= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin92 comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (316)
Does anyone have a simple, easily understood definition of "logical fallacy" that can be used to explain the concept to people who have never heard of it before?
I was trying to explain the idea to a friend a few days ago but since I didn't have a definition I had to show her www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com. She understood the concept quickly, but it would be much more reliable and eloquent to actually define it.
You think she would've understood the concept even more quickly if you had a definition? I think people underestimate the value of showing people examples as a way of communicating a concept (and overestimate the value of definitions).
Well I know I won't be around a computer 24/7, and I'd like something to explain it if I'm out and about. Although I suppose I could use a couple examples that I can just memorize, like strawman arguments and ad hominum.
To a "regular person", I might say something like "a logical fallacy is a form of reasoning that seems good to many humans, but actually isn't very good".
I don't think this is so simple to explain, because to really understand logical fallacies you need to understand what a proof is. Not a lot of people understand what a proof is.
On the other hand, I think people can acquire a pretty good ability to recognize fallacies without a formal understanding of what a good proof is.
I just feel there is a difference between a "fallacy enthusiast" (someone who knows lists of logical fallacies, can spot them, etc.) and a "mathematician" (who realizes a 'logical fallacy' is just 'not a tautology'), in terms of being able to "regenerate the understanding."
This is similar to how you can try to explain to lawyers how they should update their beliefs in particular cases as new evidence comes to light, but to really get them to understand, you have to show them a general method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigmore_chart
(Yes, belief propagation was more or less invented in 1913 by a lawyer.)
Could you explain why it is necessary to understand what a proof is in order to understand logical fallacies? Most commonly mentioned fallacies are informal. I'm not seeing how understanding the notion of proof is necessary (or even relevant) for understanding informal fallacies.
It's a bad concept, at least the way it's traditionally used in introductory philosophy classes. It encourages people to believe that certain patterns of argument are always wrong, even though there are many cases in which those patterns do constitute good (non-deductive) arguments. Instructors will often try to account for these cases by carving out exceptions ("argument from authority is OK if the authority is actually a recognized expert on the topic at hand"), but if you have to carve out loads of exceptions in order to get a concept to make sense, chances are you're using a crappy concept.
Ultimately, I can't find any unifying thread to "logical fallacy" other than "commonly seen bad argument", but even that isn't a very good definition because there are many commonly seen bad arguments that aren't usually considered logical fallacies (the base rate fallacy, for instance). Also, by coming up with cute names to label entire patterns of argument, and by failing to carve out enough exceptions, most expositions of "logical fallacy" end up labeling many good arguments as fallacious.
So I guess my advice would be to stop using the concept altogether, rather than trying to explicate it. If you encounter a particular instance of a "logical fallacy" that you think is a bad argument, explain why that particular argument doesn't work, rather than just saying "that's an argumentum ad populum" or something like that.
A logical fallacy is an argument that doesn't hold together. All of its assumptions might be true, but the conclusion doesn't actually follow from them.
"Fallacy" is used to mean a few different things, though.
Formal fallacies happen when you try to prove something with a logical argument, but the structure of your argument is broken. For instance, "All weasels are furry; Spot is furry; therefore Spot is a weasel." Any argument of this "shape" will have the same problem — regardless of whether it's about weasels, politics, or Java programming.
Informal fallacies happen when you try to convince people of your conclusion through arguments that are irrelevant. A lot of informal fallacies try to argue that a statement is true because of something else — like its popularity, or the purported opinion of a smart person; or that its opponents are villains.