Isn't it Amazing?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
LOL! You do realize that you're making the very (alleged) fallacy of which you accuse AnyoldIron, I trust? Not the word "sometimes" in your last sentence, for example.
You make two errors, I think.
First is your -- frankly prejudicial -- belief that liberals and leftists necessarily believe that government is always the best or only tool by which one can address societal needs. Only someone who's never been to a Green Party function could ever make such a statement.
Second is your assumption that non-governmental agencies are always more effective than governmental ones.
I didn't say that all non-governmental agencies are "always" more effective. This is a misquote, and a disingenuous misreading of my original statement.LOL! You do realize that you're making the very (alleged) fallacy of which you accuse AnyoldIron, I trust? Not the word "sometimes" in your last sentence, for example.
You make two errors, I think.
First is your -- frankly prejudicial -- belief that liberals and leftists necessarily believe that government is always the best or only tool by which one can address societal needs. Only someone who's never been to a Green Party function could ever make such a statement.
Second is your assumption that non-governmental agencies are always more effective than governmental ones.
And no I was not, I qualified both statements.
Yes, I did overgeneralize on the Liberals always look to government first thing. However, it is a stereotype well-earned and usually fitting. So we can change that to, "most of the time"... It'll work.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Once again, inductive reasoning can be used to produce logical fallacies. Both terms are accurate.
Inductive logic isn't a fallacy. The conclusion might be unsound, but it isn't a fallacy. Fallacy is a formal error. You can produce a deductive syllogism that is logically valid (ie not fallacy) but is still unsound.. for example...
P: All that moo, eat grass.
P. All cow's moo.
Ergo all cows eat grass.
This is formally valid, but unsound, because the initial premise is easily taken apart.
A logic fallacy would state...
P: All that eat grass, moo
P: Cows moo
Ergo all cows eat grass.
It is a fallacy because the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.
The inductive logic:
All cows I've seen were sitting ergo no cows stand.
Is unsound, but it is formally valid and thus not fallacy....
Inductive logic isn't a fallacy. The conclusion might be unsound, but it isn't a fallacy. Fallacy is a formal error. You can produce a deductive syllogism that is logically valid (ie not fallacy) but is still unsound.. for example...
P: All that moo, eat grass.
P. All cow's moo.
Ergo all cows eat grass.
This is formally valid, but unsound, because the initial premise is easily taken apart.
A logic fallacy would state...
P: All that eat grass, moo
P: Cows moo
Ergo all cows eat grass.
It is a fallacy because the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.
The inductive logic:
All cows I've seen were sitting ergo no cows stand.
Is unsound, but it is formally valid and thus not fallacy....
Last edited:
Once again. The specific example. "I saw two indians walking in single file, therefore all indians walk in single file." Is both inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. Just as your statement was. Attempting to squirm out of it isn't working here AOI.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
"I saw two indians walking in single file, therefore all indians walk in single file." Is both inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. Just as your statement was. Attempting to squirm out of it isn't working here AOI.
It isn't a fallacy, it is an unsound induction...
Fallacy is related to the formal aspect of the logic presented.
For example, non-sequiter, where the conclusion isn't reached by the premises, or post hoc ergo propter hoc, where causation is deemed by only chronological sequence...
Inductive logic is often unsound, but that doesn't mean it is invalid, and thus fallacy. You are arguing that my assertion that the difference between business and government efficiency is unsound, not simply because it is induction.
It isn't a fallacy, it is an unsound induction...
Fallacy is related to the formal aspect of the logic presented.
For example, non-sequiter, where the conclusion isn't reached by the premises, or post hoc ergo propter hoc, where causation is deemed by only chronological sequence...
Inductive logic is often unsound, but that doesn't mean it is invalid, and thus fallacy. You are arguing that my assertion that the difference between business and government efficiency is unsound, not simply because it is induction.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
5pm folks, time for home... laters....
LOL. An unsound induction can be both inductive reasoning and a fallacy. There is no reason it cannot be both.
I am arguing that your assertion that all businesses worked the same as the one you worked in is a logical fallacy. Specifically of the type I presented, and gave examples and the definition as to why it fit there.
Pretending that inductive reasoning cannot lead to logical fallacy is where you are being disingenuous.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is quite interesting, how this thread has evolved into a page-long argument over nuance and speculative perspectives and opinions. Arnold began by making a broad and assuming statement, regarding conservative philosophy. This was pointed out by reversing the tables and showing him how his very own stereotypes and definitions could be turned around and used to describe his own political ideology. His response is, to get into a nit-picking session, over the subjective nature of what he said. I have never seen someone so hard-headed, stubborn, bigoted, and ambivalent to what people are saying. It seems to be one of the exact traits Arnold would apply to a Conservative!
Blackflag
Junior Member
Lets get back to the Maineman vs. Dixie tardfest...it is more fun for the rest of the board.
This is neither a definition of "ineffiency" nor "efficiency" that is why I could not go on. I do not think you even understand the meanings of the words you are using in this thread. And while meanings of words can change and do change, in different contexts, a short rant on homelessness does not constitute the meaning of a word, let alone two words . But nice try.
maineman
Banned
I said you guys look like fools. I didn't say it wasn't entertaining
I appreciate the moral support
I think that I do and use them contextually. How would an organization that is designed to help people in a particular situation be more efficient than a company or the government both not designed to help those people?This is neither a definition of "ineffiency" nor "efficiency" that is why I could not go on. I do not think you even understand the meanings of the words you are using in this thread. And while meanings of words can change and do change, in different contexts, a short rant on homelessness does not constitute the meaning of a word, let alone two words . But nice try.
Can it actually resolve the problem or only deal in symptoms? Is it more efficient to actually work in the root cause, or to treat symptoms?
Each of these things can point you to why I believe that there are other organizations that can be more efficient at treating problems than the government or a company can. (Notice here the word "can"...) In some cases the Government is a more efficient means to get help to people, in many others it is not.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Arnold began by making a broad and assuming statement, regarding conservative philosophy. This was pointed out by reversing the tables and showing him how his very own stereotypes and definitions could be turned around and used to describe his own political ideology. His response is, to get into a nit-picking session, over the subjective nature of what he said. I have never seen someone so hard-headed, stubborn, bigoted, and ambivalent to what people are saying. It seems to be one of the exact traits Arnold would apply to a Conservative!
Dixie, you haven't turned the tables, you have simply said, 'No we're not, you are'.
A classic arguing technique, if you have the mentality of a 12 year old.
You haven't addressed the points I have brought up concerning the ethos of conservative philosophy in the slightest. As I mentioned above, most of your replies were strawmen arguments and one you stated you didn't understand.
I then went on to have a discussion with Damocles (who, unlike yourself, can formulate a good argument) on the nature of logical fallacies. If you can't keep up, or consider such argument to be stubborn etc, keep out.
If you have something interesting to contribute, fair enough, but argumentum ad hominem doesn't work. It makes you look daft...
Dixie, you haven't turned the tables, you have simply said, 'No we're not, you are'.
A classic arguing technique, if you have the mentality of a 12 year old.
You haven't addressed the points I have brought up concerning the ethos of conservative philosophy in the slightest. As I mentioned above, most of your replies were strawmen arguments and one you stated you didn't understand.
I then went on to have a discussion with Damocles (who, unlike yourself, can formulate a good argument) on the nature of logical fallacies. If you can't keep up, or consider such argument to be stubborn etc, keep out.
If you have something interesting to contribute, fair enough, but argumentum ad hominem doesn't work. It makes you look daft...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
LOL. An unsound induction can be both inductive reasoning and a fallacy. There is no reason it cannot be both.
Fallacy is related to the form of the argument.
For example, a fallacy with a deductive syllogism is related to the way the syllogism is constructed.
Inductive logic has a very simple form, and you'd struggle to create a formal fallacy for it.
There is nothing wrong with the form of the inductive logic...
"All private industry I've worked for have been inefficient, ergo all private industry is inefficient."
It might be unsound, but it's form as inductive logic is fine....
Fallacy is related to the form of the argument.
For example, a fallacy with a deductive syllogism is related to the way the syllogism is constructed.
Inductive logic has a very simple form, and you'd struggle to create a formal fallacy for it.
There is nothing wrong with the form of the inductive logic...
"All private industry I've worked for have been inefficient, ergo all private industry is inefficient."
It might be unsound, but it's form as inductive logic is fine....
Honestly, I have shown how it was a Fallacy, gave you the type, showed examples that it worked in, gave definitions. If you cannot realize that sometimes in language and in argument you can have one thing that can be listed in two compartments then you are oversimplifying this as well.
This can be both inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. Saying, "I've worked for companies, therefore all companies are the same as those I've worked for." is a logical fallacy. It is really that simple.
Attempting to squirm out of it is really beneath you and begins to appear that you don't want to argue the actual point but would rather distract from the argument with some inane, "It can't be both Flawed Inductive Reasoning and a Logical Fallacy" argument that really doesn't fit, and is flawed in its own right.
It is an Argument by Generalization and even more specifically it is an Argument from Small Numbers...
Here is a nice link:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#numbers
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I don't squirm, Damo....
I have explained how fallacy refers to the form of the logic used.
If the form of inductive logic is correct, it isn't a fallacy, no matter how unsound.
There is argument by generalisation (though this is a simplification of the term 'induction') but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy. People wrongly use the term fallacy to mean any argument considered unsound.
Inductive logic is:
An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In a valid deductive argument the premises logically entail the conclusion, where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true. Presumably, if the logic of good inductive arguments is to be of any real value, the measure of support it articulates should meet the following condition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
I have explained how fallacy refers to the form of the logic used.
If the form of inductive logic is correct, it isn't a fallacy, no matter how unsound.
There is argument by generalisation (though this is a simplification of the term 'induction') but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy. People wrongly use the term fallacy to mean any argument considered unsound.
Inductive logic is:
An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In a valid deductive argument the premises logically entail the conclusion, where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true. Presumably, if the logic of good inductive arguments is to be of any real value, the measure of support it articulates should meet the following condition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/