This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Can we have a sticky of logical fallacies?

#21FlashOfLightPosted 3/3/2013 1:19:34 PM
JonWood007 posted...
...why did you just compare eyewitness testimony to dream interpretation? That's like saying a book acts as a better bulletproof vest than an individual piece of paper.


Because of the psychologists that were mentioned, in case you're not aware, some of them hold findings under hypnotic regression to be high stock.

The following sums it up quite nicely -

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/regression-page

"In fact, however, nearly all such hypnotically evoked "previous personalities" are entirely imaginary just as are the contents of most dreams. They may include some accurate historical details, but these are usually derived from information the subject has acquired normally through reading, radio and television programs, or other sources.

The subject may not remember where he obtained the information included, but sometimes this can be brought out in other sessions with hypnosis designed to search for the sources of the information used in making up the "previous personality." Experiments by E. Zolik and by R. Kampman and R. Hirvenoja have demonstrated this phenomenon.

A marked emotional experience during the hypnotic regression provides no assurance that memories of a real previous life were recovered. The subjective experience of reliving a previous life may be impressive to the person having the experience, and yet the "previous life" may be a fantasy, like most of our dreams."
---
Never marry a woman before you hear her scream.
#22Moorish_IdolPosted 3/3/2013 2:23:04 PM
Yes, let's ignore the entire research field of psychology based on the practices of some psychotherapists.
#23AynRandySavagePosted 3/3/2013 4:01:15 PM
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
#24Julian_CaesarPosted 3/3/2013 6:37:22 PM
From: squareandrare | #016
From: Fingerpuppet | #014
squareandrare posted...
How about the fallacy of trying to apply deductive fallacies to inductive, rational thought?

For example, concluding something is true because it has the strongest evidence is a deductive fallacy. So is the preference for expert opinion over uninformed opinion. So is Occam's Razor.


Would you care to elaborate?



Just because something is strongly supported by evidence doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. If it is even possible that it is not true, concluding it is true is a deductive fallacy.

The point I'm making is that using deductive fallacies to argue against inductive logic is silly. Deductive logic is not very useful when it comes to deciding what is true/false about the universe and reality.


If anything needs to be stickied, it's this sort of thing right here.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#25FlashOfLightPosted 3/3/2013 7:26:33 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
Yes, let's ignore the entire research field of psychology based on the practices of some psychotherapists.


That's what I'm saying, to not ignore what else supposed psychologists get into, being a fair representation of the whole field, so as not to ignore that some of them are into questionable methods.
---
Never marry a woman before you hear her scream.
#26DagorhaPosted 3/3/2013 8:25:23 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
Moorish_Idol posted...
Yes, let's ignore the entire research field of psychology based on the practices of some psychotherapists.


That's what I'm saying, to not ignore what else supposed psychologists get into, being a fair representation of the whole field, so as not to ignore that some of them are into questionable methods.


duh? I fail to see your point

Ontop of which our soul is not up for debate, regardless of how "logical" your arguments seem to sound. THere is a fixed right and a fixed wrong. So get used to it.

Except if you use terrible arguments you aren't helping anyone and worse still you open up a huge can of worms later when others realize that what they have been presented with is possible falsehoods. Not adhering to logic just makes your arguments nearly impossible to defend as well as argue for.
---
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
#27FlashOfLightPosted 3/3/2013 8:46:07 PM
Dagorha posted...

duh? I fail to see your point


Then don't bother, chap, it's hardly important.
---
Never marry a woman before you hear her scream.
#28ThuggernautzPosted 3/4/2013 7:15:02 AM
squareandrare posted...

Just because something is strongly supported by evidence doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. If it is even possible that it is not true, concluding it is true is a deductive fallacy.

The point I'm making is that using deductive fallacies to argue against inductive logic is silly. Deductive logic is not very useful when it comes to deciding what is true/false about the universe and reality.


So, what, would you like everyone to put the disclaimer WARNING: THERE'S A CHANCE THIS MIGHT NOT BE TRUE on everything? How about WARNING: THERE'S A CHANCE I MIGHT BE A HEAD IN A JAR, or on a statement commonly held to be true like Earth is a spherical oblate BUT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT BE SOMEHOW. How about 'we are a carbon based lifeform BUT THERE'S A CHANCE THERE'S SOME OTHER UNKNOWN MATERIAL THAT MAKES US UP'. There's an infinite number of potentials out there, it is pointless to keep adding this disclaimer to anything until there's reason to believe that the doubt might be necessary. At which point, it is up to the person with the doubt to explain why it's necessary and why the current explanation doesn't fit to serve it.

When we say 'true' about empirical observations, it means it is the strongest supported theory. Really, 'true' only applies to boolean or logical functions, and it should be taken as given that any argument anyone makes for anything could potentially be wrong. However, arguing that there might be some other method of knowing things, or some other truth is completely pointless speculation. It gets us no-where, and there is no way to distinguish that might from any of the other infinitely possible mights
#29kozlo100Posted 3/4/2013 9:21:32 AM
I don't think a sticky on logical fallacies is appropriate on this board. First, it's off-topic, this isn't the logical debate board, despite that a fair bit of logical debate does happen here. Second, it is neither required, nor even necessarily desirable, that all people be limited to describing their beliefs via logically consistent argument.

In essence, the only benefit I see to posting a list of fallacies is to give a subset of this board's population a tool to win fights. I don't think that's good for the board as a whole.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#30FlashOfLightPosted 3/4/2013 9:29:53 AM
kozlo100 posted...
I don't think a sticky on logical fallacies is appropriate on this board. First, it's off-topic, this isn't the logical debate board, despite that a fair bit of logical debate does happen here. Second, it is neither required, nor even necessarily desirable, that all people be limited to describing their beliefs via logically consistent argument.

In essence, the only benefit I see to posting a list of fallacies is to give a subset of this board's population a tool to win fights. I don't think that's good for the board as a whole.


I agree, since other than musing about it within this specific topic, and while it may be at best intents admirable in practice, yet in execution it would no doubt turn to disaster, and be another reason for elitism to spur up, and would limit discussions overall, specifically removing them from the human factor in which many necessary personal stories come in to give perspectives on why someone thinks a certain way.
---
Never marry a woman before you hear her scream.