Talk:Argument from fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This fallacy may be known as something else. I just added it because I have heard it used so many times in discussion groups etc.


I prefer to call it 'Argument from Wikipedia', in which amateur logicians link to the fallacy entries as if that were sufficient to prove someone wrong.

Ha, ha, too right! — Chameleon 12:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And they do prove something wrong: the reasoning behind the argument of their opponent. Isilanes 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

The pages Argument from fallacy and Denying the antecedent appear to be describing the same thing (and it seems to be a special case of Non sequitur (logic)). While the description seems like it could be describing very slightly different things (Argument from Fallacy assumes the proof of P is fallacious, whereas Denying the antecedent assumes P itself is false), they do not carry through the difference to the examples. In accordance with WP:Merge After a consensus has formed, or 5 days of silence have passed, I think we should merge the pages. --YbborT 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I oppose. They are different things. If the examples do not reflect this, the way to go would be to revamp them, not to merge articles that do not mean the same. Besides, I warn you that all fallacies are non sequiturs, just different flavors of them... In the end, all can be traced back to a rephrasing that is a "typical" non sequitur. Isilanes 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference seems to be minor, and if covered in one article, both idea could be addressed. And I agree that they should not be merged with Non Sequitur. --YbborT 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think it's minor:
— Denying the antecedent: If P then Q; not P; therefore not Q
— Argument from fallacy: Argument A says "if P then Q"; A is fallacious; therefore not Q.
The argument from fallacy is wrong because it concludes "not Q", instead of "not A". The if P then Q is wrong, but truth about Q is not assessed. Recall also that no evaluation of P is done, just of A. The argument from fallacy can be converted into denying the antecedent, just by bypassing P: if A then Q, not A; therefore not Q. But A is an argument, a link between propositions, not a proposition itself. Also "not P" (P is false) is meaningfull, whereas "not A" would actually be better phrased "A is fallacious" (note that false is not the same as fallacious). This difference might be subtle, but I think it makes argument from fallacy worthy enough of a page by itself. Argument from fallacy could be considered a "special case" of a general "denying the antecedent", as reductio ad Hitlerum is a case of ad hominem, or most other fallacies can be classified inside broader classes. Most importantly, I think I can imagine someone looking for the one page, but not the other, so that a merge could potentially harm this people. Don't fix it if it ain't broken, or it will be. Isilanes 11:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
So many A's, P's and Q's it makes my head hurt! ;)
Ah, thank you for that clarification. I saw Argument from fallacy as claiming the P rests on a fallacy, but is not necessarily wrong. You seem to be saying that in Argument from Fallacy that the connection between P and Q is being attacked. This makes much more sense, and I now agree with you that they should not be merged. The two articles look like they seriously need some work to be encyclopedic however. Since you seem to have a better handle on this maybe you could help make the distinction clearer, and when I get a chance I'll try to do some more basic cleanup. Thanks again for the clarification. I'll take down the merge templates now. --YbborT 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ginger

I was thinking about adding a bit more about Ginger, but lacking boldness as well as a proper edumucation in logic, decided to discuss it here first: Wouldn't it be begging the question for our two logicians to discuss whether Ginger is a cat? It may yet remain that Ginger is Tom's wife, or that Ginger doesn't even exist. Or am I completely off my rocker? 64.90.198.6 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The question is whether Ginger not being a cat can be concluded from it being a cat being a fallacious argument. The point is that Ginger could be a cat, even if our reasons to reach that conclusion are completely silly. The argument being wrong does not deny the conclusion being possibly correct, just the argument itself not being valid to prove it. Isilanes 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thus being a wonderful example of an argument from fallacy. Don't worry about slandering the good name of Ginger, the good folks here at Wikipedia are taking good care of her(it?). V-Man737 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add that the line at the end, "For the record, Ginger is a gerbil," makes me smile. Whoever added it is awesome.
You'll find the first instance of that edit here and the anon editor's talk page here (in case you want to thank them personally). V-Man737 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to add my support for the gerbil line. I hope no stuffy Wikipedian removes it as "vandalism". MQDuck 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law of gravity proven, and causative??

The pencil will still fall due to the law of gravity, which has been extensively proven.

Twofold problem here, I think. Especially when writing in an article on logic, it seems inappropriate to refer to the law of gravity as "extensively proven," since it hasn't been proven in the rigorous deductive sense. It's "merely" been proven to accurately predict what will happen time and again in the past, and seems likely to predict what will happen at any time in the future. And since it only predicts and describes, it can't be said that the fall is "due to the law of gravity," although "due to gravity" would be quite acceptable (but then the "which has been extensively proven" clause would be a non sequitur, in the colloquial sense).

I'd patch it up myself, but I don't quite know my formal scientific theory well enough to know the term offhand for how one would describe the theory/law of gravity to have been, umm, demonstrated, or whatever. --John Owens | (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)