Comments about "Fallacy" in Wikipedia

This document contains comments about the article Fallacy in Wikipedia
In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.

Contents

Reflection

Introduction

The article starts with the following sentence.

1. Overview

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts".Informal fallacies in particular are found frequently in mass media such as television and newspapers. It is important to understand what fallacies are so that one can recognize them in either one's own or others' writing.
This is a very poor introduction about the concept of fallaxcies.
It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.
That maybe true, but what exactly means fallacious? How do you prevent this?
Fallacies are used in place of valid reasoning to communicate a point with the intention to persuade. Examples in the mass media today include but are not limited to propaganda, advertisements, politics, newspaper editorials and opinion-based “news” shows.
Yes all of that may be true. But how do you know what is fallicious and what is not?

2 Systems of classification

Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or their content, such as classifying them as formal fallacies or informal fallacies, respectively.
Such a classification does not make sense when you perform science.

2.1 Aristotle

Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument.
I doubt if Aristotle ever tried to win an argument based on errors by his oponent.
It is highly possible that Aristotle tried to classify what is proper argumentation versus bad argumentation.
A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about,
I assume Aristotle means lack of knowledge of the arguer about the subject.
while a verbal fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.
Ambiguous word use can also be an issue related to the subject discussed.
A language-independent fallacy is for example:
" 1) Coriscus is different from Socrates."
" 2) Socrates is a man."
" 3) Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man."
The problem in this discussion is line #1: What means "Is different". Because that is not clear the whole line of reasoning becomes faulty.
Line #1 should be something like: Coriscus and Socrates are two individuals.

2.2 Whately's grouping

2.3 Other systems of classification

3 Formal fallacy

A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
That may be true. The problem is before you can claim that the argument is invalid you must first clearly define what each means. The whole question is to what extend it makes sense to do that in the first place.
The term logical fallacy is in a sense self-contradictory, because logic refers to valid reasoning, whereas a fallacy is the use of poor reasoning.
Logical means to follow a set of clearly defined unambiguous (mathematical) rules. A logical fallacy in this context means to make in error accordindly to those rules or the rules themself contain an error because they don't lead to the predicted result.
Therefore, the term formal fallacy is preferred.
This does not solve the issue. What means formal fallacy?

3.1 Common examples

3.1.1 Ecological fallacy

An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."
In fact that is correct. Suppose you have two countries which each 50% Protestants and 50% Catholics and in each country 5% of the Protestants and 2% of the Catholics commit suicide then the Protestants are be more likely to commit suicide. The problem is that does not say anything about each specific individual. The only thing what these statistics say is that if some one commits suicide it is more propable he or she is a Protestant than a Catholic.

3.2 Fallacy fork

4 Informal fallacy

In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument.
This sentence is not very clear.

4.1 Faulty generalization

4.1.1 Hasty generalization

4.2 Relevance fallacy

4.2.1 Argumentum ex silentio

4.3 Examples of informal fallacies

4.3.1 Post hoc (false cause)

4.3.2 Slippery slope

4.3.3 False analogy

5 Measurement fallacy

Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement.
Okay.
Where mathematical fallacies are subtle mistakes in reasoning leading to invalid mathematical proofs,
Mathematical mistakes lead to invalid results.
The importance if the subject discussed is clearly a mathematical issue operating in the mathematical world or a mathematical issue originating from a physical problem.
measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps involved in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement-based value claim.
The sentence is not clear.

5.1 Knowledge value measurement fallacy

6 Intentional fallacy

Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally.
This is never a good practice. What a speaker can do is to offer choices and ask the audience to select the best choice.
In any context, including academic debate, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
IMO it is purely stupid to do that. Someone is never allowed to use fallacious reasoning on purpose in an audience to convince them that I'm wrong, when that is not the case.

7 Assessment: pragmatic theory

The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component. A dialogue has individual goals for each participant, but also collective (shared) goals that apply to all participants. A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue. It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation, based on sleight-of-hand.
Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest.
But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists. The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation, but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labeled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue. Hence on the pragmatic approach, each case needs to analyzed individually, to determine by the textual evidence whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable.
If you write any article based on certain assumptions and containing reasoning you should always be convinced that what you write is 100% correct and does not contain errors. That does not mean that your article can not contain uncertainties is not completely objective or includes doubts, like doubtfull facts. That is possible. But if that is the case you should mention this.

8. See also

Following is a list with "Comments in Wikipedia" about related subjects

Reflection 1 - Fallacy

The concept of Fallacy is by itself a fallacy. The problem is exactly what do we mean with fallacy.
The problem is a scientist performs science. The question is how do you perform science. Science studies the evolution of physical process in all its finest details.
When you 'heat' water it becomes hotter. When you 'cool down' water it becomes cooler. When you het water enough its starts to boil and starts to evaporate. When you cool down water starts to freeze and becomes solid i.e. ice. Boiling water we define that its temperature is 100 degrees and almost freezing water as 0 degrees. But does that mean that water always boils when it is at 100 degrees and water always becomes ice, when its temperature reaches 0 degrees? I will not answer that question. But suppose I claim that water always boils at 100 degrees is that a fallacy?
Or suppose I claim that water does not always boil at 100 defrees is that a fallacy?
Both questions don't make much sense. The only important thing is first, to do research and to perform accurate research experiments to investigate if water always boils at 100 degrees and secondly to ask different institutions to perform the same experiments (or different ones) to see if they come up with the same results.

That is how science works.

Reflection 2

Reflection 3

Feedback

If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 17 August 2020

Go Back to Wikipedia Comments in Wikipedia documents
Back to my home page Index