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?
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?
1) Somewhat dictates the paradox. . . . 2) Exactly. . .and if all logic is flawed, then the logic behind the existence of logical fallacies would be too. . . . ----------- I think I get it now. . .so this isn't really a paradox. Phew
I think that some logic is flawed, because one man's logic contradicts another. But obviously some logic has to be correct. For instance, if a man shoots another man in the face, he will die. Very interesting topic, though. Congrats
agree with parsat, when you say that it may seem perfectly logical to somebody else, that is because their own logic/perspective is flawed, simple, no paradox
A statement or fact that contradicts itself. This sentence is a lie. I can't be telling the truth because I said it was a lie, but I can't be lying because then it would really mean I'm telling the truth.
