Logical fallacy exist, yes, but they are no more useful than any other aspect of predicate logic. In my years of study of philosophy, the only thing I have learned that is actually useful and applicable is "Make sure both sides agree on common definitions before you start to argue."
I think the idea is that the more you educate people around you about common fallacies in succinct, easily recognizable ways, the more adept they'll become at cutting through invalid arguments, and the harder it will be for others to take refuge in them.
A logical fallacy is usually what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It's a flaw in reasoning. They're like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people.
If I understand correctly, according ot Wittgenstein logic can only say that a thing is the same as itself, or that two things that are different are not the same. But perhaps this is making a 'no true scottsman' logical fallacy truism.
begging the question is formally deductively valid.
'p therefore p' is valid, and deductively so.
Of all the threads in which to use 'begs the question' in that way....
The phrase became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence serves to some people as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least that of one's thought.
The statement is sometimes given as Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (English: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). A common mistake is that people take the statement as proof that they, as a human person, exist. However, it is a severely limited conclusion that does nothing to prove that one's own body exists, let alone anything else that is perceived in the physical universe. It only proves that one's mind exists (that part of an individual that observes oneself doing the doubting). It does not rule out other possibilities, such as waking up to find oneself to be a butterfly who had dreamed of having lived a human life.
Premise 1: If someone's father was a Muslim, they are a Muslim
Premise 2: Obama's father is a Muslim.
Conclusion: Obama is a muslim
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it". Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.
A) Proven conclusion: People are often wrong because they have used a logical fallacy
B) Therefore people are sometimes wrong.
you were using the phrase to mean "this quoted bit raises the question..." which is the "incorrect" way. (If you use a question mark, you're probably using the phrase incorrectly.)
« Older "Best spring break ever, bro." | How deep does design go? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments