10 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFWould a logical fallacy be pure and true logically, but a fallacy due to being based on a false premise?
Every post MUST contain a glaring logical fallacy whilst debating the thread's premise.
Stated mathematically, 5+5=10. This is logically true, however if we define zero as .5 or any other false premise, the logically true becomes a fallacy.
This seems to be the source of the most harshly argued points. Not many are willing to re-examine their premises.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by normbenignA logical fallacy is usually something more like,
Would a logical fallacy be pure and true logically, but a fallacy due to being based on a false premise?
Stated mathematically, 5+5=10. This is logically true, however if we define zero as .5 or any other false premise, the logically true becomes a fallacy.
This seems to be the source of the most harshly argued points. Not many are willing to re-examine their premises.
"no sentence in the English language has more than four words in it"
Which proves itself wrong.
However there are a host of fallacies, as listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
However if you want to have a false premise fallacy then you need to state your false premise for people to see.
11 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76I fear the notion of a communist government in its true sense is a logical fallacy. Communism, in its utopian form, is predicted on slender evidence (incorporating a delighful belief about the inner worth of every individual human) to be the ultimate outcome of the logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions in Capitalism, which will ultimately dissolve leaving utopia in place. So Capitalism is also a logical fallacy, based as it is on unsustainable contradictions. . It would also be a fallacy to disagree with this view. For example, Lenin was impatient and tried to anticipate the transformation to a workers' paradise through revolution, so in Marxist terms, Marxist-Leninism was certainly a logical fallacy. Maoism (if it is anything beyond a licence to murder political opponents) adopts the even more fallacious notion that we might skip from feudal state to worker's paradise without first serving our time in a smoky industrial capitalist era. The fallacy has been rejected in China of course which is now very smoky indeed. Similarly, the logical fallacy that any alternative to brute capitalism is communism is a fallacy.
There's obviously never been a true communist government since the utopian ideals that are the goal of the movement have never been realized.
11 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour brazen argumentum ad verecundiam aside, I once met a professor who is a world authority on the validity of wikipedia, and he would no doubt point out that you are wrong to cite it in the way you have.
However there are a host of fallacies, as listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
11 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo a statement such as "I'm sure I've never been wrong except the one time I thought I was" would be a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is usually something more like,
"no sentence in the English language has more than four words in it"
Which proves itself wrong.
However there are a host of fallacies, as listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
However if you want to have a false premise fallacy then you need to state your false premise for people to see.
11 Nov 11
Originally posted by finneganIf there was a logical fallacy in that post, I slept through it.
I fear the notion of a communist government in its true sense is a logical fallacy. Communism, in its utopian form, is predicted on slender evidence (incorporating a delighful belief about the inner worth of every individual human) to be the ultimate outcome of the logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions in Capitalism, which will ultimately diss ...[text shortened]... larly, the logical fallacy that any alternative to brute capitalism is communism is a fallacy.
