Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

An Introduction to Rhetoric

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 12:59pm

09philj

09philj

873 posts

@themastaplaya

I see rhetoric, but no refutation. Not even so much as an answer to my closing statement.

Yes, show us the evidence of this happening. When you show us examples we will accept that it is the case.

09philj...stop these freaking US vs UK bs comments! I made no mention at all of the US or the UK in my previous posts, so why do you keep bringing it up? You did nothing to refute my statements in my previous post. You only attempted to distract everyone by making an arbitrary post which contained a quote with offensive (and distracting) content. If your rhetorical skills lay on the level of "Yeah, but at least...hey, hey! look how bad Americans are!"

On the one hand, you're right. Sorry for going off topic. On the other hand, I never claimed UK politicians were better. They're just different. US politicians promise nothing and deliver that. UK politicians promise a lot that they fail to deliver.

go back to your cramped flat

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Just because I happen to harbour some disdain towards US politics, and the US in general, it does not mean that I cannot make enough money to live in anything other than a "cramped flat." I happen to live in very pleasant detached house, where I will continue to live until I leave home to go to university. I will most likely live in a cramped flat at that point, but that will be down to being a student.

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 1:42pm

themastaplaya

themastaplaya

647 posts

go back to your cramped flat

Yes, I see that that was uncalled for. Sorry.
If you would like to discuss US politicians vs UK ones, I'd be happy to do so on our comments.

About the logic thing...what I meant by what I said is that there is flawed logic just as there is sound logic. Often the twain do meet.

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 1:46pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

When you first came to Armor Games you went on about how there are supposedly two different kinds of logic. I remember the lot of us tried explaining to you that there is only one kind. Apparently you don't remember.

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 2:01pm

09philj

09philj

873 posts

there is flawed logic just as there is sound logic. Often the twain do meet.

There is no such distinct thing as flawed logic. That would simply describe logical thinking, incorrectly done.

Definitions of two methods of thought:

Critical thinking (AKA Logical thinking): "the process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"

Lateral thinking: A sub-type of critical thinking, based on using reasoned thought in a non-standard, or non-linear logical, way to find a solution to a problem.

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 2:24pm

themastaplaya

themastaplaya

647 posts

Let me give you an example:

Flawed logic: All frogs have four legs.  Croaker is a frog, therefor croaker has four legs.
This is flawed.
Why?
The assumption is wrong! True, most frogs have four legs, but what about birth defects or injuries?
So, all frogs don't have the usual four legs. There are some that have been known to have eight legs due to mutation!

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 2:42pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,959 posts

Knight

There is no such thing as flawed logic, only fallacious application of logic.

The example you gave is actually correct. Under the assumption that all frogs have four legs, then Croaker, being a frog, certainly has four legs. The problem lies not in the logic, the problem here lies in the premise. As you said yourself, the assumption is wrong. But only because you consider exceptions to the general rule.

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 7:14pm

themastaplaya

themastaplaya

647 posts

5 things:
In that case, logic can be used to "validate" a faulty premise.
This is how the people that I disagree with here operate.
Yes then, fallacious application.
Exceptions negate rules in my opinion.
I am beginning to think that you all would rather jump off a cliff than consider what I say might actually be right.

Anything else?

 

Posted Jul 14, '14 at 7:54pm

09philj

09philj

873 posts

Exceptions negate rules in my opinion.

If a rule has an exception, it should be called a generalisation, which is subject to uncertainty. Making sure this is acknowledged fixes failures of logical thinking such as the one above:

Most frogs have four legs.  Croaker is probably a frog, therefore Croaker probably has four legs.

This is not flawed because it allows for an uncertainty in the number of legs Croaker has, and whether he is a frog.

It must also be learned not to jump to conclusions even if they look certain, and it is in general better to allow uncertainty in a premise, regardless of how preposterous it may seem.

Eg: Humans are usually male or female. It looks Human. Therefore it is probably male or female.

This example allows for the existence of transgender humans, and the possibility that the subject is not human.


last edited Jul 14 2014 07:56 pm by 09philj
 

Posted Jul 15, '14 at 1:10am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,508 posts

I am beginning to think that you all would rather jump off a cliff than consider what I say might actually be right.

Why would that bear any consideration? It's been established that logic cannot be flawed, and that this topic has no relation to rhetoric, and I have yet to see anything that supports your initial claim.

 

Posted Jul 15, '14 at 4:24am

Moegreche

Moegreche

2,765 posts

Moderator

In that case, logic can be used to "validate" a faulty premise.

Take a peek at my Introduction to Logic thread. There, I explain that logic is merely concerned with the form of an argument. You can also look there at the definition of soundness and validity as it is used in logic. (The example you give about frogs is one that is unsound, since one of its premises is false.)

You're general point, I take it, is that the notions of logic and rhetoric are sometimes thrown around in the WEPR forum. On that point, I would say you're correct. But this isn't really an AG-specific problem, or even an internet-specific problem. People in general misuse terminology - especially terms that are especially 'jargony'.

This is why, in part, that these introductory threads were made. One thing you might find helpful is to refer someone to these threads when you feel as though they have violated a specific rule of logic or rhetoric. At the end of the day, though, people don't like being corrected about things. So an alternative approach is to give your opponent a charitable interpretation and move on.

 
Reply to An Introduction to Rhetoric

You must be logged in to post a reply!