<p>
[quote]
They do, just look at the 2004 elections. If more people used correct reasoning we would be in a much better position than we are now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More people are never going to use "correct" reasoning. Maybe they're like me and actually disagree with most fallacies. Who came up with these things anyway, and why are they right?</p>
<p>i was hanging out with one of my homies last night</p>
<p>we had a few drinks</p>
<p>one thing led to another and we ended up making out.</p>
<p>does this make me gay?</p>
<p>And to further illustrate Matt's misguided statements, we hvae ONLY been addressing informal fallacies thus far, which require an investigation of the content of an argument, not just the form.</p>
<p>
<p>More people are never going to use "correct" reasoning. Maybe they're like me and actually disagree with most fallacies. Who came up with these things anyway, and why are they right?
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand the concept of a fallacy. However, perhaps you disagree with reasoning itself, in which case I wonder why you are even in school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe they're like me and actually disagree with most fallacies. Who came up with these things anyway, and why are they right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well formal fallacies are what they are because they are demonstratively incorrect. Anyone with a pen paper and 15 minutes could prove that fallacies exist. So who "came up" with them is the wrong question, how people know false reasoning when they see it is a better question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well formal fallacies are what they are because they are demonstratively incorrect. Anyone with a pen paper and 15 minutes could prove that fallacies exist. So who "came up" with them is the wrong question, how people know false reasoning when they see it is a better question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is incorrect.</p>
<p>Read some Lewis Carroll, and you will understand why.</p>
<p>dude, am i gay?</p>
<p>someone help me..</p>
<p>I understand the concept of a fallacy, and I do agree that they present examples of fallacious reasoning. What I disagree with is their practicality. Specifically, in a situation such as this, pointing out someone's pseudoreasoning won't get you anywhere, and you seem to think that it will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to further illustrate Matt's misguided statements, we hvae ONLY been addressing informal fallacies thus far, which require an investigation of the content of an argument, not just the form.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Arguments that are inductively conclusive are deductively sound. Generally when you state that an argument is invalid you're talking about formal logic. There is no such thing as inductively valid.</p>
<p>In the words of Larry Star the wedding dress guy:</p>
<p>"This thing has taken more hits than that pothead that lives in the next building. Man, oh man, if hits were bucks Id be getting a suite at Safeco."</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I disagree with is their practicality. Specifically, in a situation such as this, pointing out someone's pseudoreasoning won't get you anywhere, and you seem to think that it will.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. But if the two sides recognize the same errors in reasoning then according to the system someone would have to be right and the other wrong.</p>
<p>Plus it scores points with the chicks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Read some Lewis Carroll, and you will understand why
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Any book in particular?</p>
<p>I've got assloads of freetime durring my summer, it's sad really.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arguments that are inductively conclusive are deductively sound.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also incorrect.</p>
<p>Matt30, stop defending logic. The more you do it, the more you misrepresent and thus make it more open to attack. Take a class, learn what logic is, and then talk. Until then, you are a poor representative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Compare Lewis Carroll's problem about Achilles and the Tortoise. Here, the tortoise accepts:</p>
<p>1) If p then q
2) p</p>
<p>but from these does not accept or infer q, claiming that to infer q he must first accept</p>
<p>3) If (if p then q) and p, then q.</p>
<p>This additional premiss (3) is: if 1 and 2 then q. Still he balks at q, saying he will not (be forced to) infer q unless he also accepts</p>
<p>4) If 1 and 2 and 3 then q.</p>
<p>Yet still he is not forced to infer (accept) q, he says, unless he acceps
5) If 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 then q.</p>
<p>And so on.</p>
<p>What stops the regress?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Robert Nozick, *Philosophical Explantions<a href="Cambridge:%20Harvard%20University%20Press,%201981">/i</a>, 276-277.</p>
<p>Matt30, you are too poorly educated in logic to anwer the question. Since you cannot answer it, do not bother defending logic.</p>
<p>Sorry if I sound harsh, but all these arguments about logic are more like nails screeching on a bloody board.</p>
<p>Strident.</p>
<p>"Arguments that are inductively conclusive are deductively sound."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also incorrect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're gonna have to explain that one to me. I can't tell if your right or not just by claiming I'm "poorly educated in logic".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure. But if the two sides recognize the same errors in reasoning then according to the system someone would have to be right and the other wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And how often does that happen? Even still, it's never that easy.</p>
<p>Haha, matt30's fighting a battle on two fronts here.</p>
<p>again, what is this whole logic, fallicies crap you talk about?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're gonna have to explain that one to me. I can't tell if your right or not just by claiming I'm "poorly educated in logic".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I simply do not have time. Since you are so bored, go read a book on mathematical logic (I suggest something by Suppes) and either educate yourself on it or attempt to prove me wrong.</p>
<p>I warn you, though: one foci in my major is advanced logic, (Neo-)Bayesian induction, and decision-theory in choices under uncertainty (using Von Neumann-Morgenstern).</p>
<p>
[quote]
again, what is this whole logic, fallicies crap you talk about?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is like giving a blowjob, but to a piece of cheese.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lewis Carroll's problem about Achilles and the Tortoise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well I don't agree that you need the complex statement "If (if p then q) and p, then q" to accept q as following necessarily from the premises. </p>
<p>And I'm sure alot of other philosophy professors don't accept that either.</p>