Logical Fallacies of Debate: Let's get Facepunch arguing correctly.

[Johnny on Flame]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;28491921]I remember my biology teacher talking about this.
And let's make a LOGICAL FALLACY USING THIS

A baculum is present in mammal's penises
A male human does not have this bone
therefore, male humans are not mammals.[/QUOTE]

Now I get why the hell you guys are like this.

[Cloak_Raider]

Sounds like my Reason and Argument module.
Also known as the [I]most boring subject in philosophy ever created by the human mind[/I]

[Geel]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;28491921]I remember my biology teacher talking about this.
And let's make a LOGICAL FALLACY USING THIS

A baculum is present in mammal's penises
A male human does not have this bone
therefore, male humans are not mammals.[/QUOTE]

Actually, since your terms aren't all nouns or noun phrases, it's an invalid syllogism :v:

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=geel9;28492090]Actually, since your terms aren't all nouns or noun phrases, it's an invalid syllogism :v:[/QUOTE]

at least I tried not to use the "some"

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

But GODDAMNIT WILL YOU FIX THAT post boc SHIT

it's [B]H[/B]OC, POST [B]H[/B]OC

[Ruski]

I point anyone who wishes to debate here: [url]http://www.debationnation.com/index.php[/url]

It's died as of late and I hope we can get it moving again.

[Geel]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;28492182]at least I tried not to use the "some"

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

But GODDAMNIT WILL YOU FIX THAT post boc SHIT

it's [B]H[/B]OC, POST [B]H[/B]OC[/QUOTE]

God damn, my book has literally the same letter for b as h. :v:

[Archangel125]

I love the OP for posting this. In a platonic way.

[Pepin]

Never mind with what I just said as the OP later pointed it out.

I really hate semantics. I also hate arguments that rely of the fact that "they were born that way" because it implies that it would be alright to be hateful towards that group if they weren't born that way.

[Archangel125]

[QUOTE=Pepin;28493561]That is called a syllogism. The typical form is

a = b
b = c
a = c

They can be used pretty logically, but most people use them incorrectly.[/QUOTE]

I see what you mean. This because they didn't explicitly state in the example that only people were likers of books, and so while some people may be likers of books, and some likers of books are good people, those likers of books who are also good people may not be the people who like books.

Right?

[Geel]

[QUOTE=archangel125;28493605]I see what you mean. This because they didn't explicitly state in the example that only people were likers of books, and so while some people may be likers of books, and some likers of books are good people, those likers of books who are also good people may not be the people who like books.

Right?[/QUOTE]

Let me explain how distributed terms work.

A term is "distributed" when it refers to ALL MEMBERS of its class.

I'll highlight the distributed terms for you here.

All [b]socrates[/b] is a man.
No [b]men[/b] are [b]mortals[/b]
Therefore, no [b]socrates[/b] is a [b]mortal[/b].

In a particular statement (that is, a statement with the form "some" or "some...not"), no terms are distributed.

Here's a venn diagram.
[img]http://foxprods.net/experimentalists/Syllogism.png[/img]

See? The logical, rules-based reason this is invalid is because it breaks a rule of syllogisms: In at least one premise(supporting statement), the middle term(the only term that is in both premises) MUST be distributed(and it is not!)

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

I should write another topic on the fallacies of Syllogisms and whatnot...hmm.

[Corn]

Thanks, now I can argue like a pro

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Actually, no, I just know how every logical fallacy is called, and I still suck at arguing

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28493971]Thanks, now I can argue like a pro

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Actually, no, I just know how logical fallacies are called, and I still suck at arguing[/QUOTE]

You'll be able to make valid arguments and be able to spot invalid arguments. That is the first step. Of course, there's enthymemes and syllogisms and the square of opposition but really that's for categorical logic. This is more "street fighting" logic.

[Pepin]

Syllogisms are a huge topic in themselves. Seeing them without a nicely laid out form makes them pretty difficult to recognize. The same is true with a lot of other logical fallacies.

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Pepin;28494015]Syllogisms are a huge topic in themselves. Seeing them without a nicely laid out form makes them pretty difficult to recognize. The same is true with a lot of other logical fallacies.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. What with enthymemes, their OWN fallacies, converse, obverse, contrapositive, forms, moods, figures...

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=geel9;28494006]You'll be able to make valid arguments and be able to spot invalid arguments. That is the first step. Of course, there's enthymemes and syllogisms and the square of opposition but really that's for categorical logic. This is more "street fighting" logic.[/QUOTE]

You don't NEED to know about all these logical fallacies and shiz when arguing though.

Pretty much if you can think logically and fast you don't really need the definitions at all.
It should naturally click in your head and feel off when someone makes a fallacy.

Then again I'm speaking from personal experience when talking about arguing, so I can't speak for everyone.

[JohnnyMo]

p
¬p
p∨q
¬p
∴q

Take that, reality!

[MoarFunz]

Trying to teach the internet something is a war lost before it has began.

Not to say that you're posting in Facepunch.

[Flak]

[QUOTE=geel9;28490486]Seventh, we have [B]Ad ignorantiam[/B]. Ad ignorantiam is a claim that since there is no evidence to disprove something, we therefore must accept it as fact.
Ad ignorantiam: "UFOs exist, you can't disprove them!"
Not ad ignorantiam: "This man is not guilty, you can't prove it!"[/QUOTE]
Oh man, this fallacy and Objective Relativism made the religious people in my philosophy class shit bricks. They locked our class down with retarded arguments for 3 days.
[QUOTE=geel9;28490486]Fourth is the [B]complex question[/B]. This is when a question does not present somebody with every answer, and each answer that is "allowed" is incorrect.
The complex question: "So when are you going to stop murdering people?" To say "never" would imply you will murder forever, and to say "right now" would imply that you had done it before.[/QUOTE]
Anti-abortion protesters use this all the time.

[Geel]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28494118]p
¬p
p∨q
¬p
∴q

Take that, reality![/QUOTE]

p.
Not p.
if p, not q.
not p.
Therefore, q.

That's not reality altering at all what are you talking about

[JohnnyMo]

That's not "if p, not q."

[Geel]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28494402]That's not "if p, not q."[/QUOTE]

Figures. Never seen that symbol, to be honest. What's it mean?

[JohnnyMo]

Either p or q or both is true.

Essentially that whole thing says that if you take two contradictory axioms to be true, you can prove any statement true. (the principle of explosion)

[Geel]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28494442]Either p or q or both is true.

Essentially that whole thing says that if you take two contradictory axioms to be true, you can prove any statement true. (the principle of explosion)[/QUOTE]

So it symbolizes subcontrariety?

[Gmod4ever]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28494442]Either p or q or both is true.

Essentially that whole thing says that if you take two contradictory axioms to be true, you can prove any statement true. (the principle of explosion)[/QUOTE]

Damn good thing we can't use contradictions.

Otherwise we'd have a whole slew of problems. Indirect proofs would literally be impossible if we're allowed contradictions.

Also, why did you use that symbol for negation, and not a simple ~? Just curious.

And why did you stay ~p both before [b]and[/b] after the disjunction? I haven't reached the principle of explosion yet, so forgive me if these are dumb questions. :v:

[JohnnyMo]

I dunno

They mean the same thing

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=geel9;28494480]So it symbolizes subcontrariety?[/QUOTE]

idk I've forgotten how the square of opposition goes

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;28494562]Damn good thing we can't use contradictions.

Otherwise we'd have a whole slew of problems. Indirect proofs would literally be impossible if we're allowed contradictions.

Also, why did you use that symbol for negation, and not a simple ~? Just curious.

And why did you stay ~p both before [b]and[/b] after the disjunction? I haven't reached the principle of explosion yet, so forgive me if these are dumb questions. :v:[/QUOTE]

Programmers use !. Works pretty well.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;28494562]And why did you stay ~p both before [b]and[/b] after the disjunction? I haven't reached the principle of explosion yet, so forgive me if these are dumb questions. :v:[/QUOTE]

It wasn't actually necessary but it lets you know exactly why the next step is true

[Jo The Shmo]

But if some likers of books are good [i]people[/i] then they are obviously people.
That means that the good people must fall within the overlap between people and likers of books.
The other likers of books are probably dogs or something.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

The example you were trying to make is something like:
some people are white
some people like books
therefore, some white people like books.
This is a logical fallacy.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Because in yours, you have a group of people, and a group of likers of books.

There is an overlap, which is composed of people who like books. (Group A)
Then there are people who [i]don't[/i] like books. (Group B)
Then there are things that like books, but aren't people (Group C)

So you need to fit a group of good people at least partially into the likers of books, which is Group A or C.
BUT, this group of good people [i]do not[/i] fit in Group C, because they [i]are[/i] people, not something else.
Therefore the group of good people must fit within at least Group A, and since Group A is contained inside the circle of people, then some people really are good people.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Plus in a few of your examples of "this is a logical fallacy, and this is [i]not[/i] a logical fallacy", they were both actually logical fallacies.

What are your parameters?

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28494827]But if some likers of books are good [i]people[/i] then they are obviously people.
That means that the good people must fall within the overlap between people and likers of books.
The other likers of books are probably dogs or something.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

The example you were trying to make is something like:
some people are white
some people like books
therefore, some white people like books.
This is a logical fallacy.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Because in yours, you have a group of people, and a group of likers of books.

There is an overlap, which is composed of people who like books. (Group A)
Then there are people who [i]don't[/i] like books. (Group B)
Then there are things that like books, but aren't people (Group C)

So you need to fit a group of good people at least partially into the likers of books, which is Group A or C.
BUT, this group of good people [i]do not[/i] fit in Group C, because they [i]are[/i] people, not something else.
Therefore the group of good people must fit within at least Group A, and since Group A is contained inside the circle of people, then some people really are good people.

[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]

Plus in a few of your examples of "this is a logical fallacy, and this is [i]not[/i] a logical fallacy", they were both actually logical fallacies.

What are your parameters?[/QUOTE]

Your entire argument is based on the fact that I was saying that some good people are people.

I was saying some people are good people.

Learn the definition of a distributed term.

[Janizaurd]

[quote]Seventh, we have Ad ignorantiam. Ad ignorantiam is a claim that since there is no evidence to disprove something, we therefore must accept it as fact.
Ad ignorantiam: "UFOs exist, you can't disprove them!"
Not ad ignorantiam: "This man is not guilty, you can't prove it!"[/quote]

The funny thing is this summarizes the entire 'debate' of religion/existance of god.