Tuesday, September 24, 2013
There's a Hole in the Logic, Dear Liza...
To continue to hone your reasoning skills and simultaneously reexamine ways of knowing, please read your own post and the post below yours (last poster, read the first), searching out, identifying, and explaining any and every logical fallacy along the way. Use and link to the guide at right (top link). Please share your findings before classes start on Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Should we reply to the posts we are finding logical fallacies on or this post?
ReplyDeleteIm just posting im not commenting on anyones post
DeleteMaah(me):
ReplyDeleteIn my previous post I found a number of logical fallacies, some of them pertaining to the logical fallacy link. The first one I found was in my first sentence, I stated that I knew how to communicate because of language. This is a black and white fallacy because there are many ways to learn how to communicate. The black and white fallacy is related to my next fallacy found. I stated, “Reading and learning how to speak also help me with communication because it teaches me how to speak so that I may be able to converse with someone”, however this is a false cause fallacy because there are many ways to converse with someone. For example, sign language and braille. Then I go onto to say that, “Without language nothing would be said and nothing could be expressed”, when in fact there is expression through dance, music and visual art. Not only did I proceed to say that, communication is the basis for a society because it helps a society to understand each other which will create less conflict I also said that communication is how words are relayed from one person to the next, when in reality wars and conflict in countries happen everyday, and reading, writing and audio recordings can contribute to communication.
In my second paragraph I say that I know God is real because of my parents, this fallacy contributes to the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because my parents said so, I believe it is right. My argument then proceeds to saying that unholy thought such as not believing in God is pushed away because of the faith one has for Him. However, this is a no true scotsman fallacy because I am using the idea of purity to cover up criticism in my post. Looking at and examining my post makes me think about how subconsciously humans think about ideas.
Sherica:
Stated: “The first thing I can say that I know is that I have a deep love for my mother. I say this is the first thing I know because it was one of the first things I was sure of.”
Logical Fallacy: How do you know it was the first thing you were sure of?
Stated: “This way of knowing was by perception and emotion. As soon as a baby is born it has a love and attachment to its mother even in the first two seconds of life without learning anything as yet.”
Logical Fallacy: Baby may not love its mother. What if it is a seahorse? Seahorses are born from the father. This is a false cause. Just because the baby is born from the mother does not mean that the mother, baby relationship will lead to love from both ends.
Stated: “Another thing I know is that there has to be some super being out there. This knowledge is simply a result of logic and reason.”
Logical Fallacy: This statement is an absolute. This could be a result of faith or religion.
For my knowledge that my grandfather is my favorite person, I know it by my emotion. I used a really common incident that my grandfather soothed my pressure. This may happen in everybody’s life and probably everyone around her can be the one who comforts and supports her. Additionally, everyone is unique and talks differently, not only my grandfather does. As I used these examples, that probably mean that one can become my favorite person if he cheers me up and is different from the others. The logical fallacy here can be “the texas sharpshooter”. The reason is that a lot of other elements have much more important role in making my grandfather my favorite person. Emotion is so complicated that it can not be elaborated through one or two examples.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing that I know is that language is the basis of knowledge. Actually, I solely explained why language is crucial for knowledge but intentionally ignored the importance of other ways of knowing. For example, if one does not have any perception, being in a vegetative state, he can never gain new knowledge. Hence, there is another basis of knowledge.
Yasmin says that she knows her family is the most important thing to her purely by emotion. The conclusion can not be drawn if she only uses her emotion. Maybe Yasmin’s mom supports her all the time, if Yasmin does not have the ability of reasoning or perceiving, she would not know that is the love. So the statement of knowing that family is the most important thing in the world only by Yasmin’s emotion does not stand. Also, in the middle of the paragraph, Yasmin says all the people are born to love their family. She generalizes every person, which is “the gambler's fallacy”. Probably most people value family, but it does not mean it will absolutely happen.
For “Cogito ergo sum” by Rene Descartes, I believe that Yasmin know it not only by her logic but also by language.
When writing about my ideas and beliefs about my ways of 'knowing,' I expressed that I felt strongly about both language and emotion as a way of knowing. When speaking about language, I stated that I knew how to communicate most effectively with the language I grew up learning. However this is a black and white fallacy because one can never fully 'know' a language. People spend their entire lives learning new words and ideas relating to their language. Because of this, the extent of my linguistic knowledge can not be certain. I also stated that I felt confidant about using my emotions as a way of knowing. This can be challenged by the appeal to nature fallacy. Although I do tend to follow what my emotions tell me to do, they do not always lead to the right decision. Emotion can be easily challenged, and although it is the most natural ways of knowing, (as I previously claimed), natural does not always mean it is good or justifiable.
ReplyDeleteMaah: "I know I believe in God because I know in my heart that he is real"
Fallacy: Burden of proof, and appeal to emotion
Maah: "I have also been taught by my parents to believe in God no matter what..."
Fallacy: Appeal to authority
Maah's way of knowing is, like myself, very reliant on emotion. She also speaks of the role that faith plays in aiding her ways of knowing. However emotion and even faith can at times, be questionable. Even if someone feels a certain way in their heart, it does not necessarily mean it is concrete for every circumstance.
Franny's Argument:
ReplyDeleteIn my older post I argued that language and emotion were the two ways that I know what I know. I found several logical fallacies, many of them were the same. The hardest part of this assignment was identifying the logical fallacies when it was my own opinion and not necessarily meant to be an argument.
In my first response I wrote about emotion and how I use that to know things. I said that I know that I love my parents through emotion. Here are the logical fallacies that i committed:
Example: "My mother and father are the most important people on this earth to me. First of all they brought me to life?"
Logic Fallacies: So, I wasn't sure what logical fallacies this was but I said it was appeal to emotion and black or white logical fallacies. I asked myself "Do I love them solely on the knowledge that they brought me to life or do I love them because of the way they treat me?"
Example: "First of all, love, is impossible to explain.
Logical Fallacies: I thought that this was Burden Proof. I stated my point in a way that no one can argue.
Example: "No words can describe how much I love them", "They are home; a feeling of complete comfort", "They know me better than anyone else and they believe in me more than anyone else."
Logical Fallacies: In all of those statements I used Appeal to Emotion. I used emotion as the base of my argument which is not allowing another person to have a say in the argument.
In my other response I wrote about how I use language to communicate with my horse. I stated that I know what I know through the language shred between horse and rider. Here are the logical fallacies that I committed:
Example: "The relationship between hose and rider is one of the strongest bonds that there could ever be. One that does not need a translator."
Logical Fallacies: I think that this is a Black and White fallacy. There are other relationship that could be stronger that that between rider and horse.
Example:"But it can also be the best thing in the world."
Logical Fallacy: This statement is an appeal to emotion. I am putting my own opinion into this argument to make it harder for people to argue.
As well as identifying my own logical fallacies I also identified Olivia's. This was extremely difficult. Most of what she said was all her own opinion and she was stating it rather than arguing it. In her response she wrote about emmotion and faith being her ways of knowing what she does. She wrote about her mother being an example of emotion. And then she wrote about god and fate as being an example of faith.
Example: "I know I love my mom because I feel at home in her arms, her happiness makes me feel warm inside, our laughter is contagious, we argue about nothing and then make up in a second, I trust her sometimes more that I trust myself, and partly I lover just cause she's my mom."
Logical Fallacy: Olivia uses appeal to emotion to better her argument so that the reader or opposing side cannot argue. I also have to ask myself what home means to you? Is it her happiness that makes you feel warm of the things she does to be happy?
Example: "For example, say I failed a history test, like no worries, it obviously happened for a reason; it was totally fate and everything will be all good"
Logical Fallacy: Olivia uses an Anecdotal fallacy to better her argument by using a personal experience instead of a proven fact.
Olivias way of knowing is similar to mine in that we both believe that somethings you just know through emotion. Such as, our love for our parents. Olivia also uses faith as a way of knowing. In my opinion, faith can be very hard to analyze and prove based on the fact that it at times explains the unexplainable.
In my post, one of my main arguments is that “I am sure that I am a living being, and this is proven by the logic of other people”. First off, this sentence in not very clear because it can be interpreted in two different ways. I may be saying that other people’s logic proves that I am a living being, or I may be saying that other people’s logic is what makes me sure that I am a living being. If the sentence is interpreted the first way, there is fallacy in my logic. Logic of other people does not prove that I am a human being, but they are merely just ideas that are expressed by the majority of people. What I was trying to say in this post was that we humans base our facts on general accepted concepts made by ourselves. It is like math problems where you need to use an answer to a question to find another answer; if the first answer is incorrect, the other answer is incorrect also.
ReplyDeleteSophia says that she is sure that language is a way of knowing because she can use her native language, English to communicate effectively. It is arguable that language is a way of ‘not knowing’ though. If there were no such thing as a chair, the word “chair” would not be present in any language. There are so many things that are unknown to humanity and the world, so we don’t have names for them. Language is a way of showing what we do not know by not having words for unfamiliar things.