Formal & Informal Logical Fallacies

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley's picture
proof

proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
"proof of ownership"

I gave you proof. Also I said multiple times through my article, the whole issue is proving one proposition more likely than the other (I even linked my 'three ways article' to it, which said the same thing). We could actually be chatting about intellectual things which could progress common ground and reason, yet you are acting so childish mate.

I am getting tired now. Is there a way to block someone on this forum?

jonthecatholic's picture
Unfortunately there's no way

Unfortunately there's no way to block nyar. I just let his comments slide. He usually disagrees with people even when they're actually in agreement about a certain topic. Nyar pushes the limits though. Nothing can be proven... by anything... at all.

Come to think of it, I don't recall Nyar proving anything. He simply says things like, "False!" or "Wrong!" without giving any reason for disagreeing.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - Nyar

Jon the Catholic - Nyar pushes the limits though. Nothing can be proven... by anything... at all.

An intentionally inaccurate representation of my position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon the Catholic - Come to think of it, I don't recall Nyar proving anything.

Luckily what you can and can not recall has little bearing on the reality of the situation.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Oh boy it is definition

The Interlocutorproof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1...

Oh boy it is definition quoting time!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Proof Theoretic Semantics:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -
Proof theory can be described as the study of the general structure of mathematical proofs, and of arguments with demonstrative force as encountered in logic. The idea of such demonstrative arguments, i.e., ones the conclusion of which follows necessarily from the assumptions made...

You have failed to show that your conclusion necessarily follows from your assumptions, you have failed to meet the most basic requirement for the most primitive of logical proofs.

You've got to love people who scream about logic and philosophy until they are blue in the face, then flush it down the toilet the instant it is inconvenient.

Flamenca's picture
Hi, @the Interlocutor. ..

Hi, @the Interlocutor. ...quickly address... ahem.

I want to submit you to you, nice people who are used to detect phallacies this issue. A few days a ago in a thread, I was accused of using a "strawman". I'll attach the conversation, @Vreezy for Vendetta style, and please, let me know if I owe @AJ an apology.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Aposteriori unum's picture
I'm not the interlocutor, but

I'm not the interlocutor, but when you gave an example of what some "great" thinkers think that is more an appeal to authority fallacy than a strawman argument. (If I read the attachment correctly). A strawman fallacy is giving an example of something that isn't really your opponent's position and arguing against that instead of their actual position. Example:

Opponent : " I believe that evolution occurs"
You: " there are no examples of a half bird-half lizard. "

That would be a strawman. Just something of the top of my head.

Flamenca's picture
@Aposteriori, in fact, he

@Aposteriori, in fact, he mentioned "the death of the author " (in a context of God and Creationism) and it reminded me that French essay I had to study in Literary Critic, the one I was referring to (it's worth the reading btw), and I'd say that it has nothing to do with God or God's existence whatsoever, but to the way author's identity generates bias on readers, so it wasn't a real "appeal to authority"; yet it could have been because theoretically it was, so thanks for your suggestion. I think you're right.

Sheldon's picture
Absolutely correct, he's

Absolutely correct, he's using Lane Craig's credentials as a philosopher here to dismiss arguments, instead of addressing those arguments. That is a test book and fallacious appeal to authority. What difference does it make who constructs the arguments, they stand or fall on their own merits. Besides many credible philosophers just as qualified as LAne Craig have offered compelling rebuttals to the KCA, and of course Lane Craig didn't create it anyway, Aristotle did, without of course the benefit of the vast knowledge we have accrued between then and now it has to be said. lane Craig's version just tacks an extra assumption onto the end.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.