Logic has advanced? I don't agree - I don't think man is more capable of thinking logically today than he ever was. It just seems that way because of new technologies, that have slowly built one upon the other over time. No increased thinking ability required for that.

From your link
Some of them appear to me to be an attempt to be a defence against conservatism.

(from Don Lindsay's list) the "fallacy of the general rule" is defined as follows, "assuming something true in general is true in every possible case". If that's a fallacy, wouldn't it be equally false to assume something FALSE in general is false in every possible case? That's what the "slippery slope" fallacy does. It says that if a slippery slope doesn't exist in every possible case, then it's a fallacy to use the argument that it could possibly happen in some cases.

The slippery slope is the main way our "limited" government has grown so big. It's not a fallacy IMO.

"Argument By Personal Charm"? Is there a clear cut definition of exactly what personal charm is? It's just about the biggest factor in how politicians get elected - nothing false about that.

Some "fallacies" in these lists make good sense, but so many of them seem to be solely intended to benefit the American left.

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

[quote=marc9000]

Logic has advanced? I don't agree - I don't think man is more capable of thinking logically today than he ever was. It just seems that way because of new technologies, that have slowly built one upon the other over time. No increased thinking ability required for that.

[/qoute]

Logic is logic unless you are trying to push the limits of basic causal reality like Einstein.

Man is WAY more capable of using logic, because the basis of logic is so well stuies these days. The underlying rationality is the new debate.

__________________
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.
-Thomas Jefferson

Uh, logic is a form of technology. That's the whole point. We may not have bigger brains, but our logic-toolbox has gained some pretty funky innovations in the past 100 years - the development of symbolic logic, for example, and its derivatives.
No, moreso a defence against all stripes of sloppy inference. Logic, fortunately, implies no particular political ideology. It's a tool for analyzing arguments and computing inferences.
I think you're confusing a fallacy of deductive inference with the form of social change. The reason why the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy is because deductive or truth-preserving logics deal in discrete propositions. The slippery slope fallacy uses a series of near-equivalence identity statements rather than a series of actual equivalence identity statements.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Suppose A is not the same as C.

If A is virtually the same as B
And B is virtually the same as C
Then A is the same as C.

Notice how in the first two lines I propose that each equivalence is such that it is sufficient for an identity, and how I used that slight-of-hand to say that because those equivalences appear sufficient that they are sufficient.

Where I say "virtually" that is where the fallacy lies because it trades on "virtually the same" being identical to "the same". "Virtually the same" can only be "the same" where a criteria of relevance exists to govern the relationship such that "virtually the same" is taken to mean "possessing identity sufficient to our purpose here."
I think that the point is that when someone makes an argument how charmingly they make it is irrelevant. Where two people give the same argument, and one gives it in a more charming manner than the other, it is a fallacy to presume that the latter has given a better argument. They've presented it better, which is a good thing, but assuming the actual argument is better because of that presentation is a fallacy - like thinking a particular car will go faster if you paint it a more pleasing colour.

So politicians do get elected, or not, on the basis of personal charm. No fallacy there. Holding arguments to be valid and sound on the basis of charming presentation is a fallacy.
I really hadn't noticed. If you're thinking of them like you did the "Argument by Personal Charm", then you may be mistaking logical arguments for conversational arguments. A logical argument is mechanical method of reasoning where a conversational argument is a social activity. Logical arguments can be used in conversational arguments to make a point, but they can also be used in mathematics, computer science, and so on.

The problem, as I see it, is that people use the term "logic" these days as a colloquial term for "argument". Logic is simply the form, or the syntax, of reasoning - quite apart from content. Logic, combined with propositions, constitutes arguments.

You got to understand Mark........"Little Man's" favorite word is fallacy.he uses it in almost every post.........

__________________
Abortion is the most barbaric act one human being can perpetrate on another.

But not everyone has equal access to the funky innovations. When it comes to political decisions, we shouldn't allow only those familiar with symbolic logic and it's derivatives to make political decisions that affect the lives of everyone. There is a word for thinking that we should - liberalism.


Logic doesn't, but these lists of "fallicious arguments" do.


It's not me who's confusing it, it's those who yell "slippery slope fallacy" when someone points out that one tax increase can lead to another, or one environmental regulation can lead to another.

I agree, but it goes both ways. The charmer shouldn't be penalized for being charming. If his OPPONENT brings the subject up, it can distract, and therefore penalize. These fallacy lists aren't so bad if non participants silently consider them, but when participants toss them around, they can be distracting, and unfair. It happens often on these forums - not nearly as big a deal in written debate as it would be in a live, verbal debate.

I noticed, because I see them being used not so much in mathmatics or computer science, their purpose seems to be POLITICAL. In Lindsay's list, one of his examples in "Ad Hominem" attacks, is, "a common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" Lindsay seems to imply that it's a fallacy to question sincerity - I think it's a valid question. It the same as when a Hollywood elite who condemns the unwashed masses for driving gas guzzling, polluting SUV's, yet drives one himself. The sincerity of those who want to make political decisions, and then excempt themselves from them should be questioned by those who consider themselves free. Liberalism often disagrees.

Do you see nothing but logic in these fallicious arguments lists, or do you see some being more questionable than others? Do you think they should be an active part of a debate, or only silently used by non participants?

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

no, only in response to you. By the way do you have a real life? You average 29 posts per day. Or as I suspect do you just type them quickly without thinking and repeating the same thing again and again. Half of your posts are just "I love you too little man" or something of that nature as you did right here and you seem to also love these little dots, you use them a lot.

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?" - Chris Rock

Who is this "we?"

I could name a number of people who have disgressed in their ability to think logically in comparsion to the Greeks.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote