/lit/ - Literature

>>6547481
If there isn't do you guys have any ideas how it should look like or what it should include?

>>6547481
You should not be pointing out or talking about fallacies if you need a list to tell you what makes them fallacies. Do yourself a favor and practice thinking in a rational manner.

>>6547520
I don't need a list but I think a flow chart would be illustrate how fallacies work and to learn about them. It's doesn't hurt.

>>6547520
this
dont follow some arbitrary debate rules, just be logical

>>6547531
Aren't debate rules logical?

Why do you need a flowchart for fallacies? Are you making a lecture?

>>6547520
I differ. There are times when one has simply forgotten the proper name for a certain fallacy. Using resources like Wikipedia to then determine the name can take quite some time.

>>6547580
Nah, I'm just interested and thought about making one myself.

Read this and make your own list.


D. Kahneman, «Thinking, Fast and Slow».
M. H. Bazerman, D. A. Moore, «Judgment in Managerial Decision Making».
J. Baron, «Thinking and Deciding».
D. Ariely, «Predictably Irrational. The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions».
C. Chabris, D. Simons «The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuition Deceives Us».
R. K. Hastie, R. M. Dawes «Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making».
D. W. Hubbard, «How to Measure Anything».
S. D. Levitt, S. J. Dubner, «Freakonomics».
D. Roam, «The Back of the Napkin (Expanded Edition): Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures».

>>6547589
And what exactly does one gain from the proper name of a certain fallacy? If you wish to have a constructive debate you must demonstrate how and why the logic is faulty in your own words and in that specific case. Fallacies are not something you namedrop, you must prove that they apply. The name adds nothing unless your only interest is in sounding pretentious. Even for that something you must look up is rather cheap.

Yes, why don't we make a flowchart of thought templates created by other individuals so we can apply them in discussion to fill the void in our own heads - we mustn't strain ourselves.

>>6547724
Why do you have to demonstrate the logic is faulty in your own words if someone else did it better? Besides that in a flow chart the fallacy is just a conclusion and the path the demonstration.

>>6547730
I guess we must make everything overly complicated to feel a sense of self improtance.

>>6547520
>>6547531
>>6547724
>>6547730
>I don't like to learn from the work of the past

Get off you're fucking high horse people. There is no magical wall that will stop someone from studying formal logic while at the same time engaging in conversations in a rational manner on the fly. You do not have some knowledge of what the best method is to internalize critical thinking. Learning the names of fallacies might help someone remember what it infers, and that will help someone's memory recall while in a conversation, and thus, recognize a pattern mid conversation, a fallacious pattern. Why not argue against all categories, symbols, or signs while you're at it? Just do fucking both.

>>6547481
Sorry OP, no idea about any flowchart. Maybe get all the info from wiki or some other source and try making one yourself. Will probably help you memorize it in the long run. Books on beginning logic (critical reasoning) might have some.

>>6547735
I don't think you understood what the other anon was saying.

They meant that you demonstrate it while in conversation so that you can show the other person, and yourself, that what you are saying makes sense. I mean there is always the possibility that you say something is fallacious and it turns out it isn't.

>>6547738
Or perhaps to develop the ability to think that we clearly lack if we yearn for such helplines.

>>6547735
Why live at all if someone did it better? Do you speak to others to hear the sound of your own voice or stroke your ego with some petty victories? You gain neither truth nor the abilities required to get closer to truth by parroting your superiors.

>>6547754
>I mean there is always the possibility that you say something is fallacious and it turns out it isn't.

Actually this is just another fallacy.

>>6547767
Yes I know.

Your words 'actually' and 'just' don't make sense, in the same way that someone saying "Christopher just passed by" is told "Actually his name is just Christopher Robins".

>>6547755
Back in the day archers complained about the invention of the use of crossbows and later muskets because it required less skill and enabled the common man to do more damage with less training. If today you could slap on some magical scope that allowed untrained individuals to be equal to trained snipers, those would complain too.

Now, this isn't exactly the best comparison to formal logic and or common sense, but if a flow chart for instance allowed a layman with no formal training to develop better critical thinking it would be valuable. Afterall formal logic isn't a a goal in itself but meant to produce certain results. You pretend like it's about something else, which I think is wrong if not dangerous.

>>6547780
Whatever dude.

>>6547786
Jesus, you don't develop critical thinking by copying lists of presets. That is the exact opposite of how you develop critical thinking. The existence of the list, let alone referring to it as some sort of a bible, is not even slightly constructive to your ability to think. Critical thinking is the part that leads you to realizing that the logic is faulty and why it is faulty, this is the part you wish to replace with a flowchart. Mentally ask yourself "why" after every statement or use metaphors or insert symbols such as x to simplify arguments if you struggle with it. Yes, you're right, it is not the best. In fact it isn't even vaguely related. Here's one: let's go to the gym and lift the lightest possible weights - in fact let's ask our friend to lift them for us or bring a device to do it for us. I mean it's effective, right? While we're at it let's staple our shoes together instead of learning to tie or shoelaces!

>>6547842
this post hurt my life

>>6547842
>what are training wheels

>>6547842
How is it possible that in a post about how to logic and you are making these illogical claims and analogies?

>Jesus, you don't develop critical thinking by copying lists of presets.

So you have actually never studied logic have you? Ok guy, explain this to me without any prior knowledge, and then tell me at the end of it that what you just read takes no critical reasoning to understand, reject, or defend.

Giraud's axioms for a category C are:

C has a small set of generators, and admits all small colimits. Furthermore, colimits commute with fiber products.
Sums in C are disjoint. In other words, the fiber product of X and Y over their sum is the initial object in C.
All equivalence relations in C are effective.
The last axiom needs the most explanation. If X is an object of C, an "equivalence relation" R on X is a map R→X×X in C such that for any object Y in C, the induced map Hom(Y,R)→Hom(Y,X)×Hom(Y,X) gives an ordinary equivalence relation on the set Hom(Y,X). Since C has colimits we may form the coequalizer of the two maps R→X; call this X/R. The equivalence relation is "effective" if the canonical map

R \to X \times_{X/R} X \,\!
is an isomorphism.

This is related to critical thinking whether you like it or not. Deciding upon symbols, words, syllogisms, etc, and then passing them down over generations allows for progress on what is proven or not proven to be true or even valid.

>The existence of the list, let alone referring to it as some sort of a bible, is not even slightly constructive to your ability to think.

Are lists of the English vocabulary then not even slightly constructive with your ability to read and write in English?

>Critical thinking is the part that leads you to realizing that the logic is faulty and why it is faulty, this is the part you wish to replace with a flowchart.

No it isn't, you are just saying that.

That is like me going up to a child who is learning how to read English and saying.

Reading is the part that leads you to understand what these symbols mean in the page and to make sense of them, and this is the part you wish to replace with this list of vocabulary.

Do you see how nonsensical that is? That you assume so much about the child and what they want to do with the vocabulary list?

>Here's one: let's go to the gym and lift the lightest possible weights - in fact let's ask our friend to lift them for us or bring a device to do it for us. I mean it's effective, right? While we're at it let's staple our shoes together instead of learning to tie or shoelaces!

Then what the fuck are you doing right now? Are you not by "helping" whoever you are replying to "lifting for him"? You showing him the way is robbing him of his own work! You hypocritical thief!

>>6547842
How is it possible that in a post about how to logic and you are making these illogical claims and analogies?

>Jesus, you don't develop critical thinking by copying lists of presets.

So you have actually never studied logic have you? Ok guy, explain this to me without any prior knowledge, and then tell me at the end of it that what you just read takes no critical reasoning to understand, reject, or defend.

Giraud's axioms for a category C are:

C has a small set of generators, and admits all small colimits. Furthermore, colimits commute with fiber products.
Sums in C are disjoint. In other words, the fiber product of X and Y over their sum is the initial object in C.
All equivalence relations in C are effective.
The last axiom needs the most explanation. If X is an object of C, an "equivalence relation" R on X is a map R→X×X in C such that for any object Y in C, the induced map Hom(Y,R)→Hom(Y,X)×Hom(Y,X) gives an ordinary equivalence relation on the set Hom(Y,X). Since C has colimits we may form the coequalizer of the two maps R→X; call this X/R. The equivalence relation is "effective" if the canonical map

R \to X \times_{X/R} X \,\!
is an isomorphism.

This is related to critical thinking whether you like it or not. Deciding upon symbols, words, syllogisms, etc, and then passing them down over generations allows for progress on what is proven or not proven to be true or even valid.

>The existence of the list, let alone referring to it as some sort of a bible, is not even slightly constructive to your ability to think.

Are lists of the English vocabulary then not even slightly constructive with your ability to read and write in English?

>Critical thinking is the part that leads you to realizing that the logic is faulty and why it is faulty, this is the part you wish to replace with a flowchart.

No it isn't, you are just saying that.

That is like me going up to a child who is learning how to read English and saying.

Reading is the part that leads you to understand what these symbols mean in the page and to make sense of them, and this is the part you wish to replace with this list of vocabulary.

Do you see how nonsensical that is? That you assume so much about the child and what they want to do with the vocabulary list?

>Here's one: let's go to the gym and lift the lightest possible weights - in fact let's ask our friend to lift them for us or bring a device to do it for us. I mean it's effective, right? While we're at it let's staple our shoes together instead of learning to tie or shoelaces!

Then what the fuck are you doing right now? Are you not by "helping" whoever you are replying to,"lifting for him"? You showing him the way is robbing him of his own work! You hypocritical thief!

>>6547885
>a list of unrelated nonsense from someone who went to a logic 101 class once and has no ability to think
>no it isn't
Please define critical thinking. I'm fascinated.

The names of logical fallacies are not what words are to English, they are not the smallest possible particle that conveys meaning and you must be an absolute retard to type something that would imply it. Memorizing the names of logical fallacies is to critical thinking what memorizing boilerplate sentences is to creative writing.

Are you implying I have a moral obligation to help someone or that moral obligation exists at all? You sure love spooks. I am doing what I always do, what amuses me.

>>6547969
>person knows list of fallacies
>I know list of fallacies
>we're both having an argument
>"listen I think you made fallacy xyz here"
>"oh I see, let me rephrase my argument"
>we both I saved us time

What practical application could being able to categorize information into an broadly accepted frame of reference have? Totally useless obviously. Far better to just explain it in your own words and call it 'fizzifluff' if anybody asks.

>>6547842
>That is the exact opposite of how you develop critical thinking
Join the community of the free masons instad of the one of /li/