#Logical Fallacies illustrated with syscourse

[syscourse-fallacies]

Affirming a Disjunct:

This fallacy is: "Either traumagenic or endogenic causes can cause plurality. Trauma can cause DID. Therefore endogenic causes cannot cause plurality."

This is a fallacy because it assumes that if A (trauma causation), then not B (endogenic causation.) There's nothing proving that the two are exclusive to each other in the claims, nor that they can't both be true at the same time. For a different example:

Either Mary is a human or Mary is a woman. Mary is provably a human, therefore Mary cannot be a woman.

But both can be true at the same time because each side of the argument does not preclude the other.

A properly formatted logical disjunct would be "Either trauma CAN cause plurality, or trauma can NOT cause plurality. Trauma has been proven to cause plurality, therefore 'trauma cannot cause plurality' is false."

There's also the fallacy of assuming that since DID contains plurality, all plurality is DID. That fallacy will be addressed in another post.

[cambriancrew]

I'm thinking about making a sideblog/gimmick blog that's focused on illustrating* logical fallacies with syscourse examples. Not all examples would be things that are actually discussed with any kind of regularity, but it may be fun and may spark some discussion on things that aren't talked about to death here. What do you think?

*Not intended to be with actual art.

[fagsystem]

I want to add onto this to make clear it is important to understand not just fallacies, but logic and reasoning. Fallacies are often times used as a buzzword to undermine arguments, which within itself is a fallacy.

Fallacies are things that undermine the logic and reasoning behind an argument. The presence of fallacies does not make the argument incorrect, and the lack of fallacies does not make the argument incorrect.

Misrepresenting what a fallacy means is actually a form of fallacy called a definist fallacy. It is where a specific and biased definition of a term is provided to make a claim difficult to disbute.*

Here are some examples:

- Example One -

"I have taken many science classes over the duration of my life. I have learnt many things during these classes. So you can trust me when I tell you the sky is blue."

This is an example of a false authority fallacy. The statement 'the sky is blue' is not necessarily false, but the reasoning is based in a personal opinion and dubious credentials.

I learnt about logic, reasoning, and therefore fallacies in a philosophy class. So I also learnt about standard form. It is premise 1 is x, and premise 2 is why, and therefore conclusion. Here is an example of this in standard form to illustrate it.

1. Y made the claim the sky is blue.

2. Y has taken some unknown form of science class which has been implied to have confirmed the claim to be true.

Therefore, Y is correct about their claim.

Does that clear up how the fallacy invalidates the reasoning?

- Example Two -

"The sky is blue because that is the colour that people see when we look at the sky during the day. It is also the colour most commonly associated with the sky."

This example presents a better reasoning for the argument the sky is blue. In standard form that would be:

1. The sky appears to be blue when it is observed during the day.

2. Blue is the colour most commonly associated with the sky.

Therefore, the sky is blue.

- Example Three -

"I have taken many science classes over the duration of my life. I have learnt many things during these classes. So you can trust me when I tell you the sky is blue."

This claim is not one that many people would support due to blue being the most commonly associated colour with the sky. And the reasoning as to why it is orange is not logically sound.

1. Y made the claim the sky is orange.

2. Y has taken some unknown form of science class which has been implied to have confirmed the claim to be true.

Therefore, Y is correct about their claim.

- Example Four -

"The sky is orange because it is orange during the sunset. It is commonly believed that the sky is blue despite it not being blue all the time. That means either the sky isn't blue or it is also orange."

This is an example of a claim that many would argue it is false due to the claim that 'the sky is orange'. However, it has good reasoning. Here it is presented in standard form:

1. The sky appears to be orange when observed during sunsets.

2. The sky only appears to be blue during the day time.

Therefore, the claims 'the sky is blue' and 'the sky is orange' are both either equally truthful or equally false.

- Example Five -

"You just said that the sky is orange, but claiming that it is not blue is the same as claiming it can be all colours. The sky is blue, not green."

This is an example of a straw man fallacy, one I see most commonly in syscourse and the one I see most typically cited falsely in general. The straw man fallacy is specifically broadening the topic and bringing up other, unrelated points that makes the opposition look unreasonable.

In standard form:

1. Person Y made the claim the sky is orange.

2. People make the claim the sky is green, which is false.

Therefore, claiming that the sky is any colour other than blue is false because it implies that the sky can be any colour at all, like green.

- Example Six - *

"When Y said the sky was blue you used a definitional retreat fallacy, which is where you change the definition of a word to suit your argument. The colour of the sky changes and Y is not acknowledging that because the actual definition proves them wrong."

This is a 2-fold example of a definist fallacy. A definist fallacy is where biased usage of language is presented as entirely truthful. In this argument, it is done both with a) the definition of a definitional retreat fallacy and b) what it means to say the sky is a colour.

A) A definitional retreat fallacy is about changing a definition, retreating on a previously stated definition, after information proves previous reasoning with the previous definition to be false.

For example:

"The sky is only blue even when it doesn't look blue, because it was blue earlier in the day."

"The sky actually appears to be a multitude of colours throughout the day, therefore saying it is blue is inaccurate."

"The sky always appears blue somewhere in the world, which is why it is blue even when it does not appear blue."

The definition was not retreated on, it was simply disagreed about.

B) It makes the claim that saying, "The sky is blue," implies that it it is always blue and only blue and can never be any other colour.

Presented in standard form:

1. Y made the claim that the sky is blue.

2. The sky does not always appear blue, and claiming that the sky is blue is the same as claiming it is always blue and never any other colours.

Therefore, Y used the definitional retreat fallacy in their argument.

(Not a good example of standard form. I really should have introduced the concept of a definitional retreat fallacy in standard form. And honestly, this could have sound reasoning despite it's invalid logic if I structured it right, but the differences between logic and reasoning are difficult to explain in a text post.

Simply, logic = correct and reasoning = justified.)

Honestly, I truly believe every single syscourser would benefit from learning about logic and reasoning. Many of us appear to be entirely incapable of it. Which is why I honestly very strongly discourage people trying to figure out fallacies behind arguments. Unless people understand what that actually means, in which case they need to understand logic and reasoning, they are most likely just going to end up using the term fallacy incorrectly as a buzz word.

Remember: Something can have perfectly sound reasoning and be logically valid and you can still disagree. I am too tired to double check (always always always double check the validity or posts you are reading, even mine) but I believe both examples 2 and 4 are logically valid and have sound reasoning. You can agree with both, agree with only one, agree with neither.

Disagreeing with something (or agreeing with it) does not make it logically invalid or make its reasoning unsound. It especially does not mean it utilises fallacies. Unless you can make your own logically valid argument that has sound reasoning justifying that that another person's argument lacks that, your argument about them lacking it holds no weight.

Anyways.

While misinformation is running rampant in the syscourse community, it’s important to also acknowledge that fallacies being used is contributing to that misinformation, and being able to identify fallacies will help you more in the long run than just deeming them misinformation. Addressing misinformation without addressing the fallacies that many are using can lead to people deeming all fallacies misinformation, which is why I attempted to clarify. There is a problem with misinformation, but the bigger problem is people trying to use fallacies to explain their logic, which when stated as a fact, becomes misinformation.

Not every fallacy is misinformation, and being able to tell the difference might make syscourse a lot more smooth, rather than everyone tossing the word misinfo around like it’s a football.