Logical Fallacies Thread

[Anonymous No.1546253]

logical fallacies, ones that exist, or ones that should exist.

Requisite Benefit Fallacy: creationists love to require that every trait have a demonstrable advantage to exist via evolutionary forces, even though biology requires no such thing.

[Anonymous No.1546259]

I know, which is why evolution is nonfalsifiable and not a real science

[Anonymous No.1546268]

Correlation =/= Causation fallacy: Used by apologists, criminals, weirdos, and losers to deflect all criticism and blame, regardless of whether or not they're legit.

[Anonymous No.1546269]

>>1546259
ever hear of a paternity test?

[Anonymous No.1546274]

This is not a logical fallacy, OP.

Here's a logical fallacy.
If OP is a dick, he's a jerk.
It follows that if OP is a jerk, he's a dick.

[Anonymous No.1546277]

AD HOMINEM

'You're religious? you're retarded then'

[Anonymous No.1546287]

>>1546274
>This is not a logical fallacy
>>1546253
>or ones that should exist

like i give a shit.

its a variation of the straman argument, so in a way it is a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.1546303]

traits don't need to have a positive advantage to be naturally selected? lol wut

[Anonymous No.1546327]

The Concorde Fallacy, its one of my favs and one of the most common I catch myself doing, and also one of the most common I see other people do. Its also called the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.

It basically means, we decide to do something that we dont want to and have no reason to, because weve already invested a lot of time/money into it. For me, this happens the most with video games and movies, I always feel like I have to finish a movie or video game even if it turns out awful just because I already paid for it, or already put so much time in it. I've gotten much better at this, and now actively quit things I lose interest in that have no benefit for me finishing.

Its called Concorde fallacy cause supposedly the British government or whoever was building the Concorde justified the immense cost of building the plane by arguing how much money they already sunk into it.

[Anonymous No.1546329]

>>1546303

nope. can be neutral or even deleterious.

look up "spandrel" in evolution.

[Anonymous No.1546342]

>>1546329
Those are just accidental mutations

[Anonymous No.1546347]

>>1546327
"I can't stop gambling now, I have to recoup my losses!"

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1546348]

>>1546327

War in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...

[Anonymous No.1546349]

>>1546342
How convenient.

[Anonymous No.1546354]

>>1546287

how is concluding that Y -> X, given X -> Y not a logical fallacy?

[Anonymous No.1546367]

>>1546303

Start learnin noob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

[Anonymous No.1546368]

>>1546349
>>1546303
take runaway sexual selection, in which a trait persists in a population, not because it provides a survival advantage, but a sexual preference advantage, in peacocks an example of this is their tail, in conspicuous as hell but it gets the peacock laid.

[Anonymous No.1546369]

>>1546354
By concluding that Y =/=> X, given X -> Y

[Anonymous No.1546373]

appeal to nature: example: we have some carnivore teeth, therefor we should do as nature says and eat animals because nature is always right.

[Anonymous No.1546386]

>>1546303
Humans with ginger hair.

Doesn't help in any way and it's a genetic mutation.

They sure as fuck haven't died out.

[Anonymous No.1546392]

>>1546373
ill see you that and raise you

appeal to emotion: we shouldn't eat meat because animals would suffer in the process.

[Anonymous No.1546414]

>>1546386
competition is insufficient for gingers to die out, the persistence of ginger traits, or the lack there of considering population demographics, conforms to what we should see if evolution is the case.

evolution doesn't talk about strictly things dieing out, it describes how population demographics are determined by selective pressures.

[Anonymous No.1546416]

Appeal to authority: [elite scietist] says it, hence it must be true.

[Anonymous No.1546420]

Blind assertion - every sentence that states something as a fact without a good reason to believe that it is factual. Example: whenever there's a group of people exchanging opinions that's big enough, you're bound to find someone treating their opinion as a fact (they might also perceive others to be wrong or somehow worse if they have a different opinion).

Circular logic: a conclusion that stems from a premise that is a part (or a whole of the conclusion). Example: "The thief told me I can trust him, because he is a good guy, because if he weren't a good good guy, I wouldn't trust him."; "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God, and the Bible wouldn't lie because it is the word of God."

Red herring: asserting that an argument is rendered invalid because of irrelevant causes. Example: "Evolution might be true, but Stalin was an evolutionist."

Special pleading: constructing a logical argument that is total and then claiming that there is an exception to it. Example: "Everything needs to have a cause, except God, so God created the Universe."

Straw-man argument: misconstructing the opponents position to render the argument applicable. Example: "Atheists believe that the Universe came from nothing that exploded."

Appeal to ridicule: presenting an issue in a negative light, so as to make an argument for it appear as siding with a ridiculous statement - the fallacy is designed to intimidate people of opposing viewpoints. Example: ask /mu/ about some album or /tv/ about a movie. Depending on your choice and size of the thread you're likely to hear that only a retard would like something you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.1546422]

>>1546392

we shouldn't inflict suffering on other lifeforms if we don't want them to inflict suffering on us

[Anonymous No.1546430]

>>1546422
Still doesn't follow (unless you spell out the obvious assumption you're making)

[Anonymous No.1546434]

>>1546422
Assuming that karma exists

[Anonymous No.1546436]

>>1546434

[Anonymous No.1546443]

>>1546430

Go get a job at a slaughterhouse and be the guy that has to kill the cows, see if you still think buying that hamburger is still morally acceptable, its not. Just admit it! I eat lots of meat, I think its wrong, but luckily im a human and quite capable of being a hypocrite. I frankly think its better to be a hypocrite than to try and do a bunch of mental gymnastics in order to convince yourself you are doing something acceptable.

[Anonymous No.1546444]

>>1546367
I already know what genetic drift is. That doesn't mean that natural selection isn't the primary driving force of evolution.

>>1546329
According to my knowledge, most neutral mutations tend to die out too. Of course, natural selection isn't a perfect process.

[Anonymous No.1546448]

>>1546414

Humans have evolved to the point where are genetic fate is no longer in the hands of simple evolution.

[Anonymous No.1546451]

>>1546422
No, we MUST inflict suffering on other life forms or else they WILL inflict it on us. Do you think a sperm whale would give two shits about eating your ass?

Blood and guts can be a little gross, but there's nothing wrong with killing for food. I cleaned a filleted a catfish I caught just last night. Tastes better when you kill and prepare it yourself. If you think otherwise, you have some sort of emotional disability.

[Anonymous No.1546452]

>>1546443
You can get used to it. What's so immoral about killing something that you're going to eat?

[Anonymous No.1546457]

>>1546443
Appeal to emotion. Which is all morality is. FWIW I agree with you in this case. But having recognized what morality is, I'd say things like "I don't like X being done" instead of "X is wrong".

[Anonymous No.1546459]

>>1546329
All mutations disappear unless actively selected for. Entropy destroys any other features. Spandrels are features that are byproducts of other features that are actively selected for.

[Anonymous No.1546469]

>>1546457
Morality is not emotion. Morality is a code of principles that you operate by regardless of emotion.

[Anonymous No.1546478]

>>1546451

Im the guy that posted the slaughterhouse crap. I agree with you, I think its ok to eat animals, I dont think animals have the right to life like humans do, but I think we should respect them by not making them suffer. The way we farm meat now is horrid and wrong. But fuck it, I want my burger! Its kind of like, emotionally, it gets to me, logically I know I should care, but in the end, I just dont care enough. Like I said, I'm a hypocrite, Id rather be that then someone who lies to themself.

[Anonymous No.1546482]

>>1546443
Are you implying that slaughterhouse workers are all wimpy PeTAfags?

I think not. Working in a slaughterhouse is badass. My uncle is a big stocky guy, and he's a floor cutter. He doesn't kill the beasts but after they're drained he chops 'em up with big knives.

He's missing 4 of his fingers, two from each hand. They probably went into someone's hamburger, yes, but it's all good.

And yes, I have visited him at work. It's brutal, but glorious.

[Anonymous No.1546495]

>>1546443
I'm sure that if any of you were in a situation where you needed to kill a pitiful bunny for food you would. If you couldn't then you're weak, and poisoning the gene pool with your baby-minded genes.

Now recognizing you are killing another creature and still feeling pity for it while you consume it and give its matter new life within your form, that's a better way of preventing yourself from becoming a heartless beast.

[Anonymous No.1546500]

>>1546482

Exactly, thats the problem it has on our society, it teaches people to not care for others. Its well known that people who are cruel to animals are far more likely to be cruel to humans. And being cruel to animals and humans is something you can learn. Just because some pscyo uncle likes ripping apart cows doesnt mean its acceptable. That would be like saying its ok to be a serial killer so long as you enjoy it.

I know what youve done, youve taught yourself to love the cruelty towards animals because you think its "glorious", its not. It just makes you a worse person.

[Anonymous No.1546519]

>>1546495

Yes, and if someone was coming at you with a big fucking knife trying to kill them and you had a gun, most people would shoot. That doesnt make it acceptable to shoot people. BTW, I have no problem with eating animals, they can die for all I care, I just dont like seeing them suffer.

[Anonymous No.1546540]

>>1546519
>>1546500
>>1546495
>>1546482
>>1546478

boring conversation, bro

[Anonymous No.1546543]

>>1546253

The point is, if nobody sold meat, and everyone had their own slaughterhouses, most people would be much kinder to their animals because they feel a moral obligation to not cause unnecessary pain.

Just admit that buying meat is supporting a horrid industry, you dont have to quit, you just have to admit. Theres a huge difference, otherwise you spend the rest of your life acting like a fucking catholic trying to constantly convince themselves they are 100% right when they are obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.1546547]

>>1546500
Just because someone works at a slaughterhouse does not mean they are cruel to animals. I understand that how cattle and other food animals are butchered, especially in a factory slaughterhouse, is cruel and causes a lot of suffering in the beasts. The problem is, declaring that those working inside such facilities are psychos and horrible people devoid of emotion, when in fact they are more likely desensitized to the suffering, isn't going to get anything accomplished.

[Anonymous No.1546558]

>>1546547

Its the slaughter houses that are the problem, not the people doing the work, people need jobs, and people will do awful shit they dont enjoy so long as theyre paid, I'm quite aware of that. I'm just saying the industry is fucked up and evil. I'm not saying eating animals is wrong, I'm just saying the way our modern slaughter houses treat them is.

[Anonymous No.1546563]

Its a logical fallacy, I used to be the same way. I would always try to convince myself that our slaughterhouses werent evil,and who cares about those stupid PETA videos showing the awful shit. And it was all for selfish reasons, I liked meat, I still like meat, I still eat meat. Just now, I admit that that shit be fucked up man.

[Anonymous No.1546570]

>>1546543
Slaughterhouses kill cattle by firing a bolt into their brains. What's cruel about that? That seems pretty painless, compared to the alternatives. If everyone raised their own cattle, I don't think they could do any better.

[Anonymous No.1546572]

You people are all pussies. I have a chipmunk infestation in my backyard, little bastards digging up my garden. So I put out a mousetrap with a peanut in it, and sure enough I didn't even walk 5 steps before I heard "SNAP!"

I went to it and the chipmunk was still alive: The trap wasn't powerful enough to snap its neck. It was firmly pinned though, and was struggling to get free.

So I picked up a rock from my rock sidewalk and dropped it on the thing's head. Vicious crack, and blood started dripping out of its nose. -1 chipmunk.

Maybe this is an appeal to cruelty?

[Anonymous No.1546583]

>>1546572
just get cats bro

[Anonymous No.1546586]

>>1546570
A friend of mine raises pigs. The way pigs are butchered is by cutting their throats and letting them run around until they bleed out. The panic does something to make the meat easier to cut or something.

Eventually the pigs who have been there longest catch on to what's happening, and will beg you with their beady little pig eyes to please not kill them.

Then you grab the knife....

[Anonymous No.1546588]

>>1546583
I have a cat. She's old and fat. Wouldn't know what to do with a chipmunk even if she DID catch one.

[Anonymouse No.1546619]

>>1546586
glorious

[Anonymous No.1546629]

>>1546586

it is also somewhat common to remove old male pigs' testicles before killing them, as if you just leave them attached something happens and the meat gets a weird taste.

[Anonymous No.1546670]

Prosecutor's fallacy: Misunderstanding about conditional probability that frequently cites the absolute probability of an event occuring as the chance that it has happened.

Eg 1: “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing! ”

Eg 2: The chance of Abiogenesis occuring is P (a very low number) so the change that Abiogenesis didnt happen is 1-P

Eg3: The chance of 2 babies dying of cot death in the same family is so low that the babies must have been murdered

[Anonymous No.1546686]

>>1546670
massive logic fail. Believing abiogenesis is a chance event would be like more believing that a woman who had a billion babies who burned to death, each the day after they were born, all randomly spontaneously combusted, and were not intentionally set on fire.

[Anonymous No.1546722]

>>1546422
I'll pass on that.

Better one.

Everyone's a bastard until proven otherwise and expect them to shaft you.

[Anonymous No.1546738]

>>1546686
Lol so your arguement is that Abiogenesis is so unlikely it could not have happened? Ill just go ahead and redirect you back to the falacy you just linked.

If you want to assertain which is the most likely event to have happened you must group all the absolute probabilities of all possible events and compare them.

To steal you analogy believing anything other than Abiogenesis is like believing that a blind, deaf and dumb woman with no arms or legs burned a billion of her children to death a day after they were born just because of the how unlikely it is that they all died.

[Anonymous No.1546745]

>>1546570
Not if they want the meat to be Kosher. The animal must be bled to death in order for this to be possible.

In an industrial application for this method, they put the cow in a large assembly that encompasses the whole animal, it rotates so that the cow is now upside down, a large buzz saw blade goes right across its neck, erupting with a crimson waterfall, the animal is then let loose from this machine and still remains staggering on its feet as blood comes out of its neck and mouth and nose.

I went looking for the video which I was describing, and instead found these. I couldn't watch them to the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcWwjsh9VrY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To5luyYpVOU

Man...
I'm looking for it, and I'm just finding more and more cut and hoist videos... I don't think I'll ever want to buy Hebrew National hot dogs ever again...

[Anonymous No.1546752]

>>1546738
I don't think you understand entropy bro. Abiogenesis could not have happened by any process that has to date been proposed.

[Anonymous No.1546774]

>>1546752
>I don't think you understand entropy bro
I dont think you know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.1546795]

>>1546752
lol idiot christfag, read up on stuff before u try to put your words down next time
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[Anonymous No.1546878]

>>1546670

So how did the simple button eye (mutate by random) into the advanced eyes that humans have without having a final design plan? I know evolution to be true but I think it's driven by something other than random and by "something other than random" I don't mean the invisible sky daddy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm

[Anonymous No.1546889]

>>1546259
evolution is falsifiable, hypotheticly, just not by us, as it would take millions of years, and incredible technology. that alone shows it has more weighting than creationism

[Anonymous No.1546924]

The only example, where its use bugs me hugely, is argumentum ad verecundiam.

Richard Dawkins is correct, because look at how accomplished he is!

Not to say I believe he is wrong; my qualm is simply with the false argument, which can easily be avoided. The use of it by any party makes any side of a belief look bad.

[Anonymous No.1546929]

>>1546878
the input is random, but the selection is not.

[Anonymous No.1546930]

>>1546889
>derp evolution is scientific because it is more scientific than creationism derp

[Anonymous No.1546934]

>>1546929
mutation is random unless it's not.

[Anonymous No.1546939]

>>1546795
This is another example of something that bugs me; albeit that of an assumption.

When someone types "u" instead of "you", I will instantly disregard everything he has said. The assumption in question being that I refuse to believe any valid/appropriate point shall be made by anyone who refuses to type properly.

[Anonymous No.1546952]

division and composition fallacies.

division: a plane can fly, therefore a plane's wheel can fly

composition: lego bricks are rectangular, therefore models made from lego bricks are rectangular

[Anonymous No.1546956]

>>1546878
I agree anon. I don't believe evolution could work if all mutations were random. There's obviously no evidence that the major changes tend to be randomly caused.

People who turn Darwin and Dawkins into a religious dogma will obviously rage at any challenge to those dogmas though.

[Anonymous No.1546997]

>>1546939
Doesn't make sense. The intelligent people I talk to, one a pre-MD student, types with "u" and makes many typing errors.

Your mentality is that of a high schooler's. When you grow up you'll understand that good typing doesn't = high intelligence.

[Anonymous No.1547003]

>>1546956

Well, we know that radiation causes mutations but what about diet and exercise?

[Anonymous No.1547025]

>>1546878
it mis driven by something non random, natural selection.

ive heard the millions of monkeys on millions of type writers excuse to discredit evolution, except it doesnt work because evolution is not just random and chance.

I accept evolution because I have heard what it is and the evidence behind it and the evidence is very strong, (notice I said accept not believe) you will never discredit evolution by talking about chance or your own stupidity.

If you prove any minor theory that stemms from evolution than you are just advancing the theory of evolution. there is almost no way to prove the theories that evolution hinges on, you would need to come up with a more acceptable theory, that redirects all the evidence that points to evolution to the new theory, and accounts for why the old theory is wrong. this is incredibly unlikely. Evolution is not hard to accept to the open minded. most arguements (or all that I have heard) made by christian or christian scientists ( a tautology I know ) either do not lead any evidence against evolution, e.g. they talk about the morality of evolution in their own sick and twisted minds, or is just plain fucking stupid, e.g. the banana proves gods existence, or stems from knowing very little,knowing nothing, or misunderstanding evolution.

[Anonymous No.1547049]

>>1547025

Dude, did you even read my post? I said I do accept evolution, clam down man. What I stated in my post is the "random mutation" part is bullshit. if you also read my other post. You'll see I'm asking valid questions.

>>1546956

[Anonymous No.1547053]

Gambler's fallacy – the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged

Just-world phenomenon – the tendency to rationalize an inexplicable injustice by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it.

[Anonymous No.1547054]

>>1546795
Nice page full of straw men.

[Anonymous No.1547060]

um sorry the first part was aimed at you, the rest was not, it was aimed at all the other people who have mentioned stupid arguements against evolution

[Anonymous No.1547064]

>>1547003
Yes we already know that diet and exercise alter the epigenome which is passed along to offspring. A mechanism that affects the genome itself may be discovered as well.

[Anonymous No.1547066]

>>1546997
>good typing doesn't = high intelligence.

You're right. it doesn't.
but HERP DERP typing = generally being uneducated.

[Anonymous No.1547075]

>>1547025
We're saying we don't think the changes from one generation to the next are merely random. We're saying we don't buy the idea that selection alone can necessarily explain all of evolution. We're saying that there are already known to be some non-random generation to generation changes, and there may be a lot more that we don't know about.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out where some of the things that get included under the umbrella of conventional evolution are overstepping the evidence, which I think is clearly the case, or where they may in fact be wrong.

[Anonymous No.1547082]

>>1547064

Thanks anon for the informative answer.

[Anonymous No.1547093]

>>1547054
How exactly does an explaination of how Abiogenesis is not retardedly unlikely not address a persons belief that Abiogenesis is retardedly unlikely

[Anonymous No.1547095]

>>1547075

I agree with this anon. I'm not trolling i'm just asking questions I've never really bothered to ask before/to lazy to look up. I'd probably just get more disinformation anyways.

[some other guy No.1547110]

>>1547066

Relying on petty comments like "HERP DERP" generally signifies being uneducated as well.

[Anonymous No.1547117]

>>1547075
Hang on, can you give an example of any part of evolution which isn't attributable to selection?

[Anonymous No.1547118]

>>1546586
Utter bullshit. Animals need to be more relaxed prior to their execution (I like to use that word) in order to improve the flavour and texture of the meat. There is fashion to have very well treated cows in some parts of the world which produces the most tender and flavoursome steak.

[Anonymous No.1547120]

>>1547117
Alzheimer's.

[Anonymous No.1547135]

>>1547075
yup I think that is true, that is why I said that if you prove the minor points of evolution wrong, you will only improve the theory of evolution. I should have made it more clear

[Anonymous No.1547136]

>>1547075

it's called context

[Anonymous No.1547140]

>>1547117
Um, yes. The pre-selection differences between one generation and the next is not due to selection.

[Anonymous No.1547148]

>>1547120
You seem to have misunderstood the question. We don't know the mechanism behind Alzheimer's, but this doesn't mean it's not a natural product of selected-for traits brains. I'm not looking for examples of things we can't currently explain by selection, I'm looking for things which we have reason to think will never be explained by selection.

[Anonymous No.1547160]

ITT: People with no clue about the difference between a logical fallacy and bad reasoning.

[Anonymous No.1547161]

>>1547140
Fair enough. I should have said "selection or random genetic mutations".

[Anonymous No.1547162]

>>1546997
I don't think you read my post very clearly, boy.

The assumption I jump to annoys me. I am critiquing my own assumption.

Try again, boy.

[Anonymous No.1547169]

>>1547160
Um. Bad reasoning, by definition, means committing a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.1547196]

>>1547169
No...dude...no...
An argument can be illogical, but perfectly rational.

[Anonymous No.1547201]

>>1547169

The joy of ignorance, I barely can't remember it. I envy you.

[Anonymous No.1547202]

>>1547093
That page is a bunch of straw men about what creationists supposedly claim about abiogenesis.

It doesn't say anything that implies that abiogenesis is anything other than astronomically unlikely. It says that creationists ignore the steps of hypercycle and protobiot. Why the fuck should I care. No one has ever developed a working theory of either hypercycle or protobiot, much less been able to create anything approaching any such things in a lab. So the bottom line equals my original statement. That abiogenesis could not have happened by any process that has to date been proposed -- because other than bits and pieces and huge amounts of vague handwaving, there is no proposed process.

[Anonymous No.1547207]

>>1547196
wut? 'splain?

[Anonymous No.1547214]

>>1547169
>He doesn't know about the underlying reasoning behind the scientific method
>laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.1547225]

>>1547196
... What?

Unless you're getting into some bullshit about how it can be rational to make an illogical argument in order to persuade people to do things which are against their best interests but for yours. But I don't think that's what you meant.

[Anonymous No.1547227]

unfortunatly it has to do that, as there are so many different creationist theories on the origins of life, and if anything that specific page is defending themselves from being attacked by a strawman arguement rather than attacking with a straw man arguement, it says their account of origins of life has been misrepresented by creationists. if you acually read the whole article, you will find that out

[Anonymous No.1547232]

>>1547202
Here, let me propose a process by which it could have happened:

Random quantum fluctuations make a living organism.

Obviously, this is a stupid theory, but it's possible, merely very, very unlikely. But anyway, now you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.1547235]

>>1547161
Non-random genetic mutations. There is no evidence to suggest that the important mutations in evolution are random as opposed to non-random. And, though I understand it is widely believed, it is by no means provable that the complexity-increasing changes we see very often can be taking place if the mutations behind them are random.

[Anonymous No.1547237]

>>1547207
.............This is on /sci/..........

[Anonymous No.1547247]

Dear niggers,

The scientific method has no logical underpinning, the reasoning behind it is illogical. I am not trolling and this is the truth. However, scientific reasoning is good reasoning - but still logically flawed. This is why bad reasoning isn't equivalent with logical fallacies.

Sincerely yours,
nigger

[Anonymous No.1547248]

>>1547225
I think he means you can have logical arguements lead to irrational outcomes, Like M.A.D. mutually assured destruction, That country has guns to protect itself, I should get more so that they won't want to attack me

[Anonymous No.1547256]

>>1547227
Fine. Then you by linking to the page in response to my statement are the one making the strawman argument, because the page argues against arguments I am not making.

[Anonymous No.1547259]

>>1547235
Sure there is, namely: they happen exactly as often as randomness suggests. It's not definitive evidence, but it's very strong.

>complexity-increasing
I suspect you have an incredibly large flaw in your understanding of, among other things, entropy. The argument that "evolution increases complexity -> evolution is impossible" is not only wrong but practically meaningless

[Anonymous No.1547261]

>>1547196

what is this bullshit, explain yourself. it's never rational to believe in an argument that's not in a valid form, and to be valid, the logic behind it has to be flawless.

[Anonymous No.1547268]

>>1547247

[Anonymous No.1547272]

>>1547247
... Can... can you say that again with better words? Or some sort of justification? Or something?

[Anonymous No.1547284]

>>1547261
>The statements this man hold to be true is limited to formal logic and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.1547286]

>>1547235
Do you not understand evolution, some important changes were random, others were selected for, some can happen by random, it is the nature of randomness.... others like walking upright, are made from environmental selection pressures, selected for, if it doesn't have a cause, it is random, if it isn't random it is selected for.

[Anonymous No.1547292]

>>1547247
Non-logical is not the same thing as illogical. The scientific method does not include logical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.1547311]

>>1547284
Not that guy, but I have two types of "true". There's "logically true" and "observationally true". Observational truths are never 100% and therefore subject to change. This includes nearly everything, eg, my belief that gravity is what pulls me into the Earth, my belief that the Earth is round, etc. All of these could be wrong. They just probably aren't. Logically true statements are not subject to change.

[Anonymous No.1547326]

>>1547256
I am not the one who linked to the page, I read the posts and went to the link, and it doesn't sound like he misrepresented you in any way. the page talked about how abiogenises could have happened by chance (it both replys to the post about the chance being too low, and the post about there being no theory of abiogenisis)

the only way he could have misrepresented you is by calling you a christfag, which is more immature namecalling than misrepresentation

[Anonymous No.1547328]

>>1547259
You are completely full of shit. They don't happen exactly as often as randomness suggests. Randomness doesn't suggest a frequency.

Of course you assume I'm an idiot. People tend to assume that others are like themselves. Admitting this doesn't do you any credit.

[Anonymous No.1547338]

>>1547272

Reasoning not pertaining to formal systems, such as mathematics or symbolic logic, doesn't follow the premise-conclusion form that for example a mathematical argument do.

Instead, reasoning pertaining to matters outside such a formal system - say like physics - use a method of reasoning usually referred to as 'abduction' or reasoning from the best explanation. However, when reasoning with abduction one commits a fallacy - more precisely the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Look it up nigger.

A common example is the argument it's wet outside, therefore it has rained. The argument's logical structure is (with p meaning 'it rains' and q 'it's wet outside)

p ⇒ q   (Premise 1)
q         (Premise 2)
∵ p      (conclusion)

The conclusion however, doesn't follow from the premises. This is an inescapable problem with the scientific method and well-known problem, Hume saw it first and Popper formalized the issue.

It's however good reasoning, even though illogical.

[Anonymous No.1547340]

>>1547328
"Randomness" does suggest a frequency. If you flip a fair coin, you expect to get heads roughly half the time, over a sufficiently long term. Similarly, if every generation has a small amount of random variation in the genome, you expect these to lead to evolutionarily beneficial traits a definable fraction of the time. And that is exactly what we see.

I didn't say you were an idiot, I said that using the word "complexity" in this context suggests you don't know what entropy means.

[Anonymous No.1547341]

>>1547311
those are some pretty bad examples. I would prefer you to explain them a little more in depth please

[Anonymous No.1547354]

>>1547326
The page accuses creationists of making incorrect statements about the hypotheses of abiogenesis and attack those incorrect statements I didn't make and don't believe those incorrect statements. Nothing on that page countered what I actually said. It's obviously of the belief that there will one day be a complete theory of abiogenesis, but I never said there will never be a complete theory. I just said there isn't one now.

[Anonymous No.1547359]

>>1547292

Enlighten me on the difference between illogical and non-logical. I use the term illogical to mean that it doesn't follow from the the assumed premises and I use the term non-logical for the same semantic content, with the difference that it fits better in some sentences.

Maybe you're thinking of alogical?

[Anonymous No.1547371]

>>1547354

However it does propose a process that abiogenises could have happened, which is the counter-arguement to your statement that you made.

[Anonymous No.1547372]

>>1547338
Ah, I see your problem.
"It's wet outside, therefore it's raining" is not good reasoning. However, when people say this, they're using it as shorthand for something else, namely, "It's wet outside, therefore it's _almost certainly_ raining", which is good reasoning, and moreover logically sound.

Science has no issue with being illogical because it does not make absolute claims. In fact it very strictly does not make absolute claims. Science says "this evidence suggests, with 99.99% confidence interval A-B, that X is true", which is both good reasoning and logically sound.

[Anonymous No.1547385]

>>1547372
>>1547338
Precisely why scientists prefer inductive logic to deductive; they're usually dead before everyone figures out they were wrong, something logicians don't have to worry about (fuck off Godel).

[Anonymous No.1547389]

>>1547341
Ehm.

There are things which I believe to be true because I've seen them to be true repeatedly. For example, that there is gravity. Or because I've been told them by people who I've seen to make consistently statements which agree with things I believe. However, none of these beliefs are absolute. In the face of sufficient evidence, I might revise any of them.

Then there are things which are true because of logic. For example, the statement "If A implies B, and B implies C, and A is true, then C is true" is logically true. There is no amount of evidence which could convince me otherwise. Now, perhaps A does not imply B, or A is not true, and that's fine. But it doesn't change the logical truth of the statement.

[Anonymous No.1547402]

>>1547340
Tell me, what is the frequency with which randomness suggests a species without a circulatory system will randomly mutate the components of a circulatory system.

This is an example of a change that increases complexity, and to my knowledge we don't have anywhere near the understanding required to infer a frequency from randomness.

And example of a change that doesn't increase the order of complexity is changing a hand or paw to a flipper. These kinds of changes could be more plausibly explained through random mutations, but we have to account for all changes.

[Anonymous No.1547418]

>>1547389
thankyou kind sir

[Anonymous No.1547419]

>>1547372

You are of course correct in your claim that science makes no absolute claims. You are however slightly confused about the order of things.

Science does not make absolute claims because it's method is illogical. If we had a logical method, our conclusions would be certain and there would not be a problem.

Logic is a far too crude tool when it comes to dealing with uncertainties. It has nothing to say about the validity of such reasoning. Logical conclusions are about certainties. Are you familiar with symbolic logic and its algebra, niggersir?

I expect someone to comment on the fact that mathematics - a formal system - deals with uncertainties in probability theory, and therefore it's possible. This is however two entirely different things.

[Anonymous No.1547422]

>>1547371
It doesn't propose a process, other than to name the unknown subprocesses that are thought to be part of that process. (protobiot and hypercycles) If the subprocess it names are unknown then it is not proposing a complete process, which is my point.

[Anonymous No.1547428]

>>1547385

No such thing as "inductive logic". The term is misleading.

[Anonymous No.1547435]

>>1547338
The claim that science is illogical because it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent is false. It would only affirm the consequent if it claimed that it logically followed from having a workable theory that the theory was true. The whole point of the scientific method is to NOT commit that fallacy, but to repeatedly try to falsify every workable theory, because you're NOT assuming it's proven.

[Anonymous No.1547449]

>>1547422
It still proposes a theory, of abiogenises, which is my point. you said there was no process known that explains it, this is a process that is known, that explains it, it may not be the process that does explain abiogenisis, but it is a known process, and it explains it.

[Anonymous No.1547456]

>>1547359
alogical=nonlogical
"a" is greek and "non".
"non" is latin for "a".

[Anonymous No.1547462]

>>1547435

This is a good account of Popper's description of the scientific method. But this is not, as many have pointed out, how it works. Scientists often look for evidence in favor of a theory rather than try to falsify it and thereby committing the fallacy - Popper I think admits this himself in his writings.

My impression of his writings is that he tried to a great extent make a logical formulation of a scientific method. In this I think he succeeded. This is however not _the_ scientific method in use - for the reasons stated above.

[Anonymous No.1547471]

>>1547449
No, that's my point. THERE IS NO THEORY. There is a hypothesis that abiogenesis happened, and that that abiogenesis may include these particular general phases. But no solution has been found for the central phases. So there is no theory.

[Anonymous No.1547480]

>>1547456

Thank you. I'll be more careful with the semantics of that prefix in the future. I only meant illogical, then.

Here, have a rebellious comic as reward.

[Anonymous No.1547518]

>>1547471
Its still a theory though. if it isn't a theory than what is it classed as

[Anonymous No.1547525]

>>1547518

a gauss

[Anonymous No.1547544]

Burden-of-proof shifting. Like when my dad says some bullshit is "unhealthy" and I ask him for evidence he tells me I "don't have any proof that it's not unhealthy."

[Anonymous No.1547557]

>>1547518
It is a working hypothesis.

>>1547525
ha

[Anonymous No.1547561]

Argument from ignorance
"I don't understand x, ipso factum, y is true"
In many cases, this is also a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.1547597]

>>1547557
Actuall yes, I would agree with you an that one. you cleared that up and for that I thank you.