By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
OhNoYouDont on 12 July 2018
Edit Thread
Aeolus451 said:
OhNoYouDont said:

While it doesn't establish that the argument is false, it does indeed mean the argument in its current form is invalid and thus any conclusion drawn from said statement is at the very least dubious if not outright false. 

You're jumping into a weird position by countering in this manner by dealing with the distinction between the following:

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore it's false."

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore I am not accepting its inferences."

In the grand scheme of things, these differences are obsolete. The onus is on the claim maker to establish their conclusion. By failing to do so, whether or not the flawed argument's conclusion is true or false is entirely irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out.

Not exactly. A particular part could be unsound but the rest of it is fine. That doesn't mean the thing is invalid just because of a single logical flaw. 

 The distinction I'm drawing is....

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore it's false"

 It's self-defeating.The statement hinges on logical fallacies but is an argument from fallacy.

 

 "Argument contains a logical fallacy because of (long winded explanation) and because I disagree with these other points, therefore I am not accepting its inferences."

 That's completely fine.

 

The concept of logical fallacies were created to understand mistakes in reasoning. People really just use it to win arguments these days. It gets really old when people use "that's a fallacy" all the time or use it as a crutch .

I think I'm mostly in agreement with your underlying points. I agree that saying "this is guilty of X fallacy" without offering an explanation of how it falls into that fallacy is certainly not an appropriate rebuttal. I do also agree that if you're making various points to support some contention, merely because one point fails does not render your other points obsolete (or false by association).

The difference in my statement is that I'm talking about when you're making a deductive argument and one of your premises is false. Under this particular scenario, the rest of the argument becomes irrelevant since it fails the test of soundness. This is because in order for a deductive argument to be valid and sound leading to a true conclusion, all of its premises must be true.