Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinefiggusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry?
    #7431537 - 09/20/07 09:36 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

And is asking whether logical fallacies are a subject for philosophical inquiry a subject for philosophical inquiry?

Philosophy isn't just about mayan moon conspiracies, contrary to the tendencies of this forum. Thus:

ITT: A philosophical discussion of logical fallacies, if it pleases the public.


--------------------
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: figgusfiddus]
    #7431572 - 09/20/07 10:00 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

it is a matter of style
stylistics
and applicability.

logical mostly means some argument that follows what happens, recognizes what happens as being of a known type or class of events, and can predict a little of what might come next, using associative processes, and sometimes but not always also using math or science to add accuracy to the assessments and predictions.

besides that, really it is all a matter of style.
many logical arguments steer very clear from science or math, and go into completely self-referential constructs. stripped of the ritualized terminology, and conventions of argument, these logical excercises are closer to artistic expression and esthetics or politics.

inquire yes
always inquire.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: figgusfiddus]
    #7431919 - 09/20/07 11:46 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Logical fallacies are a subject for philosophical inquiry, provided that they are the center of philosophical inquiry, and not simply a stated definition. For the sake of concise discussion and the flow of forum traffic, it is more suitable to simply state a logical fallacy directly within the thread in which the logical fallacy is observed, or to open up the sticky of definitions of logical fallacies for discussion, so that more can be contributed.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefiggusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7432121 - 09/20/07 12:34 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

I think that a declarative statement, such as a definition, is a common and practical way to begin a discussion.

Either way, I imagine it has more to do with philosophy than whether we often "smell our way through a room" (not to pick on whoever posted that one in particular, but it did leap to my mind).


But back to the original point of this thread, rather than discussion of the one which I do think was locked irrationally, despite having no real stake in it...


Maybe a fallacy could be defined as a statement intended to redirect a discussion in favor of one argument through the use of 1) a visceral and 2) non-rational factor. By visceral of course I mean something intended to draw an emotional response, and by non-rational I mean something involving a clear and concrete logical leap. For instance, if someone says "Squares can be bad," and someone replies, "Well, that means you hate rectangles, too," we know something is up.

Real-world example, without silly geometry: If someone says, "Israel patronized terrorism in the twentieth century," and someone replies, "What are you, some kind of Holocaust denier?", we should know something is up... but the visceral distaste for anti-Semites (justifiable, surely) gets in the way of spotting a logical leap. This would be a straw dog fallacy: The misrepresentation or exaggeration of someone else's statements in order to delegitimize them. Of course it's not always willful, since misunderstandings often lead to accusations of straw-dogging. Does it have to be intentional to be a fallacy? I'm not sure.

While it is obvious that an ad hominem attack is considered inappropriate, I wonder if it not so much because it is a fallacy (since the source of a statement can have an effect on its basis or context), but because it often derails a discussion into tit-for-tat bickering. It makes conversations unmanageable and expands their borders into that uncomfortable sort of "meta" zone, where players must constantly defend not only their statements, but the legitimacy of the ways by which they came by these beliefs, et cetera. And there definitely is a visceral factor--I wouldn't say that it fits both qualifications, because there can be rational aspects to it, but it is so heavily visceral that it tends to cause a conversation to devolve completely.

That's all that's coming to me. Does anyone think the original qualifications are legitimate? 1) Evokes a visceral response, and 2) Involves a non-rational factor?


--------------------
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS

Edited by figgusfiddus (09/20/07 12:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: figgusfiddus]
    #7432222 - 09/20/07 12:56 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

figgusfiddus said:
I think that a declarative statement, such as a definition, is a common and practical way to begin a discussion.




Yes, setting a definition into place is an effective place to begin a discussion, yet it is the responsibility of the original poster to utilize that definition as a grounds from which to, as you referred to it as, propose a philosophical inquiry. A simple declarative statement does not constitute outlining a philosophical/spiritual topic for discussion.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefiggusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7432231 - 09/20/07 12:59 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Well, I did try to actually turn this toward philosophical discussion, but if you want to draw it back to that: It looked to me like you were busting the guy's balls over nothing. Can't we let threads be threads? It makes for less internet forum drama for everyone. And it's a potentially interesting topic... well, for those who are interested.


But hey, are you going to hold that standard up, and lock every thread that is simply a declarative statement?

Because I think that'd be a fun game. If I start pointing them out to you, will you promise to lock them? I'm not being facetious.

I apologize if this comes out sounding flippant, it's just that from your explanation, you locked the thread because Orgone phrased his post poorly.


--------------------
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS

Edited by figgusfiddus (09/20/07 01:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? [Re: figgusfiddus]
    #7432442 - 09/20/07 01:49 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

figgusfiddus said:
Well, I did try to actually turn this toward philosophical discussion, but if you want to draw it back to that: It looked to me like you were busting the guy's balls over nothing. Can't we let threads be threads? It makes for less internet forum drama for everyone. And it's a potentially interesting topic... well, for those who are interested.




Yes, and I decided to comment in regards to the questioning of my decision to lock the thread, which is what this thread is in response to. The thread in question was a simple statement of a fallacy which was not proposed in a manner to spark philosophical/spiritual discussion, or, as you have referred to it, philosophical inquiry. Anyone can take a scientific fact or any definition from the dictionary, post it as a new thread, and within it lies potential for a philosophical/spiritual discussion; yet it is the responsibility of the original poster to orientate the thread in such a manner that outlines a course for the direction to take.

Quote:


But hey, are you going to hold that standard up, and lock every thread that is simply a declarative statement?

Because I think that'd be a fun game. If I start pointing them out to you, will you promise to lock them? I'm not being facetious.




If you feel there is a concern that needs review, please don't hesitate to utilize the notify moderator function. Each thread is different, and any concerns would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as always.

Quote:


I apologize if this comes out sounding flippant, it's just that from your explanation, you locked the thread because Orgone phrased his post poorly.




That seems to be a misinterpretation of my explanation. The thread was locked because his thread was created to comment upon the posting behavior of another poster in another active thread. For the purpose of maintaining quality flow of discussion, I stated that calling attention to the use of a fallacy needs to stay within the thread in which it was observed, especially considering that the new thread, in itself, did not outline a philosophical inquiry for discussion.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Philosophical Fallacies spud 2,917 16 05/13/04 02:12 AM
by Jellric
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,213 17 01/16/03 11:23 AM
by Axiom420
* Logical Empiricism
( 1 2 3 all )
Ravus 3,303 44 04/14/05 06:09 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* This place is in severe logical deficient
( 1 2 all )
spud 3,563 31 11/11/03 10:10 AM
by DoctorJ
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,855 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* An example of using the principles of logic.
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,610 29 07/24/03 12:32 AM
by Sclorch
* Not everything can be explained by logic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Mixomatosis 4,758 63 12/27/03 06:07 PM
by Positronius
* Logical Problem
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 4,315 51 01/21/04 10:26 PM
by Frog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,134 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.