not consistent. Afterall, to paraphrase you "You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the video is real, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the video being taken. You don't have to take the photographer's word that any imagery was fudged."

    Lastly, to tick off your points one by one:

    - You don't need to personally observe experiments for them to be empirical. Note how that is not a part of the definition. Now if you want to claim there is some reason that every single thing has to be personally observed then feel free to make that argument, but don't try and make it seem reasonable by conflating it with empiricism.

    - Okay, it's a video of a start. Great.

    - Taxominic classifications were around long before evolution. Regardless of how you think life began and has changed, apes do share 97%+ of our dna and a multitude of physical and societal features. If evolution were universally rejected by every single person tomorrow, we would still want to classify the similarities between different types of animals and we would classify humans as apes because the similarities between apes and humans are modern day observable facts that do not rely on evolution. All that would change is that we would consider there to be a different cause for these similarities.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 
    Can you sort out your hypocrisy and then come back to me with arguments that aren't mutually exclusive? Stating that you can't trust evidence you have't validated yourself and then trusting random youtube videos is not consistent. Afterall, to paraphrase you "You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the video is real, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the video being taken. You don't have to take the photographer's word that any imagery was fudged."

    Lastly, to tick off your points one by one:

    - You don't need to personally observe experiments for them to be empirical. Note how that is not a part of the definition. Now if you want to claim there is some reason that every single thing has to be personally observed then feel free to make that argument, but don't try and make it seem reasonable by conflating it with empiricism.

    - Okay, it's a video of a start. Great.

    - Taxominic classifications were around long before evolution. Regardless of how you think life began and has changed, apes do share 97%+ of our dna and a multitude of physical and societal features. If evolution were universally rejected by every single person tomorrow, we would still want to classify the similarities between different types of animals and we would classify humans as apes because the similarities between apes and humans are modern day observable facts that do not rely on evolution. All that would change is that we would consider there to be a different cause for these similarities.
    I have personally observed and recorded the same star. A ton of people have. They're all over YouTube. That's the point, you can empirically verify this observation. For about $50 and a clear night anyone can.
    https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-coolpix-p900




    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited July 8
    @AlwaysCorrect
    "Note how that is not a part of the definition."

    It is. "Observed or experienced"? do we need to pull up some definitions? When you take a graph, that is subject to falsification as infallible, you are committing a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch