Logical Fallacy (So you think you can logically debate?)
The term "logical fallacy" is or is not logical.
Use the model of the syllogism for your argument.
Two examples of a valid syllogism, but not all examples of the syllogism:
A is B, B is C; therefore A is C.
A is B, B is not D: therefore A is not D.
I'll post an argument at a later date.
Side Score: 5
Side Score: 5
I almost chose to eliminate the possibility of someone referring to the term as an oxymoron. But, doing so would of been another debate itself. I want to see who among the CD debaters can be logical in reason beyond being correct in the grammatical. Hence, the description of the debate,...is it logical or is it not logical.
The logical model of syllogism is inappropriate for any discussion on the validity of a term. To describe something as a logical fallacy is simply to imply that the logic used to reach the conclusion (not necessarily the conclusion itself) is not sound. You cannot measure this with the model of syllogism, which Aristotle himself defined as a discourse in which certain things having been supposed and something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.
Maybe I've misunderstood the question. Were we to give examples of logical fallacies within syllogism, or am I right in assuming that we are talking about the term itself? If it is infact the former, a fantastic example of a logical fallacy within syllogism was demonstrated on this site with the "mexico has dirty water" debate; that was certainly an enlightening example of the lack of logical thinking evident on this site.
It’s been a while since our last discourse. Not much debating here lately at CD, just a bunch of yammering, wailing, moaning, and much of whatsoever is not recognized as debate.
“To describe something as a logical fallacy is simply to imply that the logic used to reach the conclusion (not necessarily the conclusion itself) is not sound.”
The term “logical fallacy” is a conclusion and/or a predication of a subject. Are you suggesting that we cannot test the validity of such a proposition? In and of its self it is a term. Yet, as a term it is meaningless; unless we are predicating it as an attribute of a subject. Is there ever an instance when the use of such is not the predication of a subject? Are not all propositions testable by the syllogism?
We probably agree with the above. I think our difference arises from our usages of the term. You may be identifying the term as a subject only. I am identifying its usages as both a subject or a predication of a subject.
I personally do not use the term logical fallacy to describe anything. If the argument is illogical it is necessarily fallacious.
Aristotle made a distinction in his use of terms in comparison to words. All terms are words, but not all words are terms. Words became terms when used as subjects and predicates.
Are you using the term logical fallacy as a word in the stead of my use as a term?
I am very glad to see your reply!
By the way, are you an Irishman?
If so, I have many questions to ask you about the history of Ireland.
The term “logical fallacy” is a conclusion and/or a predication of a subject.
I'd tend to agree. I suppose it's the term used when one comes to the conclusion that the logic used is false. The only testing of the validity of the proposition is to test the validity of the logic in question. It is what we are appying the term to that requires the test of validity, not the term itself.
"Are not all propositions testable by the syllogism?"
No. A syllogism is defined as A is B, B is C, therefore A is C (or variations of). Only logical models of this nature are testable by syllogism. Why would the predication of a subject fall under this category in all instances? During my student years learning logic (I majored in Artificial Intelligence, so logic was a large part of my course), I often tried to use logical models for situations that did not require them. I know better now that these types of classical logics have their purpose and should only be used for those puposes. Therefore, I'm still of the opinion that the word/term itself cannot and should not be verified by logic; only the basis of its use. I would, however, be very interested to see your syllogism for the validity (or not) of the term. Maybe then any confusion that has entered into our conversation would have been cleared.
I agree with the validity of the term, as I feel it perfectly sums up the idea that it is not the conclusion that is false, simply the method by which we arrived at it. The validity of its use (as I feel you are trying to debate here) depends purely on the situation.
I'm English, by the way, and not very well versed in Irish history.
No arguments found. Add one!