Have Creating Logical Fallacies Detrimented Logical Reasoning?

[wizanda]

Having spent years debating religion, people generally look for the shortest argument from a list of logical fallacies, and not actually deal with a solid equation, that when assessed fully has complete potential.

There are Rules of Reasoning that can be turned into mathematical equations, as everything in reality can be reduced down to its mathematical simplicities.

Thus have logical fallacies actually detrimented logical conversation, as some people have been taught to be knowledgable at arguing, not at reasoning?

There is also a big difference between "telling", and 'showing someone" how to understand something, and how debate structuring of understanding, has become a battle of arguments, not an assessment of reasoning.

If we look at ancient Greek concepts of reasoning, I'd say modern society is so dumbed down, we're backwards, and then most will find an argument to say that is wrong; yet not realize we've become dumber as a society, to then not ask why we're not reasoning.

In my opinion.

 

[ratiocinator]

The wording of your question is ambiguous, which doesn't bode well.

Yes, you can define rules of reasoning (truth-functional or categorical logic, for example) but they are nothing like what you linked to.

Fallacies are just bad arguments, so using them means that the reasoning is invalid (but not necessarily that the conclusion is false).

Anybody claiming to have logical reasoning on their side should educate themselves in logic (this really should be obvious), which would include a good understanding of fallacies.

People can get carried away and "see" fallacies everywhere even when the argument only bears a slight similarity - they are not a substitute for logical thought and careful analysis.

 

[joe1776]

Having spent years debating religion, people generally look for the shortest argument from a list of logical fallacies, and not actually deal with a solid equation, that when assessed fully has complete potential.

That hasn't been my experience. I find that most posters on forums like this one are simply argumentative. They don't understand even the basics of debate. They offer opinions unsupported by reasons along with five or six of the same logical fallacies such as strawman arguments and pointing out exceptions to general statements.

Thus have logical fallacies actually detrimented logical conversation, as some people have been taught to be knowledgable at arguing, not at reasoning?

There is a current controversy. One positive group claims clear scientific evidence that the teaching of critical thinking is effective. Their negative opponents claim clear scientific evidence that it is not effective.

My bet is that the negative group is right. We are born with a given talent for reasoning. We can improve on it through experience in reasoning, such as in forums like this one. I think the instruction in critical thinking courses is of very little value.

If we look at ancient Greek concepts of reasoning, I'd say modern society is so dumbed down, we're backwards, and then most will find an argument to say that is wrong; yet not realize we've become dumber as a society, to then not ask why we're not reasoning.

That's not a reasonable deduction, in my opinion. You are comparing the Greek concepts of reasoning that have survived because they make sense to the unfiltered reasoning ability of average citizens in a modern society. That's not a fair comparison.

 

[rational experiences]

Stephen Hawking was a male that I saw was leaving us everyday who owned concepts of thinking that gave science information then removed it.

Science logically does not allow nor like or support that form of reasoning in science.

Yet they claim numbers and letters and symbols, not natural, meaning substance, created and present natural form...all existing before he did...as a male thinking.

Who taught me as a female...who said I invented the concept of science as a male and as a human being.

Therefore science does not represent natural, being logical.

Logic existed first he says, the ownership of being rational.

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms:
logical · reasoned · well reasoned · 
lucid · coherent · sane · 
intelligent · thinking · 
[more]

Natural owned that statement first.

Then he gave logic and rational other explanations, as if to possess and remove what natural allowed him to be aware of.

A spiritual self explains, natural awareness existed first, as logic and reason.

Science therefore is not rational it is ir rational.

What does IR stand for?
IR stands for Infared and means the remote must be pointed directly at the receiver. RF stands for Radio Frequency and means the remote is multi-directional. Just about every remote that comes with any piece of A/V equipment these days uses an IR based control system.

Red, existing before Jesus as a theme
https://www.reference.com/world-view/color-red-mean-bible-c96fe61398d808d3

Matthew 16:2-3, it denotes the color of the sky. In the Book of Revelations, red takes on more ominous overtones, indicating the Great Dragon, also understood to be Satan, as well as one of the four horses carrying the riders of the Apocalypse, specifically, the rider that ultimately brings terror via warfare. Additionally, red is understood as invoking war in II Kings 3:22, vengeance in Isaiah 63:2 and temptation in Proverbs 23:31.

Science says its awareness is logical to what condition actually?

If a human says to their natural aware lived life memory of self, a baby to an adult...inheriting DNA that many adults may have lived owning before in that exact same sequence. Proven by little children and human memory and why it was preached about return in human life and reincarnation.

And we say, God as machine material was complete in empty zero out of space.

That did not involve our gas atmospheric condition for a bio Nature.

How is that advice not reasonable to another human being, who is natural first before choice?

Now ask yourselves scientist, if you built a machine that did not previously exist...and base science on a God O pi that also did not exist rationally it was just an equation first.....when you built your machine and it reacted, what did you claim occurred to sacrifice your male human life?

How can a male given a healthy male life, who says life is health and longevity claim it is righteous to have it sacrificed?

How can that statement be a valid scientific reasoning about the state creation as a theme in science?

Only males who wanted the practices of machine sciences would claim it righteous to allow life to be sacrificed, whilst also claiming it Holy and sacred.

And it owns no other logical or rational explanation...for as humans have said many times over and over again...…...to have natural life removed is not any holy or spiritual act.

So if science wants to argue logic and rational....natural owned it first....science never did.

And then males, who do not even own a life in the cosmos would want to argue what a living male organic life living after animals is allowed to claim is rational.....when his life and consciousness does not even exist past self as a human existing...….yet hear all of his fake coercive arguments to the contrary.

 

[Stevicus]

Having spent years debating religion, people generally look for the shortest argument from a list of logical fallacies, and not actually deal with a solid equation, that when assessed fully has complete potential.

There are Rules of Reasoning that can be turned into mathematical equations, as everything in reality can be reduced down to its mathematical simplicities.

Thus have logical fallacies actually detrimented logical conversation, as some people have been taught to be knowledgable at arguing, not at reasoning?

There is also a big difference between "telling", and 'showing someone" how to understand something, and how debate structuring of understanding, has become a battle of arguments, not an assessment of reasoning.

If we look at ancient Greek concepts of reasoning, I'd say modern society is so dumbed down, we're backwards, and then most will find an argument to say that is wrong; yet not realize we've become dumber as a society, to then not ask why we're not reasoning.

In my opinion.

I think some people enjoy the adversarial system we have, so that winning the argument becomes more important than any kind of mutual agreement or compromise.

Sometimes, citing logical fallacies can seem a bit anal retentive - or more akin to attorneys looking for technicalities and loopholes in order to exonerate a sleazy client.

It doesn't mean that they're technically wrong, although it's fair to ask their motives in doing so. That's usually what ends up being conspicuously absent in many such discussions.

A lot of times, people who like to point out others' so-called "logical fallacies" try to pass themselves off as pompous, stuffy old professors whose only interest is in correcting some errant student's sloppy work. They like to pretend that there's no motive other than that. I don't know that this brings detriment to logical reasoning, in and of itself, but it does cause some to question the sincerity of others and whether they're arguing in good faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A lot of times, people who like to point out others' so-called "logical fallacies" try to pass themselves off as pompous, stuffy old professors whose only interest is in correcting some errant student's sloppy work.

Identifying logical fallacies is a useful means of helping all to think better. When a non sequitur or strawman is in play, identify it as such. That is the rebuttal.

When the creationist tells me that a living cell is too complex to have arisen uncreated and undesigned, then posits something even less likely to exist uncreated and undesigned to account for it - a god - call him on his special pleading. Rebuttal complete.

Then when he tells me that I can't prove that his god doesn't exist, point out his fallacious argument from ignorance. Rebuttal complete.

Or if he asks me to prove that his god doesn't exist, he's committed a burden of proof fallacy. Rebuttal complete.

it does cause some to question the sincerity of others and whether they're arguing in good faith.

Arguing in good faith does not prevent one who is unskilled in logic from committing logical fallacies.

And the one identifying fallacies is also arguing in good faith.

 

[Stevicus]

Identifying logical fallacies is a useful means of helping all to think better. When a non sequitur or strawman is in play, identify it as such. That is the rebuttal.

When the creationist tells me that a living cell is too complex to have arisen uncreated and undesigned, then posits something even less likely to exist uncreated and undesigned to account for it - a god - call him on his special pleading. Rebuttal complete.

Then when he tells me that I can't prove that his god doesn't exist, point out his fallacious argument from ignorance. Rebuttal complete.

Or if he asks me to prove that his god doesn't exist, he's committed a burden of proof fallacy. Rebuttal complete.

Yes, this is all well and good, but it ignores the point about motivation. Why would someone feel the need to put forth a rebuttal in the first place? Is it in the context of a formal, organized debate where the topic is already decided and the sides chosen? Is it in the context of a teacher or professor attempting to correct an errant student?

When you say "Rebuttal complete," isn't that just another way of saying "I win the argument"? That would confirm my initial point about people enjoying the adversarial system to the point where "winning the argument" becomes more important than any other consideration.

Arguing in good faith does not prevent one who is unskilled in logic from committing logical fallacies.

And the one identifying fallacies is also arguing in good faith.

Again, it depends on the motives. If it's simply a matter of debating as parlor game, where winning is the only objective, then one could say they won fairly and according to the rules. But that's just a game; I don't take that as being sincere. Some people seem to argue in such a way as to cause question as to whether they really believe in what they're arguing for. Some people seem to have more of a personal ax to grind.