I just realized from a philosophical discussion with my father that the entire concept of logical fallacies is a paradox. Because there is no set-in-stone logic, fallacies on their own are fallacious, because what may be a fallacy to one person would be perfectly clear in another's logic. Now, you could respond to this by saying that all logic is flawed, but at the same time, the very logic that dictates that logical fallacies exist is also therefore flawed, so it creates a huge paradox. Any thoughts on this?
And you know what else? It's a double-paradox, because according to my paradox, then the logic as to whether it would be a paradox or not is created, which, according to my paradox, would also be a paradox! Agghhh. . .is there a philosopher in the house?
because what may be a fallacy to one person would be perfectly clear in another's logic.
First, let me explain the difference between the two major categories of fallacies. Informal fallacies: These are the most common type of fallacy and are used to indicate when someone has an error in their argumentation. Examples of this would be appeal to common practice, red herring, straw man, and many many others. Logical (formal) fallacies: These types of fallacies are not just semantic like the ones above, but violate rules of logic. So things like affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent are examples of this. If you haven't taken a logic course this might not make sense, but just trust me.
Now, you could respond to this by saying that all logic is flawed, but at the same time, the very logic that dictates that logical fallacies exist is also therefore flawed, so it creates a huge paradox
Logic is not flawed (at least in this way). Logical fallacies result in contradictions, but are not contradictions in themselves. Logic systems are all truth preserving - meaning that if you use the rules within that system, then you won't derive false statements from true ones.
Basically, there is set-in-stone logic that is used for many different applications. As you get into more powerful system and into formal (mathematical) logic then some interesting things start to happen, but nothing that is paradoxical. I hope this helps.
Thanks! Sooo. . .it's not really a paradox? Though at the same time, a person would name something as a fallacy based on their own logic most likely, so this could still be paradoxical to some extent. ------------ This is now called the Alt Proposal.
No. By definition logic is the series of progression of thought that leads to a correct conclusion. If you believe that nothing in the world is correct, then this would be a paradox. But because logic is rooted in what is true and correct, it is not a paradox, simply a contradiction with the definition of logic.
No. By definition logic is the series of progression of thought that leads to a correct conclusion. If you believe that nothing in the world is correct, then this would be a paradox. But because logic is rooted in what is true and correct, it is not a paradox, simply a contradiction with the definition of logic.
Yet at the same time, it depends on the logic you're using. The issue as to whether this is a paradox or not is a conundrum unto itself, because it all depends on perspective and what a person would see logic as and how a person would use logic. . . . ------------ @snakebite: Ugghhh. . .in my life, I've probably thought of one or two things more paradoxical than this. . . .
As I said, logic is rooted in what is correct. The correctness of something, in an empirical case, does not change regardless of perspective.
Which logic? We don't know completely what is correct, so therefore, all logic is flawed until we know everything. Also, correctness to some extent is based on perspective and opinion. . . .
Yet at the same time, it depends on the logic you're using. The issue as to whether this is a paradox or not is a conundrum unto itself, because it all depends on perspective and what a person would see logic as and how a person would use logic. . . .
There is no perspective when it comes to logic. If a logical system has flaws, then it is rejected. Also keep in mind that logic didn't get expanded from the time of Aristotle until Frege developed predicate logic several thousand years later.
Which logic? We don't know completely what is correct, so therefore, all logic is flawed until we know everything. Also, correctness to some extent is based on perspective and opinion. . . .
It seems like you're getting the scope of logic a bit confused here. Logic is not concerned with what is correct. Here's an example: If 2 + 2 = 5, then I am a dinosaur. This is a simple conditional statement that actually happens to be true. Notice I use the word "true" here and not "correct". The reason for this is that with the added premise that it is not the case that 2+2=5, the conditional becomes true because the first part of it (the antecedent) is false. What you seem to be concerned with is what we call veridic truth. This is a concern with which conditions actually obtain in the real world, which is not the concern of any logical system. In any system of logic, all we want to do is take statement and decide whether or not they are consistent. Verifying if the premises themselves are true is not the job of logic - it's the job of scientists. I hope you see the difference between correctness and logical truths. Logic systems aren't flawed, they're just not concerned with what actually obtains.
I clearly defined logic in a previous statement as the "series of progression of thought that leads to a correct conclusion." Correct means that which is empirically true in all circumstances.
Second of all, you have just contradicted yourself in several ways. 1. You have actually thought in a logical procession to come to the conclusion that logic is flawed. 2. Moreover, if all logic is flawed until we know everything, and you do not know everything, how can your conclusions about flawed logic be correct?
there's good logic and bad logic for example bad logic created this false paradox and a fallacy is obviously fallacious since you're using it to describe itself
