Isn't it Amazing?

AnyOldIron said:
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/
Click to expand...
And I have shown that the "form" your logic took was a match to the definition of the specific fallacy that I even linked you up to. It's not that difficult.

"I don't squirm" seems to be very much squirming right now.

Once again. Much like in real life, things can fit more than one definition. One can both use poor inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy in one statement. You did. Attempting to say, "Hey! I used inductive reasoning and therefore it cannot be a fallacy." is just a weak attempt to squirm out of the fact that you are using fallacious logic in your flawed inductive reasoning.
 
And I have shown that the "form" your logic took was a match to the definition of the specific fallacy that I even linked you up to. It's not that difficult.

Logical form doesn't mean 'type'. Form means the structure of the logic used.

The structure of inductive reasoning can be correct (and thus not fallacy) yet be unsound.

The form of an inductive piece of reasoning is only fallacy if the structure is in error.

I am saying 'Hey, I used inductive logic, it might be unsound, it might not. But the form (ie structure) was correct, so it isn't a logical fallacy'.
 
It can also be unsound and incorrect, thus lending itself the title of fallacy. The fallacy of small numbers is a fallacy indeed. Your flawed reasoning was flawed in more than one sense.
 
It can also be unsound and incorrect, thus lending itself the title of fallacy. The fallacy of small numbers is a fallacy indeed. Your flawed reasoning was flawed in more than one sense.

An unsound argument isn't a fallacy unless the form (ie structure) is in error.

I'll use an example with a deductive syllogism...

P. All that eat grass are green.
P. All cows eat grass.
Ergo, all cows are green.

This is an unsound argument, but it isn't a logical fallacy. The structure is correct, the conclusion is reached by the premises....
 
AnyOldIron said:
It can also be unsound and incorrect, thus lending itself the title of fallacy. The fallacy of small numbers is a fallacy indeed. Your flawed reasoning was flawed in more than one sense.

An unsound argument isn't a fallacy unless the form (ie structure) is in error.

I'll use an example with a deductive syllogism...

P. All that eat grass are green.
P. All cows eat grass.
Ergo, all cows are green.

This is an unsound argument, but it isn't a logical fallacy. The structure is correct, the conclusion is reached by the premises....
Click to expand...
Once again. The structure (fallcy of small numbers) is flawed. I have shown how it is flawed. You are just being silly in your attempt to cover your own fallacy. It isn't like we haven't all been caught using fallacious logic at some point or another.

A. I have worked for companies
B. Those that I worked for acted this way
C. Therefore all companies are this way...

Is the fallacy of small numbers. No matter how you attempt to dress up your fallacy it still is a fallacy.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then most likely it is a duck. What you are attempting to do is say that it is a bird so it cannot be a duck!
 
I didn't use deductive logic though!!!!!

I just presented a syllogism to represent how fallacies are connected to the form (or structure) of the argument.

I used inductive logic. This is what induction is...

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Anything struck with a cue moves. "

The form of my induction...

All private firms I have worked for were inefficient,
Ergo all private firms are inefficient.

Is inductive reasoning. The form of my reasoning was correct, thus not a fallacy. The argument might be sound or unsound, but the form of the induction was fine....
 
AnyOldIron said:
I didn't use deductive logic though!!!!!

I just presented a syllogism to represent how fallacies are connected to the form (or structure) of the argument.

I used inductive logic. This is what induction is...

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Anything struck with a cue moves. "

The form of my induction...

All private firms I have worked for were inefficient,
Ergo all private firms are inefficient.

Is inductive reasoning. The form of my reasoning was correct, thus not a fallacy. The argument might be sound or unsound, but the form of the induction was fine....
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter which type of logic you used, it is this fallacy.

You stated that you had worked for companies and for the government, and because of that you knew how all companies compared to government. I presented you with the correct fallacy, how it was used, where it was used, how it is defined, how this fits within it. And all you have is "I used flawed logic, but I... I... I... Didn't use a fallacy!"

:cry:
 
"All private firms I have worked for were inefficient,
Ergo all private firms are inefficient."

This is exactly the form that I stated.

A. I have worked for companies
B. They were "this way"
C. Therefore all companies are "this way"

Is a fallacy of small numbers.

It is the exact same fallacy as:

A. I saw two indians
B. They walked in single file.
C. Therefore all indians always walk in single file.

It is fallacious logic.
 
It doesn't matter which type of logic you used, it is this fallacy.

What? The type of the logic used doesn't matter when considering the form (structure)????

How do you work that out?

If you don't consider the type of logic used how can you see if the structure is correct and thus a fallacy.

Because you might consider it unsound doesn't mean it is a fallacy.

Your argumentum ad hominem (the blubbing emoticon) doesn't add to your argument, Damo....
 
A. I saw two indians
B. They walked in single file.
C. Therefore all indians always walk in single file.

It is fallacious logic.

Its not!!!!! Its inductive logic.

You are confusing unsound argument with logical fallacy.
 
AnyOldIron said:
It doesn't matter which type of logic you used, it is this fallacy.

What? The type of the logic used doesn't matter when considering the form (structure)????

How do you work that out?

If you don't consider the type of logic used how can you see if the structure is correct and thus a fallacy.

Because you might consider it unsound doesn't mean it is a fallacy.

Your argumentum ad hominem (the blubbing emoticon) doesn't add to your argument, Damo....
Click to expand...
I have shown exactly how it fits, where it fits, even brought back up how it was used. Gave examples, gave a link, defined it well, presented how it didn't fit. Used an exact quote of yours to show how it fit exactly as I stated it did, presented two examples in that recent post...

It shows that your logical fallacy fits in the definition of the Fallacy of Small Numbers which is a more specifically defined area of the Fallacy names "Argument By Generalization". What you have attempted to say is that because you don't want it to be defined that way, that it cannot be.

However, it has been shown that your argument is fallacious.

Now you are moving into another form of fallacious argument. The Argument By Selective Observation. By attempting to claim that it can be only this, and therefore cannot be "that" you are using Selective Observation in an attempt to cover your mistaken logic. It can also be an attempt at Argument By Poetic Language. "If it sounds right, then it must be right."
 
I don't recall ever reading an argument of the argumentative aspects of arguing, argued solely for the sake of argument.

Never studied philosophy, Dixie?
 
Damo, read this...

What is a logical fallacy?

"A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, the Fallacy Files is specifically concerned, not with factual errors, but with logical ones.

In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

"Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
"Your argument is a fallacy."

In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad reasoning.

Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a "fallacy" because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term "fallacy" to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.

For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument "commits" a fallacy, or is "fallacious". So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead:

3. "Your argument commits a fallacy. It's fallacious."

However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html
 
AnyOldIron said:
Damo, read this...

What is a logical fallacy?

"A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, the Fallacy Files is specifically concerned, not with factual errors, but with logical ones.

In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

"Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
"Your argument is a fallacy."

In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad reasoning.

Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a "fallacy" because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term "fallacy" to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.

For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument "commits" a fallacy, or is "fallacious". So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead:

3. "Your argument commits a fallacy. It's fallacious."

However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html
Click to expand...
Not all logical flaws are fallacies. However the Fallacy of "Argument From Small Numbers", when used, is a fallacy. It even has its own specific area, which I linked to.

Here it is again: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#numbers

Now I know which fallacy you are using now!

It is the Argument By Presitgious Jargon!


http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#jargon
 
Dixie said:
You two are making my head hurt.

I don't recall ever reading an argument of the argumentative aspects of arguing, argued solely for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

I am afraid lightning will strike me dead...I happen to agree completely with Dixie, of all people! (on only this one minor point)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top