Is fallacy always bad?
Bill Chiu
Is fallacy always bad? If fallacy can be good at all, how do one
predict without error which fallacy is bad and which is good? If we
cannot predict it being good or bad, what can we say about fallacy
when it comes to making choices?
Same question, but replace 'fallacy' with its opposite.
a beginner,
Bill
arsl...@nospamattbi.com
wrote:
From dictionary.com:
fal·la·cy
n. pl. fal·la·cies
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid
inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.
Which one do you want to use?
Night Child
Good and bad are moral adjectives. If you mean true and false then
yes a fallacy can yield a truth but it would only be by chance. It would
not be smart to rely on the same fallacy again when applied to a
different question. In my opinion the only time fallacy is "good" is
when it is used in comedy.
Fallacy is incorrect logic. Im not sure what the second part of your
question is asking..."Is correct logic always bad?"
NC
Bill Chiu
>
> Good and bad are moral adjectives. If you mean true and false then
> yes a fallacy can yield a truth but it would only be by chance. It would
> not be smart to rely on the same fallacy again when applied to a
> different question. In my opinion the only time fallacy is "good" is
> when it is used in comedy.
>
> Fallacy is incorrect logic. Im not sure what the second part of your
> question is asking..."Is correct logic always bad?"
>
> NC
Thank you NC. I am looking, from personal point of view, what's
important for me. I grow up knowing truth is good and fallacy is bad,
logic is good and fallacy is bad - but these cannot be proven in
itself - I don't see a way to prove that fallacy (in any possible
definitions) can be proved to be 'bad' in absolute sense. Another
example, how do we prove having good logic is 'good' (take any
definition of good) absolutely?
We may try statistics e.g. everyone in the world vote on 'something'
(e.g. fallacy, logic, pepsi) being 'good' or 'bad', and then we could
say with probability of p 'something' is good. However, personal
definition of 'good' changes over time for an individual (by
observation). If everyone retake the poll every second and we
recalculate the distribution, we could be sure with margin of
subseconds of our results. But some people may lie, so our result is
only as good as what people voted. In any case, for the interest of
correctness we may need to make statements such as "this statement is
a fallacy, fallacy is apparently bad with this probability
distribution 5 hours ago, I am at this point of the distribution, tell
me where you are in this distribution, and if you are minority, maybe
I can try peer pressure on you :)"
Anyway I look at it, I cannot prove anything is 'better' then another
thing, we have to rely on 'in our experience' or 'evidence' or even
'repeatability' - but these are not good enough to prove 'something',
it seems like we are proving a concept with a concept, instead of
proving a concept with something outside concepts - a fallacy. Yet we
rely everything we claim (it appears to me) on these shaky
foundations.
On the other hand, if we conservatively say "this prove here has a
fallacy", and we expect the other party to react a certain way to the
word 'fallacy' (e.g. fallacy is undesirable), then the word 'fallacy'
is a button we push to get what we want. For example, if the word
concept 'fallacy' is removed from everyone's memory except my own, and
I cannot convince anyone to take and propagate the word/concept, then
it is powerless. And since we cannot claim 'truth' to any concept
(everything is ultimately subjective), I can't even say 'because it is
true', since 'truth' is subjective e.g. we can't prove 'truth's
existence.
Bill
a beginner
Dr. Dickie
Your problem seems to come from a definition of "good" and "bad," not a problem with showing that
fallacy is bad (using the definition of bad as wrong or incorrect). If we can agree that being hit
by a car while crossing the street is bad, and not being hit by a car while crossing the street is
good, then showing that a fallacy is bad is trivial. If you hold the fallacy that darting in front
of a car will stop it from hitting you, then you will be demonstrated wrong a significant amount of
the time.
I think that making an consistently incorrect prediction is bad, therefore fallacy is bad. Perhaps
you need to set the concepts of "good" and "bad" in a context. I prefer to use the incorrect
prediction, that removes a lot of subjectivity.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
------------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein