ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:04 AM   #161
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,416
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Christ, with you, yes! Have you read the thread? Someone citing a definition and sticking to it is what's got us to here. You think I'm going to do all of that all over again only to have you , again, metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and proclaim that you're right because you really, really believe you are and cannot conceive of a universe in which you are wrong.


Again, when was the last time you were wrong?
Where is the irony meter.
__________________
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:04 AM   #162
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
That is not at all how the term is used by logicians. Informal fallacies are not a part of formal logic, as the term is commonly understood.

Honest, I really do know a thing or two about these things.
I understand that you are a logician, but I am making the punt that there are different student meanings and users for the phrase "formal logic" and that how logicians use "formal logical" doesn't completely circumscribe all its uses.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:09 AM   #163
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
I understand that you are a logician, but I am making the punt that there are different student meanings and users for the phrase "formal logic" and that how logicians use "formal logical" doesn't completely circumscribe all its uses.
The "formal" bit of "formal logic" has to do with abstracting away from the content of propositions and reasoning only about the form. The informal fallacies depend explicitly on non-logical features of the argument.

You're welcome to call this a bit of formal logic, obviously, but you really would be misusing the term.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:10 AM   #164
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Where is the irony meter.
So, you've never been wrong?

What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Do you find it difficult to admit when you're in error? Have you ever done it?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:12 AM   #165
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Cripes, once again:



If you are claiming it was merely an insult, then just say it for pete's sake.
*sigh*

You ignored the first sentence in the post and the highlighted portion below:

Quote:
The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
Whether the arguer is treating two entities differently when they shoeless be treated the same is part of "the merits of [the arguer's] argument".
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:13 AM   #166
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,416
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
So, you've never been wrong?

What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Do you find it difficult to admit when you're in error? Have you ever done it?
Rule of So! Begging the question! Assumes facts not in evidence! No Foundation! Non Sequitur!

(gosh, i can't wait for the legions to come swarming after me for using those!)
__________________
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:13 AM   #167
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No definition huh?
That's right. No need for another one.

Quote:
Hey, by the way, look at that "refusal to address your critics is a fair admission of defeat."

Golly gee, where have I seen that before?
The last time you evaded my arguments. If you refuse to engage the debate, explain why you shouldn't forfeit it.

Quote:
Fallacy by bare assertion: "A repeated argument by assertion can also take the form of non sequitur that requires little effort to make and is therefore often used to fatigue people who make actual arguments..." etc.
You mean like demanding frivolous productions and holding up the discussion until it's provided? Further, my arguments did not require "little effort to make." They were supported with fully elaborated lines of reasoning (often having to be elaborated more than once for your benefit) that you still have not addressed.

Again, simply hurling the names of fallacies at your critics -- fallacies you clearly don't understand -- is not a persuasive argument.

Last edited by JayUtah; 22nd December 2016 at 11:23 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:14 AM   #168
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The "formal" bit of "formal logic" has to do with abstracting away from the content of propositions and reasoning only about the form. The informal fallacies depend explicitly on non-logical features of the argument.

You're welcome to call this a bit of formal logic, obviously, but you really would be misusing the term.


"Using differently" is not the same thing as "misusing".
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:16 AM   #169
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,416
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Whether the arguer is treating two entities differently when they shoeless be treated the same is part of "the merits of [the arguer's] argument".
Hey hey! mayhap a TINY BIT OF PROGRESS?

the original arguer did not mention any other entities. And the fact that he may indeed be a hypocrite does not make the merits of his original argument (C is extremely dishonest) invalid!
__________________
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:17 AM   #170
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,778
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Me, I gave up using them when I realised that, in an adversarial argument, if one is not well versed in formal logic, they're more trouble than they're worth.

In any debate in which there is utmost good faith they're very useful, however.
I think you've put your finger on the reason this thread is now on its fifth page.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:18 AM   #171
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Rule of So! Begging the question! Assumes facts not in evidence! No Foundation! Non Sequitur!

There's no such thing a 'rule of so'. I mean, I know you think there is so you can use the wonderfully critical 'if a sentence begins with the word 'so' I can disregard it.' It aint the case.


Begging the question is the act of assuming an answer to a different question within the question one is asking. None of the four questions I asked contain anything of that nature.

You don know that to have an actual debate one needs to do more than play (badly) a very low skilled game of 'spot the fallacy' don't you?




I continue to notice that you still haven't told me when you were last wrong. Do you find it difficult to say?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.

Last edited by 3point14; 22nd December 2016 at 11:22 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:18 AM   #172
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You're welcome to call this a bit of formal logic, obviously, but you really would be misusing the term.
Indeed, which always puts me in the quandary from which I try to escape using language such as I wrote here. There is formal logic, which isn't what is meant when the term is most frequently used here. There is informal logic, which is what is alluded to most often by taxonomies of "logical fallacies." But the close relating of points in a prose argument to the often skeletal examples of specious reasoning is held to have a more formal footing that the original prose. Wrong terminology, to be sure, but awkward to phrase otherwise outside the halls of mathematics.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:24 AM   #173
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post


"Using differently" is not the same thing as "misusing".
How about using it differently than the definition found in general purpose dictionaries?

I use the word "chaise lounge" to mean "a furry piece of bologna." I use that term differently than others.

Anyway, this is a bit of a derail. If you want to stretch "formal logic" to include informal reasoning, I won't stop you, but I thought you might want to know that your "different" use seems uninformed to less tolerant eyes than yours.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:25 AM   #174
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Rule of So! Begging the question! Assumes facts not in evidence! No Foundation! Non Sequitur!
No, it's a simple rhetorical device designed to emphasize that you have evaded his question. Since you are the one withholding evidence, such knee-jerk responses don't work to your rhetorical advantage.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:26 AM   #175
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, which always puts me in the quandary from which I try to escape using language such as I wrote here. There is formal logic, which isn't what is meant when the term is most frequently used here. There is informal logic, which is what is alluded to most often by taxonomies of "logical fallacies." But the close relating of points in a prose argument to the often skeletal examples of specious reasoning is held to have a more formal footing that the original prose. Wrong terminology, to be sure, but awkward to phrase otherwise outside the halls of mathematics.
I thought that your parenthetical comment captured pretty well what you're saying here.

Quote:
(and also informal logic that is still more rigorously formulated than free prose)
That works for me.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:37 AM   #176
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I thought that your parenthetical comment captured pretty well what you're saying here.
Thank you, but I still feel partly to blame for perpetuating the misnomer to which you validly object. I know what you mean, and you know what I mean, but I feel that I may inadvertently lead others to innocently misspeak. I think it can be summed up in saying that we at ISF qualify the study of logic using an informal meaning of "formal" rather than its formal meaning. Let that rattle around a bit.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:37 AM   #177
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
How about using it differently than the definition found in general purpose dictionaries?

I use the word "chaise lounge" to mean "a furry piece of bologna." I use that term differently than others.

Anyway, this is a bit of a derail. If you want to stretch "formal logic" to include informal reasoning, I won't stop you, but I thought you might want to know that your "different" use seems uninformed to less tolerant eyes than yours.
Could you cite a definition in a "general purpose dictionar[y]"?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:41 AM   #178
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,931
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, it is the same concept that I have expressed using the terminology of antecedents and consequents. Rest assured the gaslighting to the contrary is ineffectual.
Partisans and woos beware: you can't gaslight JayUtah.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 11:41 AM   #179
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hey hey! mayhap a TINY BIT OF PROGRESS?

the original arguer did not mention any other entities. And the fact that he may indeed be a hypocrite does not make the merits of his original argument (C is extremely dishonest) invalid!

  1. One can reason validly to the conclusion that one's interlocutor (or a referent thereof) is a hypocrite.
  2. One cannot use the conclusion that one's interlocutor is (or a referent thereof) a hypocrite, a fortiori, to invalidate an argument made by one's interlocutor (or a referent thereof).

(2) is a tu quoque, while (1) is not. The post referenced in the OP did (1)--not (2)--and is therefore not a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:00 PM   #180
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Could you cite a definition in a "general purpose dictionar[y]"?
See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/formal-logic?s=t for instance.

Pardon me for not quoting, but I hate that smart phone interface.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:03 PM   #181
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
One can reason validly to the conclusion that one's interlocutor (or a referent thereof) is a hypocrite.
And one can reason validly to that conclusion by noting that his interlocutor has himself reasoned inconsistently. Predicating a proposition as the consequent only of a category, and then evaluating that proposition differently for different members of the category is logically invalid. Noting that the interlocutor has done this is simple logical analysis. It commits no fallacy.

Additionally, one can go on to draw further conclusions from that finding. The state of hypocrisy is having acted discordantly with one's postured position. The act of having proffered a justification for one's actions -- as in the line of reasoning described in the previous paragraph -- but then acting in a manner inconsistent with the proffered justification, constitutes hypocrisy. It is therefore quite reasonable, after the logical analysis, to apply the label, as it has been shown by that analysis to fit. But the subsequentl (and frankly unnecessary) appellation bears in no way on the logical analysis by which it was shown that the definition of hypocrisy fit.

The claimant's post finds a group of people to be both logically wrong and also hypocritical. More accurately, it finds that they are hypocritical because they have reasoned inconsistently. In contrast, the tu quoque fallacy attempts to argue that an interlocutor's must be reasoned incorrectly because he has acted hypocritically. That commits a fallacy.

Last edited by JayUtah; 22nd December 2016 at 12:04 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:07 PM   #182
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/formal-logic?s=t for instance.

Pardon me for not quoting, but I hate that smart phone interface.
Some of the definitions I found apart to include informal fallacies or exclude formal fallacies, depending on how one interprets them.


Last edited by mijopaalmc; 22nd December 2016 at 12:16 PM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:11 PM   #183
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,317
And technically, dismissing an argument because the arguer is a hypocrite is verging into the ad hominem fallacy. "You are a hypocrite, your argument is invalid" is, in fact, invalid!
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:28 PM   #184
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,469
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
And technically, dismissing an argument because the arguer is a hypocrite is verging into the ad hominem fallacy. "You are a hypocrite, your argument is invalid" is, in fact, invalid!
Tu quoque is classified as an ad hominem fallacy in some taxonomies, although it has been here taxonomized also as in the Red Herring category. This illustrates that there are few "clean" taxonomies of fallacious reasoning, but more importantly that many ad hominems are usually also red herrings. For me, proper classification takes a back seat over a thorough understanding of why these named patterns of unreliable reasoning are unreliable.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 12:43 PM   #185
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Errr...the full name for tu quoque is ad hominem tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 01:37 PM   #186
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Some of the definitions I found apart to include informal fallacies or exclude formal fallacies, depending on how one interprets them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c25a82a334.png
I don't see how you can interpret that definition to include informal fallacies. The fallacies are not particularly related to deductive necessity.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 01:48 PM   #187
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't see how you can interpret that definition to include informal fallacies. The fallacies are not particularly related to deductive necessity.
On the contrary, they are statements that one cannot deduce the negation of a statement from premises that are not related the truth of the statement.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 01:50 PM   #188
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,521
Sorry if this has already been asked, but what's the difference between pointing out the fallacy of special pleading, and committing the fallacy of tu quoque?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 01:59 PM   #189
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
On the contrary, they are statements that one cannot deduce the negation of a statement from premises that are not related the truth of the statement.
A tu quoque, for instance, is probably better viewed as a failed rebuttal rather than a deductive argument. It would be a remarkable failure of basic reasoning to think, "He acts inconsistently with his conclusion and therefore his conclusion is necessarily false." Rather, the reasoning is more commonly, "He acts inconsistently with his conclusion and therefore we may reject his argument."

Anyway, probably enough of this digression. I think you shouldn't insist on using the wrong term to describe the informal fallacies, but whatever.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 02:12 PM   #190
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Anyway, probably enough of this digression. I think you shouldn't insist on using the wrong term to describe the informal fallacies, but whatever.
Perhaps you shouldn't sister that it is the wrong term when there is evidence external to the discussion that term in question is used in the way that I have said that I am using it.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 02:36 PM   #191
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Perhaps you shouldn't sister that it is the wrong term when there is evidence external to the discussion that term in question is used in the way that I have said that I am using it.
Right. And lots of people say "literally" when they literally mean "figuratively". And that meaning is actually reflected in the dictionary definition, since dictionaries report rather than prescribe usage.

But if I say, "When you misuse the term 'formal logic', my head literally explodes," I have still misused the word "literally".

Sorry, the term "formal logic" has a fairly clear meaning, and informal fallacies are not part of formal logic. I don't know why you so desperately want to persist in appearing uninformed.

If TBD says that others claim a tu quoque fallacy each and every time a comment about hypocrisy arises, he would be right. And he would still be wrong to think that's what tu quoque means.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 02:42 PM   #192
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Sorry, the term "formal logic" has a fairly clear meaning, and informal fallacies are not part of formal logic. I don't know why you so desperately want to persist in appearing uninformed.
How is it uninformed to say that I acknowledge that logicians use the term "formal logic" and one way and that it is being used in a different way in this discussion?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 04:12 PM   #193
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
How is it uninformed to say that I acknowledge that logicians use the term "formal logic" and one way and that it is being used in a different way in this discussion?
Let's drop it. Use the term to mean more or less the opposite of its usual definition if you'd like. I think this digression has gone on long enough.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 06:47 PM   #194
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Let's drop it. Use the term to mean more or less the opposite of its usual definition if you'd like. I think this digression has gone on long enough.
Except that I am not "us[ing] the term to mean more or less the opposite of its usual definition", because I am informally using "formal logic" to refer to a systematic exposition of the properties of a sound and valid argument. This is what JayUtah appears to have meant and what I understood them to have meant.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 06:58 PM   #195
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,416
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Right. And lots of people say "literally" when they literally mean "figuratively". And that meaning is actually reflected in the dictionary definition, since dictionaries report rather than prescribe usage.

But if I say, "When you misuse the term 'formal logic', my head literally explodes," I have still misused the word "literally".

Sorry, the term "formal logic" has a fairly clear meaning, and informal fallacies are not part of formal logic. I don't know why you so desperately want to persist in appearing uninformed.

If TBD says that others claim a tu quoque fallacy each and every time a comment about hypocrisy arises, he would be right. And he would still be wrong to think that's what tu quoque means.
Do not worry about it, I only show an tu quoque when it is utterly obvious as here.
__________________
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 22nd December 2016 at 07:36 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 07:04 PM   #196
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Do not worry about it, I only show an tu quoque when it is utterly obviou as here.
Errr...I think that phiwum has stated that they don't agree that the argument referenced in the OP is not a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 08:11 PM   #197
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Do not worry about it, I only show an tu quoque when it is utterly obvious as here.
I am not interested in discussing tu quoque with you. Sorry.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 08:17 PM   #198
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,416
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I am not interested in discussing tu quoque with you. Sorry.
Oh. No problem.

Do not not bother posting in this thread again.

I will be here educating people about tu quoque fallacies.

__________________
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 08:19 PM   #199
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,906
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh. No problem.

Do not not bother posting in this thread again.

I will be here educating people about tu quoque fallacies.

When do you plan to start? You don't seem to understand what it is.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2016, 08:19 PM   #200
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh. No problem.

Do not not bother posting in this thread again.

I will be here educating people about tu quoque fallacies.

How can you even hope to do that when you obviously don't even understand what one is?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.