Fallacies
by turtleturtle 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
Witness My Fury
Yeah, this site is full of 'em.
-
-
Indian Larry
Here is another good one. You can print off a poster of these. I am using them in helping to teach my daughter critical thinking.
-
King Solomon
The thing to remember is these are potential fallacies, eg a statement may be made using an 'appeal to authority' but that's not proof that it IS false. It's a reminder to verify if the claim is not misrepresented, the credentials of the expert, etc
That's one that is commonly used by WT, where they take a famous evolutionists' words and try to distort them to suggest he doesn't believe in evo.
-
King Solomon
Delete
-
Farkel
King Solomon,
: The thing to remember is these are potential fallacies, eg a statement may be made using an 'appeal to authority' but that's not proof that it IS false.
That's not the point. They are still logical fallacies. There are many logical fallacies that end up being true. In fact, one can have two assertions that are true, and the conclusion that necessarily derives from those assertions are also true, but the logic is a fallacy.
Logic is a way to argue ideas and is a foundation of scientific thought. For logic to work properly, one MUST assume the premises are true and the conclusion MUST be the only thing that can result from the premises. If the conclusion DOES result from the premises, the argument is logical. If the premises are false and the conclusion results from them, the argument is still logical, but it is not sound.
Example: (remember you must assume the assertions are true)
All animals have feet.
Worms are animals.
Therefore, worms have feet.
This is a logical argument, but not a sound argument, because everyone knows worms have no feet, only wings.
Once a logical argument can be made, it must be tested for validity. This is how science works. The WTS has made a zillion arguments/claims, but never has tested them for validity. That is why they print shit.
Farkel
-
tec
One of my most favorite links ever, and i have it bookmarked.
Farkel, the above was educating, thank you.
Peace
tammy
-
King Solomon
Farkel,
That's not the point. They are still logical fallacies.
You were taught classical or traditional (Aristotlean) logic, which has been replaced by a more pragmatic, real-world approach used in modern, abstract (symbolic) logic. The info posted above represents modern logic.
Teaching of traditional logic has vanished from collegiate-level education for quite sometime now (unless you're a philosophy major, I think), having gone the way of the slide rule, back in the 1960's.
Here's an example of why:
For logic to work properly, one MUST assume the premises are true and the conclusion MUST be the only thing that can result from the premises.
That's all well and good, but what if the one of the premises ISN'T true, but merely appears to be true to a casual observer?
Take the example of an "appeal to authority":
If I appeal to Newton's authority in the field of physics, and that information is still considered the 'correct' answer (by consensus of the modern scientific community), then nothing in the argument is considered fallacious, false, or fallacy: it's a LEGITIMATE use of the "appeal to authority" argument, using an expert's (correct) opinion upon which to support the premise. For example:
"According to Newton, every object in a state of motion tends to stay in that state of motion"
"Therefore, every object in a state of motion tends to stay in that state of motion".
Nothing about that is statement is fallacious: it's a legitimate, correct, TRUE use of an "appeal to authority" argument.
HOWEVER, if I appeal to an expert who's opinion or conclusion on the subject IS wrong, or who's credentials are questionable (where further digging is needed to verify their expertise), then the argument becomes the "appeal to authority" FALLACY.
For instance, Aristotle believed humans thought with their hearts: he was flat-out wrong.
So if I say,
"According to Aristotle, humans think with their hearts."
"Therefore, humans think with our hearts"
That IS an example of the "appeal to authority" FALLACY: I'm appealing to an authority figure who unfortunately IS wrong (and is known to be wrong, as the scientific community has reached firm concensus that we actually think with our BRAINS, not our hearts).
Now, checking what I said, that you objected to:
The thing to remember is these are potential fallacies, eg a statement may be made using an 'appeal to authority' but that's not proof that it IS false.
What I was warning about is that some beginners see that someone is relying on an expert's opinion, and they automatically conclude, "oh, that's an appeal to authority FALLACY, so it's wrong!" Nope: it's a potential fallacy, since it's not known whether it a correct appeal, or a false appeal: t's not proven to be either, until you've considered other evidence (like current scientific consensus, etc).
(then you get into "battle of the expert witnesses" territory, where the defendent's lawyer tries to beat up the credibility of the plaintiff's expert, and vice-versa....)
