[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 250 KB, 756x842, fallacies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19557324 No.19557324 [Reply] [Original]

Convince me they don't contradict each other.

>> No.19557331
File: 134 KB, 974x998, 1636463871595.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19557331

>logical fallacies!

>> No.19557363

>>19557324
Most fallacies pseud a browse on meekpedia aren’t fallacies at all. A fallacy is only an invalid syllogism, unsound syllogisms are not fallacies
>Every blonde girl is tall
>Mary is blonde
>Therefore Mary is tall
This is not a fallacy

>> No.19557373

>>19557324
Say there are 9 positions on an issue. BoW would be to say there is either 1 or 9 and no other positions. MG would be to say there is only 5. They’re both fallacious because you haven’t fairly presented 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 as legitimate positions

>> No.19557375

>>19557324
I can't, you lack the reading comprehension to do it yourself.

>> No.19557378

>>19557324
You just committed a black and white fallacy by assuming they should contradict each other.

>> No.19557382

>>19557378
Oh shit

>> No.19557384

>>19557324
In this world black, white and grey exist.
The dimwit sees the world in black and white.
The midwit only sees shades of grey.
The highway knows that while there is grey and moral ambiguity, there absolutely exist good and bad people.

>> No.19557435

>>19557324
One is the fallacy that the truth has to be in the middle. One is the fallacy that claims only two possibilities exist.

Why would they contradict each other? Wtf

>> No.19558223

>>19557363
Faulty premise.

>> No.19558422

are you literally retarded? is this the midwit i've been hearing about~?
first off, they are INFORMAL fallacies. they only apply in certain contexts.
for example, appeal to authority is not a fallacywhen it's actually an expert in the subject at hand.
SIMILARLY, let's say that there are truly only two extremes and no inbetween. THEN, black or white is NOT a fallacy in that situation.
you must show that the fallacy actually applies in the situation at hand, not just point out fallacies like they are collectible cards

secondly, there is just straight up no contradiction here. "middle ground" is about saying the middle ground is the truth due to it being middle ground. "middle ground" is not about a middle ground existing. so there is no contradiction with black or white possibly being fallacious reasoning.

>> No.19558505

>>19557324
I'm having trouble understanding why you think they could contradict each other. After making some assumptions, I have to hope these points clear a couple of misconceptions up for you:
>there are more than three possibile conclusions (black, white, grey, in this scenario)
>fallacies do not refer to conclusions, they refer exclusively to the logic used to reach those conclusions (or illogical avoidance of conclusions)
>"middle ground" refers to concluding that the middle option between extremes is correctly solely because it is the middle ground
>"black-or-white" does not deny that binaries can exist, it only applies when someone reduces a problem to binaries in order to manipulate how the other person thinks about the issue

>> No.19558517

>>19557324
It just implies that there are some situations where things can be boiled down to objectively wrong and right, and some where the truth lies in the middle. The problem, of course, is that people are retarded and biased and are going to disagree on which situations actually fit into which cathegory.

>> No.19558529

>>19558422
>for example, appeal to authority is not a fallacywhen it's actually an expert in the subject at hand.
How do you prove it's an expert?

>> No.19558544
File: 17 KB, 200x198, e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19558544

>for example, appeal to authority is not a fallacywhen it's actually an expert in the subject at hand.

>> No.19558590

>>19558544
ok retard
>>19558529
that's exactly the point. you have to prove it's an expert. if you do then it's not a fallacy. how this is done differs according to each argument

>> No.19558629

>>19558590
Just because someone is an expert and you can even prove it still does not mean what they are saying must be true
It's still a fallacy

>> No.19558643

>>19558590
Referencing an expert opinion to support your argument is not a fallacy.
Saying you are correct because an expert (or any authority on the subject) has said the same thing is a fallacy.
You (and the expert) could be correct, but you haven't made a logically sound argument.

>> No.19558649

Take it from Kant himself.

>If I have a book that understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay -- others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.
>After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone.

These are your "experts."

>> No.19558661

The argument is about the space program. One person is arguing in favor of it, but they're couching their argument on an understanding of physics that's shoddy. Think a pseud who read a wikipedia article on Edgar Casey who now believes that the only fundamental forces of the universe are electromagnetism and gravity, and who would tilt their head slightly if you brought up the strong and weak nuclear forces. The person he's arguing with is a flat earther who believes that the sky is "firmament". He thinks that the space program shouldn't continue because space doesn't real. There is not a reasonable middle ground of compromise, nor is the argument precisely black and white.

The two sides could be summed up as slightly retarded vs fully retarded, but the slightly retarded person is far more correct than the full tard.

>> No.19558672

>>19558649
The things you are implying with this post are wrong, but you've approached the subject from so vague a place that the effort to disprove you outweighs the benefits to such a degree that all I will bother saying is this: don't reply to this poster.