Quote:

http://jamesfaulconer.byu.edu/deconstr.htm

I am writing a book on community. I will work over it repeatedly until I am satisfied that I am done. But what does done mean? Doesn't it mean "say everything I want to say"? And what do I want it to say? Everything. Everything, that is, about what it means to be a community. Of course, there will be this or that minor point that I may ignore or safely overlook, but as long as something significant remains to be said about my topic or as long as the connections of important points have not been made clear, I am not done. When I am done, therefore, I have produced something that claims to say everything of importance on my topic; that I have written the book on my topic is implicit in its existence as a book, even if I insert footnotes and apologies and disclaimers to the contrary.

However, when I have finished the book and have (I hope) a publisher, what is the first thing I will do? I'll write an introduction. But introductions are odd things. If they can say what the book says, then what need is there for the book? If they can't, then what need is there for the introduction? Sometimes they are appetizers, things designed to get people to read the book (or at least to buy it). Most of the time, however, an introduction is a short version of the book, an overview. It sets the problem in context, it shows the readers how important the problem or solution is, it gives the argument in a more easily understood form. Introductions add to the book to improve it, to supplement its work.

Thus, though the book implicitly claims to say everything needed, as a supplement, the introduction says "one more thing" or "the same thing briefly," deconstructing the book's claim to completeness and self-sufficiency. In deconstructing the book, the introduction doesn't show us the irrelevance of the book. It doesn't show us that the book is meaningless. It doesn't show us that just any interpretation of the book will do. It shows us that the book claims more than it can deliver, that it has left something out though it claims to be complete. I take that to be the general meaning of the word deconstruction as Derrida has used it: not just using our words and concepts against themselves, but showing what has been left out or overlooked. In fact, better: showing that something has been left out or overlooked, that omission is structural to any text -- and that we can find those omissions in the structure of the text -- without necessarily being able to specify what has been omitted.

---

Quote:

In formal logic, it is important to know some common fallacies.  However, what is often overlooked is the fact that certain fallacies simply refer to a fallacious form of an argument that can be valid in other contexts.  I figured I'd start this thread to point out some common ones.

Appeal to Authority: Appeal to authority can be perfectly legitimate if said authority is an authority on the subject at hand.  It is only when their authority is unrelated to the subject, or when their authority is taken to be greater than it really is, that it becomes a fallacy.  For example, if I were to appeal to the authority of a highly-esteemed evolutionary biologist on the subject of evolution, it would be a valid appeal to authority.  If, on the other hand, I were to appeal to the authority of a professional athlete on that subject, it would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

Slippery Slope: The Slippery Slope fallacy is only fallacious if it assumes a sequence of events that don't necessarily follow from the original event.  If the series of events necessarily follow from the premise, such as eggs solidifying from cooking them, then it is not a fallacy.

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appeal to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

Burden of Proof: It is commonly asserted that the burden of proof is on the claimant, but many people don't see that this applies to negative claims as well as positive claims, and insist that the burden of proof is on the person challenging their negative claim, based on the assumption that the person is making a positive claim.

These are just a few.  Feel free to add some more as they occur to you.

---

Quote:

A fallacy rests on the particular intention of the original argument,

---