Logical Fallacy Ref part 2
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
18 comments displayed.
#11
-
brainbug (07/16/2015) [-]
Did you just call reduction to absurdity a logical fallacy, or am I misunderstanding?
#13 to #11
-
alucardhell [OP](07/16/2015) [-] In a way yes. Reductio ad absurdum, meaning reduction to absurdity, is when you say this must be true just on the basis of the opposite is just absurd. The problem is in the fact that the entire discussion becomes no longer logic or factual based, but opinion based. This works in some situations, but fails miserably when not fully informed. For what is "obsurd" can be dependant on what you know.
Example: "God exists, otherwise we wouldn't have the bible"
That argument was used by the church for centuries to prove that there was a god.
Example: "God exists, otherwise we wouldn't have the bible"
That argument was used by the church for centuries to prove that there was a god.
#15 to #14
-
alucardhell [OP](07/17/2015) [-] A fact has more backing than just "The opposite is just absurd".
#6
-
killerblead (07/16/2015) [-]
I thought my English was good enough, but some of these are pretty difficult to read.
#7 to #6
-
alucardhell [OP](07/16/2015) [-] If you want help understanding any of them, i am willing on helping.
#8 to #7
-
killerblead (07/16/2015) [-]
Well the first one for example.
Does it mean they have the wrong number of players on/during defence?
Does it mean they have the wrong number of players on/during defence?
#9 to #8
-
alucardhell [OP](07/16/2015) [-] So these are all logical Fallacies. They don't have anything to do with the sport of Football itself. It is just paying off the fact that in logical debates it would be nice to have a ref who stops the debate and calls out fallacies when they occur.
The Equivication Fallacy is when you use a word with multiple meanings and not clarifying which meaning you are using and then later using that misunderstanding by the opposing debater to defeat him.
The Equivication Fallacy is when you use a word with multiple meanings and not clarifying which meaning you are using and then later using that misunderstanding by the opposing debater to defeat him.
#10 to #9
-
killerblead (07/16/2015) [-]
Ahh, See I would have never figured that one out on my own. Thanks!
#1
-
ubercookieboy (07/15/2015) [-] Argument to Logic
Assumed offence's conclusion to be false because of poor argument.
Assumed offence's conclusion to be false because of poor argument.
#5 to #1
-
pokemonstheshiz (07/16/2015) [-] That looks kind of like Woody Harrleson if he got punched in the face
#17
-
runescapewasgood (10/31/2015) [-] too much reading, no clear purpose to these. cant see these ever making the front page
