Debate ethics: Is there ever a valid time to use logical fallacies?

Induction in science from the specific to the general is not really a practical problem as an induction can be made both rigorous and useful by qualifying it with a statement of probability. If 10,000 lesser swamp greebles are observed to nurture their young for one year without exception, a statement to this effect is rigorous. The induction that lesser swamp greebles always nurture their young for one year may be logically fallacious, but highly probable and probably highly useful.

Concerning the use of fallacious argument in debate, I would add only one observation to drkitten's excellent post; that logic is the most powerful weapon in the hands of a debater. Nobody, even those who employ fallacious arguments, will suggest that debate is not a logical exchange, and for this reason, fallacious reasoning can nearly always be exposed and accepted. The hard nuts to crack are not so much fallacious reasoning as the premises at the root of a disagreement, which usually correspond to foundational beliefs. For example, "I believe in God, and God informs my view of the world." If one challenges the existence of God by demanding evidence for God, the answer might be "I don't need evidence, I have faith"; or "God's existence is manifest in the wonder of the Universe." To this person, existence of God is not a conclusion, but a premise.

I think to challenge such a foundational premise head-on is futile, simply because that person may have an enormous amount invested in that belief. At issue is not logic but psychology, so employing fallacious arguments will have no more effect than non-fallacious arguments; worse in fact, since they will compromise the logical integrity of your own debate. If you are really determined on pressing your point, I think the best bet is to explore the area around the foundational belief; like where did you learn the idea? Have you always held this view? Are there others who share it, and is there a common reason for this? Not only is this less confrontational, but it opens the range for a 'meta-argument', for example, an observation that the presence of this belief conforms to a pattern that may be understood in terms of education / sociology / pathology etc. Turning that person's behavior itself into an object of study could be unnerving enough to make them think again.

Of course, one should always think twice before kicking the struts out of someone's life, but the ethics of doing this (or not doing this) is another matter.

Dahduh.
 
dahduh said:
Induction in science from the specific to the general is not really a practical problem as an induction can be made both rigorous and useful by qualifying it with a statement of probability.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not a practical problem. In fact even a probabilistic argument can be turned into a deductive argument by simply making an acceptance level one of the premises. So "we accept the hypothesis at the 90% confidence level" is a perfectly valid deductive argument just so long as it is understood that the confidence level is an undischarged premise.

And any logical argument is simply a way of mapping truth values of the premises to the conclusion so there would be nothing fallacious about this.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I am afraid I must disagree with you drkitten. Science is not a hasty generalization.
Click to expand...

Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."
 
drkitten said:
Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."
Click to expand...

In ImaginalDisc's defense, there's hasty generalizations, then there's hasty generalizations. Generalizing from one example is much more difficult to defend than generalizing from a big collection of events.

I like to use an analogy that "there's wrong, wronger, and so not right it's not even wrong". Cosmology exists on a continuum, with crackpottery at both ends, and skepticism bringing up the middle.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It's also tempting to hit them in the gut, but that's not an effective debate tactic either.
Click to expand...

It's also moot now...
Arkan_Wolfshade,
Your member account at Loose Change Forum has been temporarily suspended.

Your account will not be functional until Jun 24 2006, 02:31 AM (depending on your timezone). This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.

Board Address: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php
Click to expand...

No reason, no indication of what rules were violated, nada.
 
drkitten said:
"Affirming the consequent" is often a pretty good and convincing argument -- if you didn't commit the murder, then how did your fingerprints get on the gun, and how did your shoes track bloody footprints across the kitchen?
Click to expand...
This isn't necessarily fallicious, it depends on the context.

If we say:
Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Therefore Bob is the murderer

Then that would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent. But if we instead say:

Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun is consistent with Bob is the murderer.
Therefore Bob is the murderer is corroborated.

That would not be fallicious. We can gather infinately many lines of evidence and it would never prove Bob is the murderer, but we can still be justified in believing Bob is the murderer by finding myriads of evidence that we'd expect to see or expect not to see if he was the murderer.

And then there is that annoying raven paradox... :boxedin:
 
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Committing your very own logical fallacies


Committing your very own logical fallacies:
In general, of course, it's a good idea to avoid logical fallacies if at all possible, because a good debater will almost always catch you. It is especially important to avoid obvious logical fallacies like the one above (argumentum ad populum), because they are vulnerable to such powerful (and persuasive) refutations. But sometimes, a logical fallacy -- or at least an unjustified logical leap -- is unavoidable. And there are some types of argument that are listed as logical fallacies in logic textbooks, but that are perfectly acceptable in the context of the rules of debate. The most important guideline for committing such fallacies yourself is to know when you are doing it, and to be prepared to justify yourself later if the opposition tries to call you down for it. For examples of logical fallacies that can sometimes be acceptable in the context of debate, see ad ignorantiam, ad logicam, complex question, slippery slope, straw man, and tu quoque in the list below.
Click to expand...

See article for list.
 
drkitten said:
Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."
Click to expand...

Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?
 
DrugFreeAlcoholic said:
This isn't necessarily fallicious, it depends on the context.

If we say:
Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Therefore Bob is the murderer

Then that would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent. But if we instead say:

Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun is consistent with Bob is the murderer.
Therefore Bob is the murderer is corroborated.

That would not be fallicious. We can gather infinately many lines of evidence and it would never prove Bob is the murderer, but we can still be justified in believing Bob is the murderer by finding myriads of evidence that we'd expect to see or expect not to see if he was the murderer.

And then there is that annoying raven paradox... :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Here's how you get around the infinite in logic:

The gun killed the victim
For all A, if A's fingerprints are on a gun, A fired that gun
Bob's fingerprints are on the gun that killed the victim
Therefore Bob is the murderer.

It leaves out details like other people's fingerprints, or that Bob fired the gun before, or after, the murder, but not the exact murder shot, but that's not what you're getting at.
 
Dark Jaguar said:
Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?
Click to expand...
Yes!!!

That is not to say it is an unreasonable conclusion to make, but it is a formal fallacy.

This is the problem that led to the introduction of the concept of falsifiability.

Surely Watson and the "central dogma" is a good illustration of why we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that inductive logic is fallacious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom