Jump to content
nathan_debate

What logical fallacies are there exceptions to?

Recommended Posts

Which logical fallacies are themselves overgeneralizations?

 

Are there legitimate uses of logical fallacies...that aren't really fallacious (ie they are still good reasoning)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which logical fallacies are themselves overgeneralizations?

 

Are there legitimate uses of logical fallacies...that aren't really fallacious (ie they are still good reasoning)

 

The big one for a fallacy that has a legitimate use is ad hominem.  It's a fallacy when used to attack argument, but it is legitimate when used to attack testimony.  (Accurate phrasings of the fallacy will be specific to argument).

 

I can't think of any that are overgeneralized when accurately phrased.  They're errors in logic, and if something isn't valid logic, it's never going to be valid logic.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slippery Slope. A lot of time Correlations DOES actually imply Causation and moreover one cannot just discount a well warranted DA scenario by saying "that's fallicious lol gg easy novice extinction won't happen cus you didn't please the logic gods today". 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, arguing that something is untrue because its advocate used a logical fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself.  Just because person A uses adn ad hominem against person B does not mean that what person B is advocating is a good idea nor does it mean that all of Person A's arguments are invalid

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big one for a fallacy that has a legitimate use is ad hominem.  It's a fallacy when used to attack argument, but it is legitimate when used to attack testimony.  (Accurate phrasings of the fallacy will be specific to argument).

 

I can't think of any that are overgeneralized when accurately phrased.  They're errors in logic, and if something isn't valid logic, it's never going to be valid logic.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're attacking someone's testimony, isn't that by definition attacking the argument is making, not their personal character, which makes it not an ad-hominem?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, arguing that something is untrue because its advocate used a logical fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself.  Just because person A uses adn ad hominem against person B does not mean that what person B is advocating is a good idea nor does it mean that all of Person A's arguments are invalid

 

also known as the fallacy fallacy

 

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

^this comic strip is exactly what you are looking for with fallacies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Technically, arguing that something is untrue because its advocate used a logical fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself.  Just because person A uses adn ad hominem against person B does not mean that what person B is advocating is a good idea nor does it mean that all of Person A's arguments are invalid

 

Committing a logical fallacy doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, just that your argument doesn't justify that conclusion.  You can make plenty of fallacious arguments with correct conclusions.  

 

The reason we care about logical fallacies is because we want to be able to reason from known facts to unknown facts, that is, to produce knowledge.  And we can only know we've produced knowledge if that process justifies our belief in the formerly unknown facts.  If the reasoning is fallacious, it does not justify belief in the conclusions, even if the conclusions happen to be true. 

 

Attacking someone's character cannot impugn their arguments, although it can impugn their reliability as a witness.  Which brings us to...

 

 

 

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're attacking someone's testimony, isn't that by definition attacking the argument is making, not their personal character, which makes it not an ad-hominem?  

 

Testimony is a recollection of experience - the most common legitimate use of ad hominem is in trials to attack the character of the witness, generally to suggest that they are lying.  We should only believe their recollection if we can trust them to tell the truth about it.  Notably, witnesses in a court of law do not get to make argument. Only lawyers (or individuals acting in that capacity) are allowed to make arguments - and attacking the character of the lawyer would be fallacious.  Even in the case of legitimate use, ad hominem doesn't actually allege the witness is necessarily wrong, merely that we have no reason to believe they are telling the truth.  

 

It's important not to confuse argument and testimony.  If you are drawing conclusions from evidence, that is argument.  If you are merely reporting what you experienced, that is testimony.  So if I said "today was sunny", that's testimony, but if I instead said "The weather channel reported temperatures in the 60s and no clouds, therefore it was sunny", that's argument.  Outside settings where reference to sources is common, people frequently mix argument and testimony together, such as "I recall it being sunny yesterday, so it must have been warm".  That it being sunny implies it was warm is an argument (and not a particularly good one based solely on that), but that it was sunny is testimony.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling out a fallacy without doing work on why it is and how that is damning to the argument is lazy and bad arguing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't "exceptions" to logical fallacies, there is just a confusion about what a logical fallacy is. Formal fallacies, which are what people usually refer to when they talk about logical fallacies, are all non sequiturs, which means that the conclusion does not follow from the argument/premises. It is a criticism of the argument or proof and not a criticism of the conclusion itself, which is why argument from fallacy is a logical fallacy. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attacking someone's character cannot impugn their arguments, although it can impugn their reliability as a witness.

 

 

Aristotle "Logos + Pathos + Ethos = Persuasion"

Ethos = Credibility

Presumably the credibility of their arguments and data.

 

How about just overall reliability and credibility which is the very basis of truth claims.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...