Comment

Comment on What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments?

To be clear, almost every argument contains a fallacy in it. Having a fallacy in an argument only introduces the possibility of it being wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.

An example of a valid argument is like:

P1: Socrates is a man P2: All men are mortal C: Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is guaranteed to be correct if the premises are correct. Most scientific arguments are technically invoking a fallacy or are invalid in some way, due to the extrapolation from an experiment in lab conditions to a more general conclusion.

source

Sort:hotnew top

foggy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
You’re conflating two separate ideas.

A valid arguent needn’t any logical fallacy.

source
foggy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Okay I’m free now.

Im so glad you gave me this gem.

Your response itself relies on several fallacies… false equivalence, hasty generalization, equivocation, a strawman, and non sequitur reasoning, probably more?

You’re incorrectly conflating logical fallacies (which are clear mistakes in reasoning) with inductive uncertainty or experimental limitations in science. Logical fallacies invalidate reasoning structures. Scientific reasoning explicitly includes uncertainty and error correction as fundamental principles; it’s not fallacious; it’s cautious and probabilistic.

Additionally, your example of Socrates is actually demonstrating deductive validity, a different kind of reasoning entirely. Thus, your argument misrepresents logic and science simultaneously. Please correct these fallacies if you want this conversation to proceed productively

source