Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682415 -

learningtofly said:
no not necessarily. ad hominem is an insult towards the opposition that is somehow supposed to destroy their credibility making it seem like the argument has lost credibility when in fact it hasn't.


Of forums such as this, ad hominem often gets confused with flaming.  They are not the same thing.  An ad hominem is simply attacking the person's credibility.  It can be a valid ad hominem to simply point out that someone has never studied a subject and are not qualified to comment on it.

Quote:
like i said earlier, if you attack credibility of a testimony, that's fine and is not a fallacy


You can attack the credibility of a testimony by attacking the credibility of the person on the subject on which they are commenting.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Silversoul]
    #10682432 -

Silversoul said:
learningtofly said:
no not necessarily. ad hominem is an insult towards the opposition that is somehow supposed to destroy their credibility making it seem like the argument has lost credibility when in fact it hasn't.


Of forums such as this, ad hominem often gets confused with flaming.  They are not the same thing.  An ad hominem is simply attacking the person's credibility.  It can be a valid ad hominem to simply point out that someone has never studied a subject and are not qualified to comment on it.



Quote:
like i said earlier, if you attack credibility of a testimony, that's fine and is not a fallacy


You can attack the credibility of a testimony by attacking the credibility of the person on the subject on which they are commenting.


yes, if it is testimony. If not, it's ad hominem. You seem to be getting very confused, i will make this abundantly clear

If it is testimony: questioning credibility is fine
If it is an argument: attacking a person instead of the argument is a fallacy.

Ad hominem is sufficient but not necessary for flaming.

There is no such thing as a valid ad hominem, why do you think it's called a fallacy?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682493 -

I'm saying that in argument, I can call into question the veracity of one's facts by raising doubts about the person's credibility.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Silversoul]
    #10682501 -

What does the credibility of the speaker have to do with their sources?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682509 -

learningtofly said:
What does the credibility of the speaker have to do with their sources?


The source is also, for our purposes here, a speaker.  An ad hominem does not necessarily have to be directed at the person making the argument.  It can be against the person they cite as a source.  If, for example, I'm discussing freemasonry with someone, and I cite some scholarly source about the freemasons and the other person cites David Icke, I have reason to call their argument into question because the person they cite for authority is a kook.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Silversoul]
    #10682530 -

Quote:
The source is also, for our purposes here, a speaker.

only if the speaker is presenting research/evidence/whatever that they themselves took part in.


Quote:
An ad hominem does not necessarily have to be directed at the person making the argument.  It can be against the person they cite as a source.

:facepalm: I don't think you understand latin. Ad hominem means argument against the man. An ad hominem is by definition a personal attack directed against the person making an argument. What you are referring to is pointing out an appeal to an (un)qualified authority

Maybe I should make a The Fallacy of the Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacy thread


--------------------

Edited by learningtofly (07/15/09 03:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682551 -

learningtofly said:
Quote:
An ad hominem does not necessarily have to be directed at the person making the argument.  It can be against the person they cite as a source.

:facepalm: I don't think you understand latin. Ad hominem means argument against the man. An ad hominem is by definition a personal attack directed against the person making an argument. What you are referring to is pointing out an appeal to an (un)qualified authority


You're wrong.  An ad hominem can be made even when you are not directly debating the other person.  For example, I could say eugenics is bad because the Nazis had a eugenics program, and the Nazis were bad people.  That would be a fallacious ad hominem, regardless of whether or not I am debating with a Nazi.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682612 -

Quote:
Maybe I should make a The Fallacy of the Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacy thread


I wonder how far we could take this. :strokebeard:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10682635 -

As far as nonsense will go.:thumbup: Which around here is very far indeed.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Silversoul]
    #10682642 -

Silversoul said:
  It can be against the person they cite as a source.


poisoning the well, ay?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682673 -

learningtofly said:
Silversoul said:
  It can be against the person they cite as a source.


poisoning the well, ay?


I'm not sure what you mean, but let me simplify my case here:

An ad hominem is nothing more than the inverse of an appeal to authority.  If an appeal to authority can be valid, so can an ad hominem.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Silversoul]
    #10682783 -

No, it can't.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10682827 -

One who has actually studied logic for even a small amount of time realizes that in the modern world, there is just about as little cut and dry in the many forms and relative degrees of logic, as there is in the field of philosophy as a whole. It is true that logic functions upon axioms, where it expresses in the manner of mathematics, but it is often much more eccentric in its forms.

A decent logician will typically have a great appreciation and awareness for the many controverting sub-types in his field , to which the formal fallacies are probably recognized better as criteria than absolutes. In his logic, it is not the reactionary application of rules, but the more general process of establishing logic in two fold manner. Logic is preeminently communicative in nature, to which it considers the appearance of truth values through the spectacles of form and content. Of logos, it is just as much a process of establishing perspective as it is "formative" of truth.

Quote:
Logic:

    1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."



For instance, a particular criterion that is formally recognized as the "appeal to authority", is of very high concern in an absurd reasoning such as Albert Camus'. And to that, the reduction ad absurdum fallacy on the other hand, is well, just as absurd as the rest of the world! This is where I come from in approach too.

On a side note, does anybody read Lewis Carrol? He was actually known in his time for his logical ability, as well as his nonsense. On his wiki, it says he was known to have worked in one of its rather eccentric forms, called three value logic which seems pretty interesting.



--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Edited by daytripper23 (07/15/09 10:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: daytripper23]
    #10682860 -

He was actually known in his time for his logical ability, as well as his nonsense.

I must be related to him.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: Icelander]
    #10683076 -

More like one of his characters



Overall, Carrol strikes me as one of the rare individuals who had something interesting to say about human (animal) nature.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: learningtofly]
    #10684240 -

learningtofly said:
Silversoul said:
deCypher said:
Silversoul said:
Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appea
l to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.


An ad hominem argument is never legitimate.  Address the person's argument; the characteristics of the person have absolutely no bearing or relevance to the validity of his or her words.


Suppose the person is asking me to take their word for something, and yet they have a history of being a paranoid lunatic.  I would right to point out that they lack credibility.  Would it be an ad hominem if I were to distrust an article because it is written by Alex Jones?  The credibility of the person making the argument can be relevant to the credibility of the argument.


What you're saying is only relevant to testimony, which is not an argument (which means it's not a fallacy because there is no argument).

An ad hominem is always an ad hominem no matter how you look at it.

Ex. If there is someone who claimed to have witnessed a robbery, but was extremely drunk/perhaps tripping, you could say "How am I supposed to trust you if you were not of sound judgment?" That would make sense. But if the drunk/tripping person made an argument about some public policy, saying "You're just a drunk" does not in any way negate it because thats ad hominem



Exactly.


Silversoul is imagining situations outside of an argument or a logical proof and trying to use them to infer something about logical fallacies. 


If its not an actual argument in the first place, there's no damn logic to be fallacious.  Someone's bare opinion has nothing to do with logic or an argument, and so there's no logic to be fallacious, and a fallacy wouldn't be applicable.


If someone says "That's a bird" that isn't an argument, and so it doesn't matter if you think critiquing the person's education might yield some insight into their qualifications, it certainly isn't deemed fallacious since their is no argument in the first place.


Fallacies are errors in reasoning.  When their is no reasoning, it is senseless to use that situation to inform the legitimacy of the fallacy.



Silversoul said:
But how do you know the facts in the article aren't made up?




You don't.  And someone saying "this is a fact" is not an argument anyways, so, again, their is no logic to be fallacious. 


Your posturing as if fallacies should yield truth if applied, no.  They weed out bullshit, they don't find the truth.


If you want to use whatever heuristic you want to decide who you want to listen to, that's fine. But that's irrelevant to this discussion.


There's a reason scientific fraud is often not catched by peer review very well, and its the same thing your referring to here.  When you ahve to take someone's word for factual matters, there's no easy logical way to identify bullshit.  But some guy just declaring "the item weight 3.4 kg" is not at all an argument, and your attempt to apply some rule of logic to it will inevitably fail.


If you want to bide your time by ignoring unqualified people, fine.  But that has nothing to do with th emerits of their arugment nor does it inform upon the legitimacy of the appeal to authority fallacy.  The quality of the speaker is never relevant to an argument's logic. 

Edited by johnm214 (07/15/09 08:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: johnm214]
    #10684295 -

I think this is some communication break down around the meaning of 'ad hominem' and 'logical fallacies'.  Id like to see the argument continue without any of these words used.  :tongue:

(I once read that when the Wright brothers would have a disagreement they would each attempt to argue the others side in the hope they could get a better understanding.  Im not sure everybody is capable of such dispassion.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: DieCommie]
    #10684408 -

The last time I tried that method, I ended up building an airplane. :tongue:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: DieCommie]
    #10685048 -

Qubit said:
I think this is some communication break down around the meaning of 'ad hominem' and 'logical fallacies'.  Id like to see the argument continue without any of these words used.  :tongue:

(I once read that when the Wright brothers would have a disagreement they would each attempt to argue the others side in the hope they could get a better understanding.  Im not sure everybody is capable of such dispassion.)




Attacking the charecter or nature of a person  does nothing to effect the merits of the argument that person is making.  While if that person where to not be making an argument but rather stating an opinion or fact you might have reason to care whether they would seem to know what they are talking about, this is irrelevant to whether the charecter of a person is relevant to the logic of an argument they make.


Similarly, the recognition or achievements of someone have nothing to do with the merits of their arguments.  That you may put faith in them more strongly than if they were not so recognized is irrelevant.  The fact remains, that their accomplisments have nothing to do with the merits of their argument.


basically I see silversoul as attempting to use an irrelevant example to show that not all appeal to authority fallacies are, in fact, fallacious.  The fact that the authority of someone isn't always irrelevant says nothing about the relevance of such to an argument- and in fact the authority of the person is always irrelevant to the merits of their argument.


The only thing I could see folks being confused about is what exactly an appeal to authority fallacy is.  Clearly it is not all refrences or reverance on the basis of someone's accomplishments or standing in a field.  It is only when that standing is used to claim an argument is more forceful- which it can never inform. 

Perhaps some people understood that fallacy to refer to all reverance to recognized experts, which clearly is not improper.  But as mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with the fallacy so far as I can see- it may be expedient to ignore peopel unqualified, or even a good idea, so you don't get led astray.  But just cuz that's a good rule of thumb doesn't allow you to say anything about their logic.  Being just plain wrong in a fact has nothing to do with logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Fallacy of Misunderstood Fallacies [Re: daytripper23]
    #10685252 -

daytripper23 said:
One who has actually studied logic for even a small amount of time realizes that in the modern world, there is just about as little cut and in the many forms and relative degrees of logic, as there is in the field of philosophy as a whole. It is true that logic functions upon axioms, where it expresses in the manner of mathematics, but it is often much more eccentric in its forms.

A decent logician will typically have a great appreciation and awareness for the many controverting sub-types in his field , to which the formal fallacies are probably recognized better as criteria than absolutes. In his logic, it is not the reactionary application of rules, but the more general process of establishing logic in two fold manner. Logic is preeminently communicative in nature, to which it considers the appearance of truth values through the spectacles of form and content. Of logos, it is just as much a process of establishing perspective as it is "formative" of truth.

Quote:
Logic:

    1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."



For instance, a particular criterion that is formally recognized as the "appeal to authority", is of very high concern in an absurd reasoning such as Albert Camus'. And to that, the reduction ad absurdum fallacy on the other hand, is well, just as absurd as the rest of the world! This is where I come from in approach too.

On a side note, does anybody read Lewis Carrol? He was actually known in his time for his logical ability, as well as his nonsense. On his wiki, it says he was known to have worked in one of its rather eccentric forms, called three value logic which seems pretty interesting.




I don't get the point of your post but in my logic class I did learn that Carrol wrote a book or two on Logic.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Philosophical Fallacies spud 3,055 16 05/13/04 02:12 AM
by Jellric
* The human fallacy RonaldFuckingPaul 698 7 03/26/08 09:21 PM
by Boots
* Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims (according to a Christian) *DELETED* Lakefingers 856 6 12/07/09 03:30 PM
by shivas.wisdom
* Are logical fallacies a subject for philosophical inquiry? figgusfiddus 1,153 6 09/20/07 01:49 PM
by fireworks_god
* Misunderstood.
( 1 2 all )		 Fucknuckle 1,593 20 12/09/04 10:41 AM
by trendal
* The Fallacy and Double-Standard of the Use of Anecdotes
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Swami 5,338 77 04/03/14 01:55 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The 'Wear you Down' Fallacy OrgoneConclusion 1,218 3 09/20/07 09:06 AM
by fireworks_god
* The Self-made Fallacy And Refutation kaichen 232 2 06/29/15 02:19 PM
by paperbackwriter

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,433 topic views. 3 members, 22 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.