Logical fallacy PSA

[wizzy555]

The problem with the equivalence argument is that it must be "relevant to the logic of the argument" which can be quite complicated to ascertain as people have all sort of implicit premises built into their arguments.

No two things are exactly the same however a proper equivalence argument will argue they are equivalent in a way that is pertinent to the point. If it is then it holds. If someone yells "false equivalence" and finds a difference that is irrelevant then that is not a correct debunking.

The false equivalence fallacy is also especially pernicious when applied to moral problems are people often bring in their own subjective points of view without explaining them.

It's also important to recognise that informal fallacies are not "always wrong", as they depend on very specific circumstances.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

The statement wouldn't still stand unless there were positive evidence. In the absense of any positive evidence, the null position is the default.

That's why B doesn't necessarily need to disprove it. If B discounts any positive evidence, then the null position remains the default.

An example; people have provided rhinoceros horns in the past as evidence of unicorns. Now, we don't need to disprove the existence of unicorns to counter this; all we need to do is discount the evidence (show that the horn is from a rhino) and the null position becomes the default again, even though unicorns aren't actually disproven.

lol a hyperbolic example doesn't change the fact that you did nothing to disprove the fact that unicorns exist , you only state that rhino's have nothing to do with unicorns existing. ie you have two predicates in your statement P= rhinos have horns, Q= unicorns exists. P has been proven, Q has not been proven, as the arguer believes that P->Q must then mean Q , however since Q is not dependent on P that means that the statement P->Q is false, which is the fallacy. however just because the statement P->Q is false does not mean that Q is false, as Q is still an unknown. (as an aside, if you go by the raw definition of unicorn ,horse with horn on head, they technically exist)

as far as the null position being the default, that depends on bias, there is no iron clad rule on the null hypothesis being considered the default. IE. do you believe in string theory? technically the null hypothesis on it is that its complete crap(paraphrasing), yet most believe it to be true.

if B discounts A's positive evidence that doesn't mean that A is necessarily wrong, it just means that A doesn't have an iron clad truth. A can still be possibly wrong, which is why simply stating a fallacy isn't enough to disprove A. as in make A consistently false. B can choose not to believe A base on personal bias on whether or not to believe in the null hypothesis, however A's argument still stands.

in the words of Samuel Jackson on that one episode of the boondocks "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence" (i know he was quoting someone but don't really feel like looking it up.)

The problem with the equivalence argument is that it must be "relevant to the logic of the argument" which can be quite complicated to ascertain as people have all sort of implicit premises built into their arguments.

No two things are exactly the same however a proper equivalence argument will argue they are equivalent in a way that is pertinent to the point. If it is then it holds. If someone yells "false equivalence" and finds a difference that is irrelevant then that is not a correct debunking.

The false equivalence fallacy is also especially pernicious when applied to moral problems are people often bring in their own subjective points of view without explaining them.

It's also important to recognise that informal fallacies are not "always wrong", as they depend on very specific circumstances.

well yeah all of this, but this is supposed to be a quick PSA to get people to stop using "your argument is X fallacy" as a valid argument. I really didnt feel like making examples for all of the "fallacies", i didn't want it to turn into a whole Logic class on the internet .

 

[Silvanus]

lol a hyperbolic example doesn't change the fact that you did nothing to disprove the fact that unicorns exist , you only state that rhino's have nothing to do with unicorns existing. ie you have two predicates in your statement P= rhinos have horns, Q= unicorns exists. P has been proven, Q has not been proven, as the arguer believes that P->Q must then mean Q , however since Q is not dependent on P that means that the statement P->Q is false, which is the fallacy. however just because the statement P->Q is false does not mean that Q is false, as Q is still an unknown. (as an aside, if you go by the raw definition of unicorn ,horse with horn on head, they technically exist)

Once again, I do not need to disprove the statement.

I have, however, discounted the only positive evidence for Q. As you say, Q is an unknown-- but with no positive whatsoever, the probability that it's true is negligible.

That's my point. In the real world, unicorns have not been disproven, and yet (almost) everybody feels perfectly safe stating that they do not exist.

as far as the null position being the default, that depends on bias, there is no iron clad rule on the null hypothesis being considered the default. IE. do you believe in string theory? technically the null hypothesis on it is that its complete crap(paraphrasing), yet most believe it to be true.

First of all, "most" do not believe it to be true. Secondly, the explanatory capability of the theory could arguably be considered evidence.

if B discounts A's positive evidence that doesn't mean that A is necessarily wrong, it just means that A doesn't have an iron clad truth. A can still be possibly wrong, which is why simply stating a fallacy isn't enough to disprove A. as in make A consistently false. B can choose not to believe A base on personal bias on whether or not to believe in the null hypothesis, however A's argument still stands.

It "stands" only with negligible probability. A not only doesn't have an "iron clad truth"; A also doesn't have a possibility worth paying any attention to, if B is making a claim that has absolutely no rational reason for people to believe it.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

Once again, I do not need to disprove the statement.

I have, however, discounted the only positive evidence for Q. As you say, Q is an unknown-- but with no positive whatsoever, the probability that it's true is negligible.

That's my point. In the real world, unicorns have not been disproven, and yet (almost) everybody feels perfectly safe stating that they do not exist.

First of all, "most" do not believe it to be true. Secondly, the explanatory capability of the theory could arguably be considered evidence.

It "stands" only with negligible probability. A not only doesn't have an "iron clad truth"; A also doesn't have a possibility worth paying any attention to, if B is making a claim that has absolutely no rational reason for people to believe it.

everything you list here is just your personal opinion.

That's my point. In the real world, unicorns have not been disproven, and yet (almost) everybody feels perfectly safe stating that they do not exist.

you highlight it here
just because everyone feels comfortable with something doesn't make it true. back in the day everyone was comfortable with the idea that the heaver an object was the faster it would fall(because that also made sense, and it was the null hypothesis of the time) it wasn't until later that it was proven to be hokum.

and that is the point, the lack of positive/negative evidence doesn't make the statement untrue in the slightest. yeah you personally can take it to mean that the theory holds no water, but that's your personal opinion. their statement still stands as the probability isn't negligible, as its immeasurable really. like i said unicorns technically exist, despite everyone opinion that they dont.(genetic mutation, the horn is all nasty and gnarled. cant find the damn pictures at the moment though, all i get are freaking magical unicorns and a deer... well technically the deer counts under a larger scope of what is defined to be a unicorn.(four legged _horse like_ animal with a horn), im being facetious now )

the purpose of an argument is to give a reason or a set of reasons in the hope of persuading others that their actions/ideas are right or wrong. by simply discounting positive evidence in an effort to solidify your own bias you do nothing to prove the arguer wrong. yes you can not believe your arguer and continue the debate, however his statements are allowed to stand as they are still probable and hereby possible. As such the argument continues as neither have proven the other wrong.

First of all, "most" do not believe it to be true. Secondly, the explanatory capability of the theory could arguably be considered evidence.

you can take this statement and apply it to any argument stream you see in passing here or on another site, where one party believes that by finding one "Fallacy" in a person argument equates to that person being false.

 

[Silvanus]

everything you list here is just your personal opinion.

It's my "personal opinion" that, if a claim has no positive evidence, then it has negligible probability?

Is it rational to think otherwise? To consider things likely, that have no evidence?

you highlight it here
just because everyone feels comfortable with something doesn't make it true. back in the day everyone was comfortable with the idea that the heaver an object was the faster it would fall(because that also made sense, and it was the null hypothesis of the time) it wasn't until later that it was proven to be hokum.

You'll notice that it was evidence that replaced that theory with the more accurate theory of Newtonian gravity. And, it was evidence that replaced that with ever more accurate relativity.

(On a side-note, by the way, the notion that the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, was not the null hypothesis; it was still a positive claim).

the purpose of an argument is to give a reason or a set of reasons in the hope of persuading others that their actions/ideas are right or wrong. by simply discounting positive evidence in an effort to solidify your own bias you do nothing to prove the arguer wrong. yes you can not believe your arguer and continue the debate, however his statements are allowed to stand as they are still probable and hereby possible. As such the argument continues as neither have proven the other wrong.

Yet again, you don't need to prove someone else wrong. Huge swathes of knowledge that we take for granted every day is not technically proven, but rather demonstrated to be the likeliest possibility by a significant margin.

Two statements are not on equal footing if one has evidence, and the other has no evidence. The statement that Leprechauns exist is not "still probable and hereby possible" just because it hasn't been categorically disproved. Disproving that statement is neither possible, nor necessary.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

everything you list here is just your personal opinion.

It's my "personal opinion" that, if a claim has no positive evidence, then it has negligible probability?

Is it rational to think otherwise? To consider things likely, that have no evidence?

you highlight it here
just because everyone feels comfortable with something doesn't make it true. back in the day everyone was comfortable with the idea that the heaver an object was the faster it would fall(because that also made sense, and it was the null hypothesis of the time) it wasn't until later that it was proven to be hokum.

You'll notice that it was evidence that replaced that theory with the more accurate theory of Newtonian gravity. And, it was evidence that replaced that with ever more accurate relativity.

(On a side-note, by the way, the notion that the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, was not the null hypothesis; it was still a positive claim).



Yet again, you don't need to prove someone else wrong. Huge swathes of knowledge that we take for granted every day is not technically proven, but rather demonstrated to be the likeliest possibility by a significant margin.

Two statements are not on equal footing if one has evidence, and the other has no evidence. The statement that Leprechauns exist is not "still probable and hereby possible" just because it hasn't been categorically disproved. Disproving that statement is neither possible, nor necessary.

ok you have changed your argument halfway through. i was arguing that: simply discounting positive evidence does not deny the claim. but it seems that you believe im arguing: that using evidence doesnt deny the claim.(which is the opposite of what im saying) what im saying, to use your terminology, is that stating "X fallacy" is not evidence in the slightest. so your statement of two statements having equal footing holds because, by your definition ,if you discount all positive evidence of the opponent yet yourself present none. you are on equal footing. he has none you have none. "X Fallacy" at most breaks down his assertion as in P->Q but it does nothing to P or Q, which can be pre-existing conditions/ conditions to find. like i said the purpose of an argument is to give a reason or a set of reasons in the hope of persuading others that their actions/ideas are right or wrong. if you are not working to that goal there is no point of engaging. as in his points of P and Q still hold.

Yet again, you don't need to prove someone else wrong. Huge swathes of knowledge that we take for granted every day is not technically proven, but rather demonstrated to be the likeliest possibility by a significant margin.

Two statements are not on equal footing if one has evidence, and the other has no evidence. The statement that Leprechauns exist is not "still probable and hereby possible" just because it hasn't been categorically disproved. Disproving that statement is neither possible, nor necessary.

logical arguments can not be settled with contests of who can gather the most evidence. its about logically denouncing the statement made. if you are unable to do that, its about personal preference. if one statement isn't completely disproven, it is up to the viewer to choose what they wish to believe(as its up to the viewer its your own personal opinion, as their is nothing to disprove the assertion made). this is a foundation of most theoretical systems.

It's my "personal opinion" that, if a claim has no positive evidence, then it has negligible probability?
Is it rational to think otherwise? To consider things likely, that have no evidence?

do you believe in string theory? is my answer to this. technically all that you believe as evidence for this is bunk until it is proven. most , or some , would believe it to be true yet its "positive evidence" as you put it can all be discounted.(not going to generate an argument for/or against string theory, but there are papers on it if you wanna read them)

(On a side-note, by the way, the notion that the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, was not the null hypothesis; it was still a positive claim).

no no it wasn't a positive claim, not even in the slightest. but, im not sure what you mean by this. by your defintion what was the positive evidence for objects of heavier weight falling before objects of smaller weight.

Two statements are not on equal footing if one has evidence, and the other has no evidence. The statement that Leprechauns exist is not "still probable and hereby possible" just because it hasn't been categorically disproved. Disproving that statement is neither possible, nor necessary.

no matter how hyperbolic you want to make your example that doesn't change logical implication. yeah its generally accepted that leprechauns exist, yet its not logically disproven, as such leprich.... see statements about unicorns. (once again leprechauns do exist, small man who's Irish wears green and talks about luck and owns gold. once again being facetious though )

there is a difference between theory and common usage. as such the "logical fallacy" is not a good tool to use in cases of common usage(as in general discussions on boards like these).

 

[Silvanus]

ok you have changed your argument halfway through. i was arguing that: simply discounting positive evidence does not deny the claim. but it seems that you believe im arguing: that using evidence doesnt deny the claim.(which is the opposite of what im saying) what im saying, to use your terminology, is that stating "X fallacy" is not evidence in the slightest. so your statement of two statements having equal footing holds because, by your definition ,if you discount all positive evidence of the opponent yet yourself present none. you are on equal footing. he has none you have none. "X Fallacy" at most breaks down his assertion as in P->Q but it does nothing to P or Q, which can be pre-existing conditions/ conditions to find. like i said the purpose of an argument is to give a reason or a set of reasons in the hope of persuading others that their actions/ideas are right or wrong. if you are not working to that goal there is no point of engaging. as in his points of P and Q still hold.

"if you discount all positive evidence of the opponent yet yourself present none"-- none is required, if your position is the null hypothesis. If he has no evidence for his positive claim, I do not need positive evidence for the null hypothesis.

That's been my position from the beginning. I haven't changed it.

logical arguments can not be settled with contests of who can gather the most evidence. its about logically denouncing the statement made. if you are unable to do that, its about personal preference. if one statement isn't completely disproven, it is up to the viewer to choose what they wish to believe(as its up to the viewer its your own personal opinion, as their is nothing to disprove the assertion made). this is a foundation of most theoretical systems.

That "personal preference" can only rationally be decided on the basis of evidence, though. It's up to the viewer to choose what evidence they find most compelling, yes; but if they just arbitrarily decide which they like the most, then that's not rational decision-making.

no no it wasn't a positive claim, not even in the slightest. but, im not sure what you mean by this. by your defintion what was the positive evidence for objects of heavier weight falling before objects of smaller weight.

How wasn't it a positive claim? It wasn't a negative claim; it wasn't the null hypothesis. It was a claim that something was the case. It was by definition a positive claim.

I'm not sure why you're asking what the positive evidence for it was. It isn't true.

no matter how hyperbolic you want to make your example that doesn't change logical implication. yeah its generally accepted that leprechauns exist, yet its not logically disproven, as such leprich.... see statements about unicorns. (once again leprechauns do exist, small man who's Irish wears green and talks about luck and owns gold. once again being facetious though )

there is a difference between theory and common usage. as such the "logical fallacy" is not a good tool to use in cases of common usage(as in general discussions on boards like these).

Precisely what I was saying-- it's not logically disproven, but it's accepted that they don't exist, because there's no evidence. That's quite enough.

 

[kurokotetsu]

lol a hyperbolic example doesn't change the fact that you did nothing to disprove the fact that unicorns exist , you only state that rhino's have nothing to do with unicorns existing. ie you have two predicates in your statement P= rhinos have horns, Q= unicorns exists. P has been proven, Q has not been proven, as the arguer believes that P->Q must then mean Q , however since Q is not dependent on P that means that the statement P->Q is false, which is the fallacy. however just because the statement P->Q is false does not mean that Q is false, as Q is still an unknown. (as an aside, if you go by the raw definition of unicorn ,horse with horn on head, they technically exist)

Going to but in for a moment. What you said is wrong. If p and Q are independent then the statement p->Q is neither true nor false. Let's use some logic to that.

If P->Q false then 7(P->Q) true (not the implication). 7(P->Q) is logically equivalent to P^7Q (P and not Q). That statement is true. And for an and to be true, both are true so P true and 7Q true. So Q false. (You can proof this in other ways).


So no. Being independent means that you can't asses if P->Q is true or false. That is how implications work.

More OT, arguments, except in math and logic usually revolve around more things than just pure logic. A fallacy is just a reason why an argument is logically incorrect not anything that has to do with the values of the premises. Knowing that a fallacy doesn't disproof a conclusion is good. But arguments are usually more rhetoric and trying to convince other than the correct application of logic. So pointing a fallacy to "discredit" the other is usually a common tactic, even if it is a fallacy itself. So, should we only use logic in our arguments?

 

[Duster]

-snip