PDA

View Full Version : Fallacy


Bleid
August 17th, 2016, 07:08 PM
Given that most who visit this section tend to be enthusiasts of discourse, I figured this might be an interesting exercise.

Pick a philosophy/ideology/belief that you've argued against.
(or if you want, pick one you've argued for - I've certainly seen some people argue fallaciously for conclusions that are correct)

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)

It doesn't have to be a named fallacy. (for example, affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) is a named fallacy.)
It can be as simple as a description of the flawed logic.

Paraxiom
August 20th, 2016, 09:09 PM
Bleid

Apologies for not replying to this earlier; I thought there were already some responses, which I feel it deserves.

- - - - - - - -

"1. Pick a philosophy/ideology/belief that you've argued against.
What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?"

That there is one God of infinite, eternal and absolute nature which created the world. The humans are made in the image of God. This God is infinitely benevolent, omniscient, etc.

"2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)"

That this God is both not finite + absolute, and with human qualities of consciousness, desire and so on.

My technetheism thread has hopefully done enough on detailing all of that.

PlasmaHam
August 20th, 2016, 10:24 PM
I like the idea of this thread. Encourages people to both analyze arguments against them and form better arguments. There are some people here who really need a lesson in it, and it really annoys me when I'm trying to have a serious conversation. I hope all the current debaters will post in this, this thread has great potential.

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?
The idea that Islam is a religion based on peaceful ideals and examples.

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
"Well, you can't be judging Muslims for killing people when Christians justified killing of unbelievers and the Crusades during the Middle Ages." (Red Herring/Ad hominem/False Analogy)

(Debater shifts focus from Islam to Christianity and proceeds to attack Christianity, using a flawed comparison to support their claims.)

I could of chosen plenty of other fallacious arguments, but this one is pretty common on the site.
mattsmith48 I would be interested in seeing you post on this thread. We debate often, and I would like to see varying viewpoints, subjects, and members on this thread.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 12:50 AM
Bleid

Apologies for not replying to this earlier; I thought there were already some responses, which I feel it deserves.


Not a problem. I would have been entertained if a thread on this subject matter did not receive any responses just the same. Of course, I still always appreciate the responses.

That this God is both not finite + absolute, and with human qualities of consciousness, desire and so on.

My technetheism thread has hopefully done enough on detailing all of that.

There does appear to be a bit of "having one's God and eating him, too" going on there. I agree. It should always be taken with suspicion when something is claimed to be at an extreme, while still maintaining lower degree in the same attribute.

"Well, you can't be judging Muslims for killing people when Christians justified killing of unbelievers and the Crusades during the Middle Ages." (Red Herring/Ad hominem/False Analogy)

(Debater shifts focus from Islam to Christianity and proceeds to attack Christianity, using a flawed comparison to support their claims.)

I'd say this is a very good example of tu quoque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque), as well. Good analysis.

I've seen similar arguments many times from atheists to the religious, highlighting the their violence in the past, as well as the religious to atheists, pointing to atheist historical figures that committed terrible acts. Usually, both are irrelevant to the original points being argued.

Reise
August 21st, 2016, 08:03 AM
I had made a reply for this thread approx. when you posted it, but I got bored and deleted it.

Anyway.

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?
Actually, pretty much a damn lot of those. It happens really everywhere, ufology, religion... economics.

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Because of his/her incapacity in demonstrating otherwise one may suppose his/her idea - even if it doesn't stand on a valid ground - is valid.
More precisely, it's its use when one can't fully understand something that makes it an extremely common fallacy.

Examples:
"This thing was flying in the sky, it wasn't a bird so probably an alien space craft"
"I can't understand why the Universe is like this, it's probably God because nobody can't understand God and I can't understand the Universe"
"I can't understand how stock markets work, it's probably the Capitalists who try to enslave us"

It's also pretty close from the "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 10:10 AM
I had made a reply for this thread approx. when you posted it, but I got bored and deleted it.

Understandable. I've done the same thing on occasions.

Anyway.

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?
Actually, pretty much a damn lot of those. It happens really everywhere, ufology, religion... economics.

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Because of his/her incapacity in demonstrating otherwise one may suppose his/her idea - even if it doesn't stand on a valid ground - is valid.
More precisely, it's its use when one can't fully understand something that makes it an extremely common fallacy.

Examples:
"This thing was flying in the sky, it wasn't a bird so probably an alien space craft"
"I can't understand why the Universe is like this, it's probably God because nobody can't understand God and I can't understand the Universe"
"I can't understand how stock markets work, it's probably the Capitalists who try to enslave us"

It's also pretty close from the "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

Yes, this is a very common one. Good concise examples, as well.

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 01:21 PM
Given that most who visit this section tend to be enthusiasts of discourse, I figured this might be an interesting exercise.

Pick a philosophy/ideology/belief that you've argued against.
(or if you want, pick one you've argued for - I've certainly seen some people argue fallaciously for conclusions that are correct)

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)

It doesn't have to be a named fallacy. (for example, affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) is a named fallacy.)
It can be as simple as a description of the flawed logic.

This is pretty pointless.

Being able to find and identify fallacies is a practically worthless skill (whereas being able to identify good arguments is quite valuable. The reason for this is simple, firstly because it just doesn't matter what bad arguments people have made for a proposition, and second of all because any argument can be reductively interpreted into a fallacy, and an excessive concern with fallacy-finding will create a habit of misinterpreting perfectly good arguments as fallacious.

ThisBougieLife
August 21st, 2016, 02:16 PM
"any argument can be reductively interpreted into a fallacy"

I declare shenanigans on this.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 02:24 PM
This is pretty pointless.

Being able to find and identify fallacies is a practically worthless skill (whereas being able to identify good arguments is quite valuable.

Thanks for joining us with a nuanced opinion. Interesting distinction, considering a valid argument exists if and only if the argument is free of fallacy.

The reason for this is simple, firstly because it just doesn't matter what bad arguments people have made for a proposition,

Certainly the bad arguments themselves do not matter, but to believe a bad argument to be a good argument due to deceptive reasoning would matter to some who have an interest in truth.

and second of all because any argument can be reductively interpreted into a fallacy,

This interests me. You say it can be done to any argument - can you reductively interpret this argument into a fallacy, to demonstrate this point?

1. If I am sleeping, then I am not awake.
2. I am awake.
_________
3. Therefore, I am not sleeping.

and an excessive concern with fallacy-finding will create a habit of misinterpreting perfectly good arguments as fallacious.

I can see where you're coming from with this. I have seen people claim fallacies where they do not exist on numerous occasions.

However, these people will always exist - those that cannot identify fallacies appropriately - and someone who is equally ignorant could be swayed by such a person to think good arguments are fallacious because they cannot identify whether or not a fallacy is actually present. So, wouldn't this be an argument for why being able to identify fallacies is not a worthless skill, being that we could see whether someone speaks the truth when they claim something to be fallacious?

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 03:36 PM
Thanks for joining us with a nuanced opinion. Interesting distinction, considering a valid argument exists if and only if the argument is free of fallacy.

Certainly they are related. But the important skill is being able to determine if the logical chain is valid, according to any interpretation. Being able to identify a fallacy is less valuable because you ought to try to interpret your opponent as making a valid rather than an invalid argument if possible, since as mentioned before, the invalid argument doesn't matter in itself.

Example:

1. Islam teaches that Muhammed was sinless
2. Muhammed engaged in seriously immoral acts
3. Therefore Islam is false

An over eager fallacies would claim that this is an ad hominem argument, but in doing so they'd be demonstrating their own ignorance of why personal attacks are irrelevant.

This interests me. You say it can be done to any argument - can you reductively interpret this argument into a fallacy, to demonstrate this point?

1. If I am sleeping, then I am not awake.
2. I am awake.
_________
3. Therefore, I am not sleeping.

Any argument, including that one, can be represented in formal logic by combining the premises with connectives and defining the long sentence thereby formed as "p", while defining the conclusion as "q", thus rendering the argument "p therefore q", which is a non-sequitur.

On reflection, I'll admit that what I said is not true wrt rhetoric, when it comes to trivial arguments.

I can see where you're coming from with this. I have seen people claim fallacies where they do not exist on numerous occasions.

However, these people will always exist - those that cannot identify fallacies appropriately - and someone who is equally ignorant could be swayed by such a person to think good arguments are fallacious because they cannot identify whether or not a fallacy is actually present. So, wouldn't this be an argument for why being able to identify fallacies is not a worthless skill, being that we could see whether someone speaks the truth when they claim something to be fallacious?

It's more important to directly teach what makes a good argument. Understanding fallacies apart from this leads to the sort of sophistry mentioned earlier.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 05:13 PM
Certainly they are related. But the important skill is being able to determine if the logical chain is valid, according to any interpretation. Being able to identify a fallacy is less valuable because you ought to try to interpret your opponent as making a valid rather than an invalid argument if possible, since as mentioned before, the invalid argument doesn't matter in itself.

Example:

1. Islam teaches that Muhammed was sinless
2. Muhammed engaged in seriously immoral acts
3. Therefore Islam is false

An over eager fallacies would claim that this is an ad hominem argument, but in doing so they'd be demonstrating their own ignorance of why personal attacks are irrelevant.

Good example, and I agree it would be best to expect a good argument from your opponent over a bad one in a clean debate. However, not all people argue with sincere intention. Some argue with intention to deceive others. In such cases, it would be fairly beneficial to be able to identify it.

Any argument, including that one, can be represented in formal logic by combining the premises with connectives and defining the long sentence thereby formed as "p", while defining the conclusion as "q", thus rendering the argument "p therefore q", which is a non-sequitur.

On reflection, I'll admit that what I said is not true wrt rhetoric, when it comes to trivial arguments.

Ah, but be careful there. The rule is that you can rewrite the the 'long sentences'. This does not change the sentences themselves - only the names.

For the example I provided above, if we turn it into

1. P
___
2. Therefore, Q

P is merely another name for the original two premises:

1. If I am sleeping, then I am not awake.
2. I am awake.

And Q is another name for the conclusion:

3. Therefore, I am not sleeping.

The logical validity is not changed by simply renaming premises #1 and #2 as P and renaming the conclusion (#3) as Q.

In fact, it would be a bit of a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) to claim that by renaming a valid argument's premises that we have demonstrated it to be non-sequitur.

I think we just found a good example of where fallacy identification was valuable.

It's more important to directly teach what makes a good argument. Understanding fallacies apart from this leads to the sort of sophistry mentioned earlier.

It is important to teach what makes a good argument. However, fallacious arguments can masquerade as good ones as we just observed, which is where fallacy identification comes in.

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 07:15 PM
Good example, and I agree it would be best to expect a good argument from your opponent over a bad one in a clean debate. However, not all people argue with sincere intention. Some argue with intention to deceive others. In such cases, it would be fairly beneficial to be able to identify it.

No. The validity of an argument isn't dependent on the good faith of the speaker, or any other quality of the speaker. Granted, the dishonesty of the speaker can be relevant to determining whether or not it is prudent to carry out an argument with them, but identifying fallacies in their argument presupposes that you've already judged it to be worth your time to do so.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 07:33 PM
No. The validity of an argument isn't dependent on the good faith of the speaker, or any other quality of the speaker.

Never said it was.

Granted, the dishonesty of the speaker can be relevant to determining whether or not it is prudent to carry out an argument with them, but identifying fallacies in their argument presupposes that you've already judged it to be worth your time to do so.

Possibly, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and someone can still assume the best intentions of the person beforehand.

Consider a case where someone is arguing fallaciously, but they do not realize they are, and in fact think that they are arguing validly. You first assume that they are arguing correctly, but grow suspicious based on what you start to see as flawed logic.

Now, we have two ways of demonstrating to them that they are incorrect in their argument and convincing them that they ought reconsider their opinions:

1. Enumerate all possible valid arguments and show that their argument does not hold to any of them.
2. Show them that their argument fits to a fallacy, counter-arguing their point.

The latter would be exponentially less verbose, and get the point across a lot clearer and easier than would #1.

ThisBougieLife
August 21st, 2016, 07:35 PM
The validity of an argument isn't dependent on the good faith of the speaker, or any other quality of the speaker.

In fact, claiming that the validity of an argument is contingent on that would be a...wait for it...fallacy, you got it ;) :D

Vlerchan
August 21st, 2016, 07:59 PM
These are the ones I encounter most on VT:

Name: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Use: Lots of claims that rest on some scant amount of time-series data, rest on this. On VT, it crops up most around gun-control, and gun-rights.

Name: ignoratio elenchi
Use: Gun control won't stop murders, which have been around since the dawn of time.

Name: fallacy of composition
Use: claiming the universe requires cause because it's phenomena do.

Name: anecdotal fallacy
Use: Well, my cousin Tony is still unemployed, what are you talking about the economy is getting better?

Reise
August 21st, 2016, 08:10 PM
This interests me. You say it can be done to any argument - can you reductively interpret this argument into a fallacy, to demonstrate this point?

1. If I am sleeping, then I am not awake.
2. I am awake.
_________
3. Therefore, I am not sleeping.

Sorry but this statement only stands because of its binary characteristic that permits to rationally deduct that if one state is false then the other is true (hello Boolean functions).
If you are omitting this, your argument is indeed fallacious in itself.
You say that if A (sleeping) is true then B (awake) is wrong.

Simply stating that B is true does not mean A is false unless you can present a particular case of the Karnaugh map where if one given state is true or false the other state must be its exact opposite such as:

A(FALSE) => B(TRUE)
A(TRUE) => B(FALSE)
B(TRUE) => A(FALSE)
B(FALSE) => A(TRUE)

Your statement in itself only gives the outcome of one of the 8 possibilities (this can easily be reduced by the fact that one state can't contradict itself).
But as you are implying that there is a binary condition and thus implicitly claim that A ∧ B (regardless of TRUE/FALSE) is impossible we can reduce this to:
A(FALSE) <=> B(TRUE)
A(TRUE) <=> B(FALSE)

In this case your conclusion A(FALSE) is valid as you stated B(TRUE).

I've not been too rigorous on this post, but the response of ArkansasGuy wasn't satisfying at all imo.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 08:16 PM
In fact, claiming that the validity of an argument is contingent on that would be a...wait for it...fallacy, you got it ;) :D

Well said.

These are the ones I encounter most on VT:

Name: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Use: Lots of claims that rest on some scant amount of time-series data, rest on this. On VT, it crops up most around gun-control, and gun-rights.

Name: ignoratio elenchi
Use: Gun control won't stop murders, which have been around since the dawn of time.

Name: fallacy of composition
Use: claiming the universe requires cause because it's phenomena do.

Name: anecdotal fallacy
Use: Well, my cousin Tony is still unemployed, what are you talking about the economy is getting better?

Good examples!

Sorry but this statement only stands because of its binary characteristic that permits to rationally deduct that if one state is false then the other is true (hello Boolean functions).
If you are committing this, your argument is indeed fallacious in itself.
You say that if A (sleeping) is true then B (awake) is wrong.

Simply stating that B is true does not mean A is false unless you can present a particular case of the Karnaugh map where if one given state is true or false the other state must be its exact opposite such as:

A(FALSE) => B(TRUE)
A(TRUE) => B(FALSE)
B(TRUE) => A(FALSE)
B(FALSE) => A(TRUE)

Your statement in itself only gives the outcome of one of the 8 possibilities (this can easily be reduced by the fact that one state can't contradict itself).
But as you are implying that there is a binary condition and thus implicitly claim that A ∧ B (regardless of TRUE/FALSE) is impossible we can reduce this to:
A(FALSE) <=> B(TRUE)
A(TRUE) <=> B(FALSE)

In this case your conclusion A(FALSE) is valid as you stated B(TRUE).

I've not been too rigorous on this post, but the response of ArkansasGuy wasn't satisfying at all imo.

The argument I provided is of the valid argument form, Modus Tollens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens).

Edit: If you'd like, I'll happily provide the full proof expanded from syllogism form for the sake of clarity.

Reise
August 21st, 2016, 08:26 PM
The argument I provided is of the valid argument form, Modus Tollens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens).
This is indeed more rigorous. :D

http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2016/08/22/16082203403195575.jpg

There is no need to clarify, I understand it.
Just wanted to give a deeper insight.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 08:46 PM
This is indeed more rigorous. :D

image (http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2016/08/22/16082203403195575.jpg)

There is no need to clarify, I understand it.
Just wanted to give a deeper insight.

Fair enough. Good detail.

Have you studied formal logic significantly outside of boolean functions?

mattsmith48
August 21st, 2016, 11:17 PM
PlasmaHam

1. What is the philosophy/ideology/belief?
Anti gun control arguments

2. What is the most common fallacy you've witnessed from those who argue for this philosophy/ideology/belief?
(bonus points for also providing the logical form of the fallacy)

-Guns save lives, if someone sneak into your house you can kill him.
-If the victims had guns with them they would still be alive.
-If you ban guns nothing stops a dictator from taking over, or the goverment from doing everything they want.
-You can't ban guns because they would still be available illegally but weed thats too dangerous and it should stay illeagal
-Strict gun control might worked in every other countries but it would never work in the US

Reise
August 22nd, 2016, 02:42 AM
Fair enough. Good detail.

Have you studied formal logic significantly outside of boolean functions?
Only to make some SCIENCE! outta it.
Which means ALU architectures, more advanced things come with artificial neurons though.

Arkansasguy
August 22nd, 2016, 09:26 AM
Never said it was.



Possibly, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and someone can still assume the best intentions of the person beforehand.

Consider a case where someone is arguing fallaciously, but they do not realize they are, and in fact think that they are arguing validly. You first assume that they are arguing correctly, but grow suspicious based on what you start to see as flawed logic.

Now, we have two ways of demonstrating to them that they are incorrect in their argument and convincing them that they ought reconsider their opinions:

1. Enumerate all possible valid arguments and show that their argument does not hold to any of them.
2. Show them that their argument fits to a fallacy, counter-arguing their point.

The latter would be exponentially less verbose, and get the point across a lot clearer and easier than would #1.

You should point out the fallacy, but if you know of the valid form of your opponent's argument, the honest thing to do would be to refute it directly. For example, it's possible someone somewhere has said "things in the universe require causes therefore the universe requires a cause", but that isn't the argument for why the universe requires a cause. Ditto for "I don't know why things are the way they are, therefore God exists", though I doubt if anyone has ever actually argued that.

Bleid
August 22nd, 2016, 07:03 PM
Only to make some SCIENCE! outta it.
Which means ALU architectures, more advanced things come with artificial neurons though.

A laudable cause.

You should point out the fallacy, but if you know of the valid form of your opponent's argument, the honest thing to do would be to refute it directly.

Well, in the case that the argument is valid, then a fallacy wouldn't exist to point out by definition. You could only argue the soundness; taking issue with the truth of one of the premises.

For example, it's possible someone somewhere has said "things in the universe require causes therefore the universe requires a cause", but that isn't the argument for why the universe requires a cause. Ditto for "I don't know why things are the way they are, therefore God exists", though I doubt if anyone has ever actually argued that.

Agreed, those aren't the best arguments for those two conclusions, but if they were to be argued, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to call either of them out for fallacious reasoning.

In fact, if someone was to assume that the arguer of one of one of the above two arguments was intending to argue the better versions that were not provided, they risk being called out for straw manning their opponent.

Paraxiom
August 24th, 2016, 07:02 PM
You should point out the fallacy, but if you know of the valid form of your opponent's argument, the honest thing to do would be to refute it directly. For example, it's possible someone somewhere has said "things in the universe require causes therefore the universe requires a cause", but that isn't the argument for why the universe requires a cause. Ditto for "I don't know why things are the way they are, therefore God exists", though I doubt if anyone has ever actually argued that.

It's arguable that the example you've given is a destination of actually many different arguments, rather than there being one argument for why the universe requires a cause.



Name: fallacy of composition
Use: claiming the universe requires cause because it's phenomena do.


This is a convenient classic to some, yes (including me!).

No. The validity of an argument isn't dependent on the good faith of the speaker, or any other quality of the speaker.

I do see it as dependent on the perceptual ability quality of the speaker and those to whom the speaker directs the argument, with what I am saying below.

Bleid Reise

I'll jump in and give a rough general view that the validity of an argument to be on the interaction of definitions/ideas through their meanings, such that they either coherently produce a larger picture that a valid argument proposes, or they do not coherently produce the larger picture that an invalid argument proposes. It can be seen like constructing greater ideas/etc out of lesser ones through a blueprint.

It's down to the raw meaning in the form and usage of definitions.

"If Q then P. If P then R. Therefore, if Q then R."

That is valid for viewpoints which comprehend the English language structure, some mathematics, and the special meaning of the Q, P and R as abstracted placeholders for variables. The coherent picture they form together can only happen if you are able to comprehend/perceive the meanings and definitions already.

Hypothetically, the letters above could actually be entirely different entities to some alien life form with rough similarity of sentience to humans. Each visual pattern (letters to us) and their arrangements could form an entirely different picture which turns out to be invalid, if it is of course an argument (or some alien analogy of such).

Note that I am talking specifically about validity here, not soundness (though it could be brought in). I hope that the likely subtlety of what I've just said doesn't lead to a misunderstanding with that. I'm taking an experiential psychological angle here, without trying to involve objective stuff as givens. Even the principle of noncontradiction (PNC) is an idea.


Ditto for "I don't know why things are the way they are, therefore God exists", though I doubt if anyone has ever actually argued that.

We may all be surprised yet with the presence of such arguments, if any (which I unfortunately expect).

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 06:18 PM
I'll jump in and give a rough general view that the validity of an argument to be on the interaction of definitions/ideas through their meanings, such that they either coherently produce a larger picture that a valid argument proposes, or they do not coherently produce the larger picture that an invalid argument proposes. It can be seen like constructing greater ideas/etc out of lesser ones through a blueprint.

It's down to the raw meaning in the form and usage of definitions.

"If Q then P. If P then R. Therefore, if Q then R."

That is valid for viewpoints which comprehend the English language structure, some mathematics, and the special meaning of the Q, P and R as abstracted placeholders for variables. The coherent picture they form together can only happen if you are able to comprehend/perceive the meanings and definitions already.

Hypothetically, the letters above could actually be entirely different entities to some alien life form with rough similarity of sentience to humans. Each visual pattern (letters to us) and their arrangements could form an entirely different picture which turns out to be invalid, if it is of course an argument (or some alien analogy of such).

Note that I am talking specifically about validity here, not soundness (though it could be brought in). I hope that the likely subtlety of what I've just said doesn't lead to a misunderstanding with that. I'm taking an experiential psychological angle here, without trying to involve objective stuff as givens. Even the principle of noncontradiction (PNC) is an idea.

Argument A:
1. If A then B
2. A
_____
3. B

If this argument was read by an alien, and the symbols were understood to form a different, invalid argument to that alien, such as,

Argument B:
1. If A then B
2. B
_____
3. A

This would not change whether argument A is valid or not. It would be argument B - the alien's interpreted argument - that is invalid, which it either is or is not.

The key is in the emphasized part above. It is a different picture and hence a different argument at that point. Is this the correct understanding?

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 06:35 PM
Argument A:
1. If A then B
2. A
_____
3. B

If this argument was read by an alien, and the symbols were understood to form a different, invalid argument to that alien, such as,

Argument B:
1. If A then B
2. B
_____
3. A

This would not change whether argument A is valid or not. It would be argument B - the alien's interpreted argument - that is invalid, which it either is or is not.

The key is in the emphasized part above. It is a different picture and hence a different argument at that point. Is this the correct understanding?

Yes, I agree with this My point is that validity is dependent on definitions/ideas and their intended interactions to produce something else; the argument is this process of intended interaction.

What makes the argument invalid is insufficient perception by the arguer of the 'elemental' ideas within it; the ideas demand a certain amount of perception/comprehension and falling short of this in critical ways means that the arguer is actually using faulty ideas and/or faulty interactions between them.

A result is found by the conclusion, but it is different to the result seen by the majority (presumably) the majority of other people, who sufficiently comprehend these ideas and their certain interactions.

It's about differing perceptions which can critically alter the form of arguments. Common identities shared by a population tend to have differing meanings they are attached to, within this population.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 06:37 PM
It's about differing perceptions which can critically alter the form of arguments.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/52906927.jpg

---

I also agree with Bleid, that regardless of whether one is capable, or incapable, or comprehending the argument, the argument remains valid, in and of itself.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 06:39 PM
image (https://cdn.meme.am/instances/52906927.jpg)

\_(ツ)_/

Trust me, I don't appear odd without good reason. You can ask me further.