Logical Fallacies

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I thought this was the best area to post this..


What logical fallacy is it when someone argues for instance...

"When you get older you will understand what Im saying."

Or

"When you have children you will know that miracle can only happen if god exists."

Or

"When you've been though what I have you will know there is a god."

Ect..

What is this type of fallacy called?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I thought this was the best area to post this..


What logical fallacy is it when someone argues for instance...

"When you get older you will understand what Im saying."

Or

"When you have children you will know that miracle can only happen if god exists."

Or

"When you've been though what I have you will know there is a god."

Ect..

What is this type of fallacy called?

I am not sure about #2, but #1 and #3 I think definitely fall into the ad hominem category. In #1 you are told that you can't be right because you lack age in #3 because you lack experience.

#2 is just brabbling IMO.

 

[clarsct]

Number two breaks down like so:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: Children are born.
Premise 3: Children could not exist without God
Conclusion: God exists.

Circular logic, I think. Perhaps begging the question. (You're begging the question of god by saying that children cannot exist without god.)

I dunno...any flaws?

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Using the list from Stephen's Guide, it would be the form of Ad Hominem which he calls ad hominem (circumstantial):

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

The
Nizkor Project, on the other hand considers this an example of simple Ad Hominem, reserving Ad Hominem (circumstantial) for circumstances such as Race, Religion, and Political Affiliation.

It also has some features of the Appeal to Authority ("I have more experience*, so I am a greater authority"), Style Over Substance, and Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased) fallacies

*But I offer no evidence that any of that greater experience is in the area in question.

ETA: This is in resonse to Lord Emsworth's analysis of questions 1 & 3. clarsct's response was posted while I was composing.

 

[RandFan]

"When you get older you will understand what Im saying."

Without context I can't respond. The statement in and of itself is not necassarily valid or invalid.

Me: I explain to my child the feelings and frustrations I have being a responsible adult.

My Son: "I'm not sure I understand"

You will understand what I'm saying when you get older.

Wisdom, apart from knowledge requires experience. I understand my father so much better now that I have children of my own. This is valid.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Re: Re: Logical Fallacies

Without context I can't respond. The statement in and of itself is not necassarily valid or invalid.

Me: I explain to my child the feelings and frustrations I have being a responsible adult.

My Son: "I'm not sure I understand"

You will understand what I'm saying when you get older.

Wisdom, apart from knowledge requires experience. I understand my father so much better now that I have children of my own. This is valid.

It may be a valid experience, but it is not a valid argument. A conclusion may still be true even though you "proved" it with a logical fallacy. In effect it is a true statement that you failed in your attempt to prove.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Logical Fallacies

It may be a valid experience, but it is not a valid argument. A conclusion may still be true even though you "proved" it with a logical fallacy. In effect it is a true statement that you failed in your attempt to prove.

That's presuming that "You will understand when you are older" is a conclusion of a deductive argument. What RandFan is talking about is basically an implied inductive argument: Many people of your age did not understand X, but when they grew older, they came to understand X. Therefore, you can expect to understand X when you get older.

Obviously, this is not airtight; no inductive argument ever is. However, it is not fallacious.

 

[CerebralWrestler]

They all sound like something a theist would say if he's losing a debate. Red herring?

 

[jjramsey]

Number two breaks down like so:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: Children are born.
Premise 3: Children could not exist without God
Conclusion: God exists.

Circular logic, I think. Perhaps begging the question. (You're begging the question of god by saying that children cannot exist without god.)

I dunno...any flaws?

I'd say that the way the argument works is more like this:

Premise 1: Children are born.
Premise 2: Children could not exist without God
Conclusion: God exists.

The problem isn't begging the question, but a false (or, at least, dubious) premise, namely Premise 2.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Logical Fallacies

It may be a valid experience, but it is not a valid argument. A conclusion may still be true even though you "proved" it with a logical fallacy. In effect it is a true statement that you failed in your attempt to prove.

The purpose of speech is to communicate ideas. Not everything communicated is done so in the hopes that it has "proved" something. Also, A.) "logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" and B.) logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior (see Logic & Fallacies)

What is fallacy? "The moon tastes like cotton candy". This makes no sense. It is logically invalid. However, "if the moon were made of spun sugar it would taste like cotton candy" That IS logical. It is valid and it is not fallacious.

So, what is the purpose of my comment? To convey to my son that true understanding in this case will take experience. Take riding a bike. You can learn all of the theory but you won't "know" how to ride a bike until you get on the bike and actually learn by experience. It is this reason pilots are required to have a lot of experience at flying before we give them the keys to a 747. Flight simulators, boot camp, basic training, practice, reheseral, etc. are proof that experience provides greater understanding than simple theory.

That being said, an argument could be made that my son might still not understand when he gets older, he might not have kids and even if he does he still might not ascertain the meaning that I was referring to. A better statement could have been "you will likely understand when you get older". jjramsey is right, it is an inductive argument based on past experience.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Bruce]

Here's a good one: Fallacies

 

[Bruce]

I look at accusing people of fallacies the same way I look at magic feathers. One day, you won't need to accuse people of them to win an argument.

 

[c4ts]

I thought this was the best area to post this..


What logical fallacy is it when someone argues for instance...

"When you get older you will understand what Im saying."

Or

"When you have children you will know that miracle can only happen if god exists."

Or

"When you've been though what I have you will know there is a god."

Ect..

What is this type of fallacy called?

I'm inclined to call it all an experiential fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

I look at accusing people of fallacies the same way I look at magic feathers. One day, you won't need to accuse people of them to win an argument.

"I resemble that remark" --Groucho Marx.

I'm going to have to rethink my strategy. I would like people to be more careful in their argument and I want to be shown when I veer of the path. Good point though.

 

[Iacchus]

I thought this was the best area to post this..

What logical fallacy is it when someone argues for instance...

"When you get older you will understand what Im saying."

Or

"When you have children you will know that miracle can only happen if god exists."

Or

"When you've been though what I have you will know there is a god."

Ect..

What is this type of fallacy called?

Why do you assume that these are fallacies? Because they may or may not be true? Or, because they may or may not be 100% true? Yet what is that determines whether we actually know something or not ... if not for having an experience of what "that" entails? If you haven't experienced it for yourself, how would you know another was speaking a fallacy? I think the only fallacy that exists is the fallacy that it's "assumed" that they will understand.