Isn't it Amazing?

[AnyOldIron]

Damo, you are simply stating that my assertion is false.

It isn't a logical fallacy, the structure of an inductive argument isn't compromised.

Terms such as 'argument by small numbers' are simply simplifications of correct logic terms such as 'reductionism' and 'induction'.

The assertions garnered from induction may be false, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy.

Not using Presitgious Jargon, just using Socratic clarification of terms.

The notion of 'argument by prestigious jargon' itself is cobblers. If the jargon used is not understood by one of the protagonists, they simply ask for clarification... As Socrates taught us to....

[/B]

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you are simply stating that my assertion is false.

It isn't a logical fallacy, the structure of an inductive argument isn't comprimised.

Terms such as 'argument by small numbers' are simply simplifications of correct logic terms such as 'reductionism' and 'induction'.

The assertions garnered from induction may be false, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy.

Not using Presitgious Jargon, just using Socratic clarification of terms.

The notion of 'argument by prestigious jargon' itself is cobblers. If the jargon used is not understood by one of the protagonists, they simply ask for clarification... As Socrates taught us to....

[/B]

I am not stating that it is false, I am stating that it is a fallacy. It is even a common enough fallacy that it is specifically defined and clarified with a more specifically defined name under the more general parent fallacy.

The prestigious jargon stuff was a joke, not a real argument.

 

[AnyOldIron]

I am not stating that it is false, I am stating that it is a fallacy. It is even a common enough fallacy that it is specifically defined and clarified with a more specifically defined name under the more general parent fallacy.

It isn't. If it were, all inductive logic would be fallacy.

You are confusing false statements with logical fallacy, because some philosopher has coined a catchy phrase that describes the argument and has described it as false. This isn't correct..

Let's test it. Can you present an inductive argument that doesn't fall under your 'argument by small numbers' (and thus not a 'fallacy' as you describe it?

See my above about the difference between something being false and being a logical fallacy...

The prestigious jargon stuff was a joke, not a real argument.

There is a serious argument in there though, related to the idea of technocracy, but let's take one thing at a time...

 

[Damocles]

I am not stating that it is false, I am stating that it is a fallacy. It is even a common enough fallacy that it is specifically defined and clarified with a more specifically defined name under the more general parent fallacy.

It isn't. If it were, all inductive logic would be fallacy.

You are confusing false statements with logical fallacy, because some philosopher has coined a catchy phrase that describes the argument and has described it as false. This isn't correct..

Let's test it. Can you present an inductive argument that doesn't fall under your 'argument by small numbers' (and thus not a 'fallacy' as you describe it?

See my above about the difference between something being false and being a logical fallacy...

The prestigious jargon stuff was a joke, not a real argument.

There is a serious argument in there though, related to the idea of technocracy, but let's take one thing at a time...

Not true. Not all inductive reasoning would be fallacy because your one assertion here is fallacy. You are again using Argument From Small Numbers! It seems to become your favorite lately.

 

[AnyOldIron]

That's me for the weekend, gonna get out of the office early! Wahoo!

Damocles, think of a good philosophical argument we can have over the next week.....

See you all monday....

 

[Damocles]

There is a difference between a Strong Induction (not always a fallacy) and a Weak Induction (Almost always a Fallacy)

Here I'll give you an example:

Strong Induction:

All observed crows are black.
therefore
All crows are black.

Here all crows that have been observed are and have been black. This is not an Argument From Small Numbers fallacy like this Weak Induction example:

I worked at 5 companies and they acted "this way", therefore all companies act "this way".

 

[AnyOldIron]

Not true. Not all inductive reasoning would be fallacy because your one assertion here is fallacy. You are again using Argument From Small Numbers! It seems to become your favorite lately.

OK, present an inductive argument that doesn't fall into your AFSN 'fallacy'.....?

I'll be back Monday to take it up....

 

[Damocles]

Not true. Not all inductive reasoning would be fallacy because your one assertion here is fallacy. You are again using Argument From Small Numbers! It seems to become your favorite lately.

OK, present an inductive argument that doesn't fall into your AFSN 'fallacy'.....?

I'll be back Monday to take it up....

Look one post up. I already have.

Here, I'll quote it so you don't even have to look for it:

There is a difference between a Strong Induction (not always a fallacy) and a Weak Induction (Almost always a Fallacy)

Here I'll give you an example:

Strong Induction:

All observed crows are black.
therefore
All crows are black.

Here all crows that have been observed are and have been black. This is not an Argument From Small Numbers fallacy like this Weak Induction example:

I worked at 5 companies and they acted "this way", therefore all companies act "this way".

 

[AnyOldIron]

All observed crows are black.
therefore
All crows are black.

This is the same as:

'All private companies I've observed are inefficient,
ergo all p. companies are inefficient.'

It is only the soundness of the argument that is in dispute, they use the same logical form (structure).

You are arguing falsehood equates to logical fallacy.

Anyway, I HAVE to go now, speak Monday Damo....

 

[AnyOldIron]

Look one post up. I already have.

I didn't refresh in time to see it, sorry.

Check my reply...

 

[Damocles]

All observed crows are black.
therefore
All crows are black.

This is the same as:

'All private companies I've observed are inefficient,
ergo all p. companies are inefficient.'

It is only the soundness of the argument that is in dispute, they use the same logical form (structure).

You are arguing falsehood equates to logical fallacy.

Anyway, I HAVE to go now, speak Monday Damo....

No, it isn't. The problem there is the limited observation. In "all observed crows" you have every single crow ever observed. In yours you have only the small number of companies that you have worked for. One is a fallacy, specifically an Argument From Small Numbers, the other is not.

 

[Prakosh]

I would like to interject one observation for the conversation that was and partially still is going on between Damocles and Old Iron. You are talking past each other in really complex ways that have very little to do with what you think you are arguing about and what you are both from my perspective failing to understand. The first aspect of this complexity involves the differences in the categories of attributes of say ice which in the syllogism originally put forth by Old Iron, the ice is cold etc. and the attributes of companies, the companies I have worked for are inefficient etc. Coldness is actually a definitional aspect of ice. Therefore one can say since this ice is cold all ice is cold. Companies are not by definition "inefficient" whatever Damocles means by that term, so one cannot say that all companies are inefficient because some companies are inefficient. This does not meant that the syllogism is false or that the logic used in the syllogism is false, it only means that the syllogism is an accurate representation of reality only when the terms refer to the definitional aspects of a particular thing.

In other words one cannot "prove" (a very bad word to use in these circumstances) from looking at any number of companies that all companies are "efficient" or "inefficient " locially or otherwise because this is not a category of the company that lends itself to such a logical formula, whatever those terms might mean, because that is, they are not by definition what defines a company. And since we have no definition of those terms we sort of don't know what they mean in this context at all. But we can rest assured that they are a result of various factors depending on the performance of the company and the people who work for that company and are therefor dependent on other factors that have nothing to do with the logic or the fallacies that you have gotten sidetracked into discussing. The confusion then revolves around classification issues and not logical issues. The problem concerns what constitutes "inefficiency"; this has never been adequately explained, but companies are not by definition inefficient; ice by definition is cold. In fact ice is defined as frozen water.

And it is not the fallacy of too few examples or extrapolating from too few examples because it wouldn't matter how many examples you had it would still never mean that there couldn't be an "efficient" or "inefficient" company somewhere out there no matter how many "inefficient" or "efficient" companies there were and even if there was only one "efficient" but still unknown company out there one couldn't logically infer this from studying any number of inefficient companies but only from finding that one "efficient" company. I think the rest of these fallacies are equally erroneous in this context although I don't really want to spend my time thinking about it.

 

[Damocles]

Companies are not by definition "inefficient" whatever Damocles means by that term

*sigh*... This is like saying, Since Prakosh hasn't defined what Company might mean... and acting like I'm making some sort of salient remark. Efficient is actually in the dictionary, it isn't some sort of Dr. Suess made up word, it isn't even all that vague as to how it can apply here.

Since you are being deliberately obtuse as to what efficient might mean we may as well define it.

efficient - adjective

1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.

2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.

3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.

4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

Now government and companies can be either more or less efficient in their use of funds as well as the commodity of the human being. Which hires more to do the same job? Does one pay more for better people, less for the same?

Does one utilize their people in a manner that they are best used with little repitition?

Of course, you will probably assume I am being vague by using the dictionary...

 

[Prakosh]

*sigh*... This is like saying, Since Prakosh hasn't defined what Company might mean... and acting like I'm making some sort of salient remark. Efficient is actually in the dictionary, it isn't some sort of Dr. Suess made up word, it isn't even all that vague as to how it can apply here.

Since you are being deliberately obtuse as to what efficient might mean we may as well define it.

efficient - adjective

1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.

2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.

3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.

4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

Now government and companies can be either more or less efficient in their use of funds as well as the commodity of the human being. Which hires more to do the same job? Does one pay more for better people, less for the same?

Does one utilize their people in a manner that they are best used with little repitition?

Of course, you will probably assume I am being vague by using the dictionary...

That's my point, words like "efficiency" refer to production, that is, people doing something, just as the Indians walking in a line refers to people doing something, and as such since people can always do something else, no amount of examples can "prove" one way or the other that the something else that people might do, cannot be done. Thus this category of action is not logically false one way or the other it is inappropriate for that syllogistic form. All the talk about fallacies is also inappropriate because they generally refer to the form of the argument not the content that is what is being argued about itself. And this is why I said that both of you were talking past each other.

 

[Damocles]

That's my point, words like "efficiency" refer to production, that is, people doing something, just as the Indians walking in a line refers to people doing something, and as such since people can always do something else, no amount of examples can "prove" one way or the other that the something else that people might do, cannot be done. Thus this category of action is not logically false one way or the other it is inappropriate for that syllogistic form. All the talk about fallacies is also inappropriate because they generally refer to the form of the argument not the content that is what is being argued about itself. And this is why I said that both of you were talking past each other.

It refers also to result. Have we spent too much for too little? Efficiency is a major player in a discussion of this type. Who would be more efficient in actually solving the problem? Would it be a company? Would the government be most efficient? Or maybe an organization designed to find and deal with the root cause of the problem?

In each case an argument can be made as to what will net the best result. In some cases the government entity will be most efficient, in another private companies, and still in others the other organization can be the most efficient.

This, of course, doesn't deal with whether or not it should be society's prerogative to solve the problem at all. But it at least gives us something we can focus on that can determine the difference in opinion that separates the Conservative and the Liberal.

However, arguing about form of argument was what AOI and I were doing and it was very salient as to what AOI and I were discussing as an aside that was opened by our original statements. And we probably will resume arguing when he returns as he doesn't want to admit to a fallacy, or the fact that inductive reasoning can, and has in this case, lead to a fallacy.

 

[Prakosh]

It refers also to result. Have we spent too much for too little? Efficiency is a major player in a discussion of this type. Who would be more efficient in actually solving the problem? Would it be a company? Would the government be most efficient? Or maybe an organization designed to find and deal with the root cause of the problem?

In each case an argument can be made as to what will net the best result. In some cases the government entity will be most efficient, in another private companies, and still in others the other organization can be the most efficient.

This, of course, doesn't deal with whether or not it should be society's prerogative to solve the problem at all. But it at least gives us something we can focus on that can determine the difference in opinion that separates the Conservative and the Liberal.

However, arguing about form of argument was what AOI and I were doing and it was very salient as to what AOI and I were discussing as an aside that was opened by our original statements. And we probably will resume arguing when he returns as he doesn't want to admit to a fallacy, or the fact that inductive reasoning can, and has in this case, lead to a fallacy.

There you go again! Inductive reasoning is inappropriate; I don't know if that is a fallacy, since I know next to nothing about logic or philosophy, but I think not for reasons already stated. If you insist on the langauge and laziness of fallacies the best one maybe apples and oranges???