Are fallacies real?

[Tahuti]

Committing a fallacy is usually considered a sin among skeptic circles. However, what if it works on an emotional level? However illogical it may be, fallacies, especially those committed knowingly, cannot be dismissed for the simple reason people actually believe in them, and others who see through it may still be discouraged on an emotional level, which matters more than we would care to admit.

In fact, logical constructions are arguably fictional: You can totally say that "two plus two equals five", because I just did. It's only that when you have, for example, two boxes and receive another two, you won't have five, rather you will have four boxes instead. When you introduce the proposition that two plus two equals five, you did not violate mathematics, rather, you have devised another language which appears to look like mathematics. It's only because there is no use for it - other than appear in 1984 where it is mispresented by Oceania as mathematics - no one will take it seriously (yet).

That which works on an emotional level, even though it cannot expressed materially, is still a thing. Or is it?

 

[Acken]

You can say a fallacy. It's still a sin as far as logic is concerned. There may be element of truth in the argument but that's up to that person to the re-frame the argument.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Fallacy bellongs to mental existence and its truth. Emotional existence have its own set of truths quite independent of the mental existence while these both influence each other. The emotional influence can create fallacy but the intervention from emotional existence still holds some truth of its own.

 

[Tahuti]

You can say a fallacy. It's still a sin as far as logic is concerned. There may be element of truth in the argument but that's up to that person to the re-frame the argument.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You can allow physical reality to constrain your language, or not. The question is whether language which clearly deviates from empirically observed reality is a reality of its own.

 

[Perfection]

Many times when someone alleges a fallacy, they demonstrate that they don't fully understand the argument.

It should also be noted that even a good and thorough argument will have unstated assumptions and inferences. One should be careful not to dismiss an argument simply because of that. That is an unreasonable expectation.

 

[CavLancer]

No emotional fallacies are infallible logically.

While I have no idea what I just said, I think it sounds really good and will therefore stand by it.

 

[Camikaze]

The concept of logical fallacies presupposes rationality, which is a particular epistemology linked to observations of the physical world. The concept of reality is usually understood within the framework of that epistemology. According to an alternate epistemology, 2+2 might really equal 5. But that's because it takes a different concept of reality, which isn't the same as rationality's. Rationality can continue to insist that 2+2 does not really equal 5. From the perspective of rationality, both epistemological positions can be internally valid, but the question of which one is objectively correct (a question that can perhaps only be asked by rationality) can only be answered by rationality. Whether both positions can be internally valid from the perspective of another epistemological position, or whether from that perspective the question of objective correctness is one that can be asked, cannot be answered by rationality. To do so would be to have already answered the question in rationality's favour.

 

[CavLancer]

I don't have those issues. Never had any luck convincing bill collectors that 2+2=5, or anything remotely like that. Banks, those folks didn't take that class. I am grateful for the reply Camikaze, but while I'm glad it gives people something to talk about, this is after all a discussion forum, I think this may be my time to bow out of this discussion, and so I now do.

 

[Tahuti]

The concept of logical fallacies presupposes rationality, which is a particular epistemology linked to observations of the physical world. The concept of reality is usually understood within the framework of that epistemology. According to an alternate epistemology, 2+2 might really equal 5. But that's because it takes a different concept of reality, which isn't the same as rationality's. Rationality can continue to insist that 2+2 does not really equal 5. From the perspective of rationality, both epistemological positions can be internally valid, but the question of which one is objectively correct (a question that can perhaps only be asked by rationality) can only be answered by rationality. Whether both positions can be internally valid from the perspective of another epistemological position, or whether from that perspective the question of objective correctness is one that can be asked, cannot be answered by rationality. To do so would be to have already answered the question in rationality's favour.

That's the thing: Logical fallacies are a linguistic concept presupposing rationality. You cannot have fallacies outside of language, since you cannot do things in an objective reality that you theoretically cannot do in an objective reality either. At the same time, fallacious arguments can still be persuasive and induce us to perform actions which are feasible and can be empirically observed. So you still end up with the question whether language is able to present an alternate reality we have not been able to empirically observe (yet), or becomes non-literal in the same way sarcasm and irony is, as soon as fallacies are employed.

 

[Lexicus]

Fallacies "exist" in the domain of pure logic, and have nothing really to do with the world as it actually exists.

 

[Agent327]

That's the thing: Logical fallacies are a linguistic concept presupposing rationality. You cannot have fallacies outside of language, since you cannot do things in an objective reality that you theoretically cannot do in an objective reality either. At the same time, fallacious arguments can still be persuasive and induce us to perform actions which are feasible and can be empirically observed. So you still end up with the question whether language is able to present an alternate reality we have not been able to empirically observe (yet), or becomes non-literal in the same way sarcasm and irony is, as soon as fallacies are employed.

Trump.

But

Logical fallacies are a linguistic concept presupposing rationality.

doesn't quite hit the spot. Logical fallacy simply means your argument doesn't add up. That has little do do with the argument being convincing or not, as that depends on delivery. Donald Trump uses this to great effect. He often speaks complete nonsense, yet manages to convince his audience he is 'speaking the truth'. That says more about the audience though than it does about the argument.

 

[Tahuti]

Trump.

But doesn't quite hit the spot. Logical fallacy simply means your argument doesn't add up. That has little do do with the argument being convincing or not, as that depends on delivery. Donald Trump uses this to great effect. He often speaks complete nonsense, yet manages to convince his audience he is 'speaking the truth'. That says more about the audience though than it does about the argument.

Focus not only the recipients of his rethoric and Trump himself - focus also on the way his language works. People feel it is real because in another dimension not empirically observable (yet), it could perhaps be real. When you utter something, you open up the idea - it becomes accessible in your mind. Trumps apparently triggers a lot of ideas among certain people with his words, which is perhaps how he won. And the thing is, he didn't need to be logically airtight, though he made mental shortcuts in his speech which opened people for ideas which are feasible, like voting for him, as you pointed out. However, the effects are far greater: They don't just extend to his supporters, it also extends to his opponents and observers. (during the elections, I considered myself an opponent, now he has won, an observer)

Fallacies "exist" in the domain of pure logic, and have nothing really to do with the world as it actually exists.

Can see where you are coming from, though still not quite: Pure logic is more or less based on that which we can literally do on this world. You can still say we have two suns in this system, yet we have one. Does it mean I therefore mentally accessed an alternate system with two suns by saying - and therefore thinking - it?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The concept of logical fallacies presupposes rationality, which is a particular epistemology linked to observations of the physical world. The concept of reality is usually understood within the framework of that epistemology. According to an alternate epistemology, 2+2 might really equal 5. But that's because it takes a different concept of reality, which isn't the same as rationality's. Rationality can continue to insist that 2+2 does not really equal 5. From the perspective of rationality, both epistemological positions can be internally valid, but the question of which one is objectively correct (a question that can perhaps only be asked by rationality) can only be answered by rationality. Whether both positions can be internally valid from the perspective of another epistemological position, or whether from that perspective the question of objective correctness is one that can be asked, cannot be answered by rationality. To do so would be to have already answered the question in rationality's favour.

My man. I was about to explain this, just in worse English and less eloquent. Thanks for saving me the time

 

[warpus]

Committing a fallacy is usually considered a sin among skeptic circles.

What's a "skeptic circle" ?

A fallacy is simply an illogical and/or contradictory statement. They are usually used to move some argument forward in a sneaky way, so that the truth appears to be something which it is not.

However, what if it works on an emotional level?

I mean, yeah, that's why a lot of people use them - they can help you win an argument due to the emotional impact of what you have said, even if the logic and/or facts do not check out.

However, excusing the use of logical fallacies "because it makes people feel good" is a bit silly, not to mention supportive of a dishonest type of discourse

 

[Tahuti]

What's a "skeptic circle" ?

A fallacy is simply an illogical and/or contradictory statement. They are usually used to move some argument forward in a sneaky way, so that the truth appears to be something which it is not.

I mean, yeah, that's why a lot of people use them - they can help you win an argument due to the emotional impact of what you have said, even if the logic and/or facts do not check out.

However, excusing the use of logical fallacies "because it makes people feel good" is a bit silly, not to mention supportive of a dishonest type of discourse

Well, compare to programming: If you use fallacious logic in your code, the program will likely crash or fail to compile. Us humans do not have that kind of limitation. It is almost as we are able to perceive a certain truth in fallacies. If we were to react on each fallacy on a purely logical level, we might have gone insane long ago.

 

[warpus]

Logical fallacies work because a lot of people do not realize they are logical fallacies, not because we are hard-wired in some way to "perceive a certain truth in logical fallacies"

I mean, yeah, we are humans, some of us can look at a tree and say: "That is definitely a hamburger". We are weird. That doesn't excuse using logical fallacies in rational discourse, it's a dishonest way to try to get people to agree with you.

 

[BvBPL]

No. Letters are not gendered in English and certainly the letter C has no sex organ.



Wait a minute…

 

[Tahuti]

That doesn't excuse using logical fallacies in rational discourse, it's a dishonest way to try to get people to agree with you.

So you equate fallacies to lying? A lie is as we know an untruth. However, doesn't language make up its own truths as it goes?

 

[warpus]

So you equate fallacies to lying? A lie is as we know an untruth.

No, it doesn't have to be like lying.

It's just a dishonest way for a person to attempt to prove a point. I don't see a reason why we should embrace such dishonesty.

However, doesn't language make up its own truths as it goes?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, so I can't comment. Can you give me an example?

 

[uppi]

Well, compare to programming: If you use fallacious logic in your code, the program will likely crash or fail to compile.

If the code fails to compile or crashes, that is not primarily because of a fallacy but because of misuse of the programming language. That is analogous to putting together random words in a language without any regards for syntax: incomprehensible, but not a fallacy. A fallacy usually results in the code running perfectly fine, but not doing what you intended.