Tools of the trade - Philosophy

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#1
So I am moving this here, to prevent derailing a thread based on differences of opinion regarding Logical Fallacies and their interpretations:

...Agree to disagree if you still don’t get it.
So I've done some reading because the Appeal to authority has a divisive element to it and I found this:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

That is by far the most comprehensive and understandable form of the Appeal to Authority that I have read to date.
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.

Example #2:

How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest industry in the United States? Derek Shlongmiester, the adult film star of over 50 years, said it was. That's how I know.

Explanation: Shlongmiester may be an industry expert, as well as have a huge talent, but a claim such as the one made would require supporting evidence. For the record, the adult film industry may be large, but on a scale from 0 to 12 inches, it's only about a fraction of an inch.

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.
 

HunterNW

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
4,495
#2
I don't agree with example 1. But that's off topic here. I do agree with the reasoning though.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#4
I don't agree with example 1. But that's off topic here. I do agree with the reasoning though.
Part of logical reasoning is the ability to say why you agree or disagree with something. You know, backing up your claim of belief or disbelief based on reasoning.
 

HunterNW

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
4,495
#6
Part of logical reasoning is the ability to say why you agree or disagree with something. You know, backing up your claim of belief or disbelief based on reasoning.
If I may. So evolution is a fact, according to Dawkins. Where's the proof ? Did he or anyone else discover fosiles that shows a fish with legs, or similar ?
 

saor

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
19,210
#7
If I may. So evolution is a fact, according to Dawkins. Where's the proof ? Did he or anyone else discover fosiles that shows a fish with legs, or similar ?
Ignore the example and focus on the argument. Pretend Dawkins made a statement about the density of water at a certain temp. According to the defintion posted, what makes it true is the measurements that can be made, not the fact that Dawkins said it.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
11,700
#8
I think what you were describing in the other thread was more an appeal to a false authority. Like your Dwayne Johnson example. As a celebrity isn't an authority on weather. So the "false". A appeal to authority is still slightly different.
 

HunterNW

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
4,495
#9
Ignore the example and focus on the argument. Pretend Dawkins made a statement about the density of water at a certain temp. According to the defintion posted, what makes it true is the measurements that can be made, not the fact that Dawkins said it.
I did say in that first post i agree with the argument/reasoning. Now i just pointed to the example i don't agree with. And Mr Knight asked me to say why i didn't agree.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#10
I did say in that first post i agree with the argument/reasoning. Now i just pointed to the example i don't agree with. And Mr Knight asked me to say why i didn't agree.
In context of the thread about Logical Fallacies and their application, specifically - Appeal to Authority

The example in the pasted bit is exactly that, to illustrate that Dawkins was an authority in his field but that his facts without proof to back it up would still be an appeal to authority because it is a reasoning error, not a factual error.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#11
To put to bed the debate on the view of Appeal to Authority.

Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Not Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true.
https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=hxSNRI8AAAAJ&hl=en
Therefore, it's true.
 

Prawnapple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
404
#12
To put to bed the debate on the view of Appeal to Authority.

Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Not Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true.
https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=hxSNRI8AAAAJ&hl=en
Therefore, it's true.
You seem like the kind of guy who might seriously enjoy this. Debunked - Kickstarter <-- Link

I've backed it and I can't wait for it to arrive :D
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#14
Thanks to Geoff for this one, I must say I was ignorant of these and now that I know them, they make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws

Question 1. Do you understand the Law of Non-Contradiction? It is that if x = A then x = Not A cannot be true simultaneously.
Law of Identity = "What is, is."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

Law of non-contradiction = "Nothing can both be and not be."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Law of Excluded Middle = "Everything must either be or not be."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
 

Geoff.D

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,395
#15
I had a vague idea that we had to study this in our Computer Science course 101 all those years ago. So I scratched out my notes ---- and a whole bunch of memories flooded back. Including Studying the roots of Boolean Algebra, and working through our Thought Projects all over again. The exercises were then (1969) to develop algorithms to see if it was possible to program a computer to reason based on these "rules".
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,952
#16
In my research with regards to Boolean Logic and Formal/Informal Logic, I learned that there are certain mathematical principles which are not algebraic (i.e. not boolean compatible) and/or others that are not compatible with logic.
 

Geoff.D

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,395
#17
You mean Propositional Logic. The best reference I have found seems to be this one:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from these methods of combining or altering statements
Propositional logic is the study of logical operators. In the English language, words such as "and", "or", "not", "if ... then...", "because", and "necessarily" are all logical operators.
Perhaps the most useful part of the reference is the section on Truth Functions and Truth Tables.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,395
#18
Good vs. Bad Arguments
myBB and indeed many fora on the internet are littered with examples of extremely poor reasoning.

I don't have a specific reference for this yet, as it comes out of my notes from University (1968 - 1972) 4 years Engineering plus 1 extra for a degree in Computer Science (some overlap in subjects at the time.

Edit 1. Here is a modern refrence that is surprisingly (to me anyway) similar to my notes from the 1960's:
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-2-good-vs-bad-arguments/

I have amended my post accordingly.

Edit 2. Then here is a diagram I came across that is pretty clear.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9153

1552227495777.png



Deductive Arguments
This is the most powerful form of reasoning. It is the type of logic that results in logical proofs. It goes from general concepts and/or specific observations to a focused conclusion.

In science, deductive logic is typically what is used to arrive at facts. In other words, we use it to determine the results of specific experiments.

Inductive logic
Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion and can be used to construct theories. It should be noted, that it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a (Scientific) theory. (Scientific) Theories only come from inductive logic.

Additionally, because of the law of large numbers, the strength of an inductive conclusion increases as the number of observations used to form the conclusion increases.

Summary
To summarize, scientists generally use deductive logic to determine the outcomes of specific experiments (sometimes inductive logic is also required depending on the nature of the experiment), and we use inductive logic to generalize from those experiments and form laws and (Scientific) theories. This is true for all laws/theories, whether we are talking about the laws of thermodynamics or the theory of gravity.

In a Good Argument, all the premises are true, there are no logical fallacies, and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

Reject a bad argument, not its conclusion. The only times you reject a bad argument and its conclusion are when the argument is absolutely essential to your opponent’s position. Under that condition, demonstrating that the argument is bad also demonstrates that the conclusion is wrong.

Law of Large Numbers
This law states that as you increase the number of repetitions in an experiment, your calculated value will approach the true value. In other words, you need a large sample size to have confidence in your results.

Perhaps the greatest support of an inductive conclusion is, however, its ability to predict other events/make things work.
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
846
#19
A creating God is Impossible: A Final Proof

A prime example of an educated fool.
Its about as stupid as stupid can possibly get.
Unbelievable.
How is it possible that a/any educated person can be so completely/utterly bereft of Logic.
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
846
#20
To put to bed the debate on the view of Appeal to Authority.

Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Not Fallacy:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true.
https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=hxSNRI8AAAAJ&hl=en
Therefore, it's true.
How does this post put the "Appeal to Authority" thing to bed, and how does the link you provided feature?
 
Top