/philosophy/ - Philosophy

The problem with focusing on fallacies is that a lot of people tend to misidentify them. For example, if I said "no true homosexual enjoys sex with women", some would identify that as a no true Scotsman despite it being a valid statement.

In short, focusing on calling out fallacies instead of just debunking an argument as usual is a waste of time and only allows those who lack arguments to build a wall of " muh fallacy" claims

>>3863

Anyone that fondles your balls will make you feel good. Just admit you're a faggot.

>>3865

The fact that a man jerking you off will make you aroused doesn't mean that you're gay. Hear me out, if the invisible man jerked you off, you wouldn't know it was him. I think the factor determining gayness is if the gender of the jerker adds to the experience. For instance, an attractive female would excite me more because I'm straight.

There's no way a human could look past there opinions when detecting fallacies. For example, I am likely to see flaws in a nationalist argument that a nazi doesn't. If an AI could be written on the other hand...

I'm guessing those boards are full of autistic fedora wearers

>>4483

>implying the fallacy fallacy is some magical key that makes any and all fallacious arguments true.

youre a faggot and have a tiny penis.

>>4509

>"implying the fallacy fallacy is some magical key that makes any and all fallacious arguments true."

Of course it does nothing to strengthen your own case but neither does pointing out fallacies show that the conclusion drawn from those fallacious arguments are necessarily false. To commit the fallacy fallacy is to assert that poor argumentation negates the truth of the proposition being argued for. There is no connection between the truth of a proposition, and my ability to argue for that proposition's truth.

>youre a faggot and have a tiny penis.

You don't even know your own penis is real.

>>4511

how else do you respond to namecalling and/or kafkatrapping other than to call it what it is? to do anything else would be to legitimize is and further their sophistic ends, which is to move the conversation away from the topic at hand and make them appear the victor.

>You don't even know your own penis is real.

that sounds like something a jew would say.

>>4513

I'm not saying that you never call out fallacies I'm just saying that there is more to debate than that.

>>4514

and i am asking you what do you do in the situation i described? because i really do not know any other way to approach such a scenario.

>>4518

>wanting to learn empty headed syllogisms

it really does suck that we have no out-and-out school for either sophistry nor logic. at least you can kind of get a logicc lass out of a programming course.

>>4527

i had logic in math classes in high school

im from poland

>>4483

Now I can accurately guess that the people here don't

He's just a caricature of someone who's just learned about logical fallacies and doesn't entirely understand them.

Which brings us to the last comic:

>>4511

You're right that things still have a truth behind them but what the fuck, everyone except the most brainwashed post modernist knows that.

If you can't argue your point without shooting off a fallacy what is the fucking point of arguing with you, dumbass? The point of this description is to refute people that think that, because a earlier argument used a fallacy, further arguments towards the same point are invalid because the user is fallacious.

Guess what?

This shit has nothing to do with it.

Nobody wants to argue with logical fallacies because there's nothing to argue.

Go fling your

>>4527

I'll teach logic for free if anyone wants to learn.

(ProTip: nobody's willing to put in the effort.)

(Throw the horns for Socrates.)

>>4527

I picked up logic from statistics, baysneian truth statements in applied calculus or algebra, and fallacies from a philosophy class valued critical thinking. I took a few programing classes but I didn't learn anything except writing procedural code within some rules, maybe I didn't study it long enough. I don't think you need a class soley for logic, all you need is enough classes that delve into it and rely on it.

>Sophistry

I learned how to argue and do research from liberal arts classes. Science coursework is strangely hung-up on rote memorization of formulas and write-ups; they don't usually make students research a topic, memorize arguments for a prompt, and then verbally debate or aggressively question each other like lawyers. Take for example the pre-med majors who memorize a ton of facts, names, reactions, and diagnoses, but remain cultural bound and never need to question things like their own biases to get a degree, which is why they're the most likely of the "STEM matter race" to keep their religion.

>>4948

Teach us your secret.

>>4509

Ad hominem.

>>3863

>The problem with focusing on fallacies is that a lot of people tend to misidentify them.

The major problem being misidentifying them on purpose or accidentally on purpose. Even the most objective arbiter will end up finding more fallacies in arguments they disagree with.

This is why the Catholics have a Pope. Someone has to decide, meaning someone has to have final authority. However, having only one Pope is degenerate in several ways. To do the fallacy-banning thing properly on 8chan would require a board-of-boards. Each board would have their own Fallacy Pope, but there would be a meta-board with the combined thread feed of all the boards. Alternatively, OPs would all have banning privileges within their own threads, though they would need to identify their ruleset, which would be equivalent to namefagging.