Barreldriver
02-26-2012, 02:01 PM
Greetings folks, today I would like to discuss logical fallacies and their legitimacy or lack thereof and whether or not we can eventually rid ourselves of these errors (if we accept that they exist).
I believe this to be a necessary subject to discuss as good logic is essential to the refinement of any beliefs we may hold and share here on this forum.
I would like to lay some groundwork pertaining to what fallacies are, mostly on the behalf of those who may not have been formally initiated into the field of logic or have not pursued such as an armchair logician.
I will be utilizing Introduction To Logic Edition 14 by Copi, Cohen, and McMahon as that is the text recommended and required for logical studies at the university I attend. I am sure there are other texts available whose merit may exceed this text but alas I have not read them and can only utilize that with which I am acquainted.
A fallacy is defined, in a general sense, as any error in reasoning however logicians commonly use the term to describe typical errors as opposed to any error (Copi, Cohen, McMahon pg. 105).
The above cited authors classify fallacies as such:
Fallacies of relevance -
appeal to the populace
appeal to emotion
red herring
straw man
attack on the person
appeal to force
missing the point
Fallacies of defective induction -
argument from ignorance
appeal to inappropriate authority
false cause
hasty generalization
Fallacies of presumption -
accident
complex question
begging the question
Fallacies of ambiguity -
equivocation
amphiboly
accent
composition
division
As for now I am most interested in discussing only a few of these fallacies which we may encounter more so than others in our discussions (either committed by ourselves or by those we discuss with).
I will start off with Argumentum ad Populum/Appeal to the Populace -
This fallacy an attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feelings of the multitude (Copi, Cohen, McMahon pg. 108).
Much of our patriotic propaganda or other instances aimed at motivating an audience into action commits this fallacy however this fallacy can be over cited as emotive language can be necessary for spurring listeners into an action they were already in agreement with or has otherwise been validated, in other words this fallacy depends much on context.
Ad Misericordiam/Appeal to Pitty -
This fallacy in essence is the emotional appeal to pity at the expense or in place of better reasoning.
Much of contemporary media and institutionally provided information aimed at illustrating the victimization of certain peoples commits this fallacy by being over reliant on rousing the emotions of those who are perceived of as in need of swaying, this committed often at the expense of critical thought.
I myself am very guilty of this in the past by using emotive language when defending the Southern Confederacy or condemning Federal generals.
One of the most obvious examples of this fallacy can be found often with Black History presentations in which much of the presentation relies on portraying Anglo-Saxons as demons and portraying Africans as innocent victims in order to arouse a sense of pity even when a claim to their innocence contradicts historical facts to some degree, examples being the willful failure to acknowledge African-American slave owners, native African participation in the capture and sale of slaves, and contemporary instances of native African slavery (ex. Chad, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mauritania, etc...).
In general emotional fallacies can lead to other fallacies of relevance, among the most common being the Straw Man and Ad Hominem.
Straw Man -
The instance of presenting an opponents position as one that can be easily torn apart.
Copi, Cohen and McMahon also mention that this fallacy can be considered a form of Red Herring in that the use of this fallacy introduces a distraction from the real dispute (Copi, Cohen, and McMahon pg. 113).
This fallacy is often committed by presenting organization's or individual's argument as more extreme than it really is.
This very relevant to us as participants in a pro-Occident forum where opponents would aim to portray us as rabid and illogical White Nationalists by citing our posts out of context, cherry picking, or completely altering our presentations in a manner that is contrary to how we initially presented them with the intent to discredit.
Ad Hominem (Abusive&Circumstantial) -
The Ad Hominem is essentially the attack of the person or other body as opposed to the argument.
I am surprised the authors did not make an in text comparison to the Red Herring as they did with the Straw Man as this fallacy like the Straw Man could be considered a variation of the Red Herring in that by committing Ad Hominem one is distracting from the real dispute.
The Abusive form of this fallacy relies on utilizing personal slander (claims of stupidity, incompetence, sloth, etc...) irrelevant to a discussion in order to weaken an opponents credibility while the Circumstantial form of this fallacy relies on citing a persons circumstances (political party, nationality, religion, etc...) in order to distract from the argument at hand.
Ex. Abusive - "You are an incompetent twit thus your conclusion is false"
Ex. Circumstantial - "You are a Republican thus you must support insert common Republican political issue"
The forms of Ad Hominem are relevant to us for the same reasons which Straw Man is as such.
Onto the Naturalistic Fallacy -
The Naturalistic Fallacy in the context of the ought-is problem is when one derives an ought from an is.
I assert that all condemnations derived from the ought-is problem are moot.
Illustration (any and all criticism of a productive nature is earnestly welcomed as I feel a fervent compulsion to further refine this argument I being currently dissatisfied with it) -
P1: The world, as sensory stimuli, is that which "is".
P2: Our perceptions of the world as a body are derived from the neural processing of this sensory stimuli/the "is".
P3: Our perceptions of what ought to be are derived from our life experiences within the "is"/world as a body, evident in the processes of conditioning.
P4: One cannot hold an ought if one has no conditioning as without conditioning one can only act as an infantile being void of coordinated logic.
C: Therefore condemning the derivation of an "ought from an is" is contrary to reality and furthermore moot.
I have had two of my philosophy professors look at this (both of whom are qualified logicians) and they suggest that I read up on G.E. Moore before I proceed further with such an argument as the above, so for now I must retract as it is nowhere near complete enough to be effective, I keep it in place simply to illustrate a train of thought.
END PART I TO BE CONTINUED AT LATER DATE
Feel free to discuss the information already presented if so desired, more will be added in the near future, time and patience willing.
I believe this to be a necessary subject to discuss as good logic is essential to the refinement of any beliefs we may hold and share here on this forum.
I would like to lay some groundwork pertaining to what fallacies are, mostly on the behalf of those who may not have been formally initiated into the field of logic or have not pursued such as an armchair logician.
I will be utilizing Introduction To Logic Edition 14 by Copi, Cohen, and McMahon as that is the text recommended and required for logical studies at the university I attend. I am sure there are other texts available whose merit may exceed this text but alas I have not read them and can only utilize that with which I am acquainted.
A fallacy is defined, in a general sense, as any error in reasoning however logicians commonly use the term to describe typical errors as opposed to any error (Copi, Cohen, McMahon pg. 105).
The above cited authors classify fallacies as such:
Fallacies of relevance -
appeal to the populace
appeal to emotion
red herring
straw man
attack on the person
appeal to force
missing the point
Fallacies of defective induction -
argument from ignorance
appeal to inappropriate authority
false cause
hasty generalization
Fallacies of presumption -
accident
complex question
begging the question
Fallacies of ambiguity -
equivocation
amphiboly
accent
composition
division
As for now I am most interested in discussing only a few of these fallacies which we may encounter more so than others in our discussions (either committed by ourselves or by those we discuss with).
I will start off with Argumentum ad Populum/Appeal to the Populace -
This fallacy an attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feelings of the multitude (Copi, Cohen, McMahon pg. 108).
Much of our patriotic propaganda or other instances aimed at motivating an audience into action commits this fallacy however this fallacy can be over cited as emotive language can be necessary for spurring listeners into an action they were already in agreement with or has otherwise been validated, in other words this fallacy depends much on context.
Ad Misericordiam/Appeal to Pitty -
This fallacy in essence is the emotional appeal to pity at the expense or in place of better reasoning.
Much of contemporary media and institutionally provided information aimed at illustrating the victimization of certain peoples commits this fallacy by being over reliant on rousing the emotions of those who are perceived of as in need of swaying, this committed often at the expense of critical thought.
I myself am very guilty of this in the past by using emotive language when defending the Southern Confederacy or condemning Federal generals.
One of the most obvious examples of this fallacy can be found often with Black History presentations in which much of the presentation relies on portraying Anglo-Saxons as demons and portraying Africans as innocent victims in order to arouse a sense of pity even when a claim to their innocence contradicts historical facts to some degree, examples being the willful failure to acknowledge African-American slave owners, native African participation in the capture and sale of slaves, and contemporary instances of native African slavery (ex. Chad, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mauritania, etc...).
In general emotional fallacies can lead to other fallacies of relevance, among the most common being the Straw Man and Ad Hominem.
Straw Man -
The instance of presenting an opponents position as one that can be easily torn apart.
Copi, Cohen and McMahon also mention that this fallacy can be considered a form of Red Herring in that the use of this fallacy introduces a distraction from the real dispute (Copi, Cohen, and McMahon pg. 113).
This fallacy is often committed by presenting organization's or individual's argument as more extreme than it really is.
This very relevant to us as participants in a pro-Occident forum where opponents would aim to portray us as rabid and illogical White Nationalists by citing our posts out of context, cherry picking, or completely altering our presentations in a manner that is contrary to how we initially presented them with the intent to discredit.
Ad Hominem (Abusive&Circumstantial) -
The Ad Hominem is essentially the attack of the person or other body as opposed to the argument.
I am surprised the authors did not make an in text comparison to the Red Herring as they did with the Straw Man as this fallacy like the Straw Man could be considered a variation of the Red Herring in that by committing Ad Hominem one is distracting from the real dispute.
The Abusive form of this fallacy relies on utilizing personal slander (claims of stupidity, incompetence, sloth, etc...) irrelevant to a discussion in order to weaken an opponents credibility while the Circumstantial form of this fallacy relies on citing a persons circumstances (political party, nationality, religion, etc...) in order to distract from the argument at hand.
Ex. Abusive - "You are an incompetent twit thus your conclusion is false"
Ex. Circumstantial - "You are a Republican thus you must support insert common Republican political issue"
The forms of Ad Hominem are relevant to us for the same reasons which Straw Man is as such.
Onto the Naturalistic Fallacy -
The Naturalistic Fallacy in the context of the ought-is problem is when one derives an ought from an is.
I assert that all condemnations derived from the ought-is problem are moot.
Illustration (any and all criticism of a productive nature is earnestly welcomed as I feel a fervent compulsion to further refine this argument I being currently dissatisfied with it) -
P1: The world, as sensory stimuli, is that which "is".
P2: Our perceptions of the world as a body are derived from the neural processing of this sensory stimuli/the "is".
P3: Our perceptions of what ought to be are derived from our life experiences within the "is"/world as a body, evident in the processes of conditioning.
P4: One cannot hold an ought if one has no conditioning as without conditioning one can only act as an infantile being void of coordinated logic.
C: Therefore condemning the derivation of an "ought from an is" is contrary to reality and furthermore moot.
I have had two of my philosophy professors look at this (both of whom are qualified logicians) and they suggest that I read up on G.E. Moore before I proceed further with such an argument as the above, so for now I must retract as it is nowhere near complete enough to be effective, I keep it in place simply to illustrate a train of thought.
END PART I TO BE CONTINUED AT LATER DATE
Feel free to discuss the information already presented if so desired, more will be added in the near future, time and patience willing.