Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 22 August 2016

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

There is a request, submitted by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "An important and often discussed but somewhat complex subject - auditory learners might benefit from a spoken overview".

Horrifying

As a mathematical scientist, I am stunned and horrified by this article. It is not a description of the Appeal to Authority fallacy, it is a defence of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

The article misrepresents what a logical fallacy is. It is reasonably if inarticulately defined in fallacy as, "the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument.". A fallacy is not an argument that reaches an incorrect conclusion and it is not an argument with incorrect premises.

The following argument is wrong but not fallacious:

1. If it is dark at night, the sun revolves around the earth. 2. It is dark at night. C. The sun revolves around the earth.

It follows correctly from its premises, but premise 1. is incorrect.

The following argument is correct but fallacious:

1. If the earth rotates on its axis, it could be dark at night. 2. It is dark at night. C. The earth rotates on its axis.

All premises and conclusion are correct but this argument is fallacious because it does not exclude other possibilities for why it is dark at night; the correct conclusion does not follow from the correct premises.

The following argument is also correct but fallacious:

1. Most experts agree that the earth revolves around the sun. C. The earth revolves around the sun.

Bizarrely the article actually illustrates itself that experts can and have been wrong even on fundamental matters relating to their own area of expertise, with the example of the miscounting of chromosomes.

Given its protected status, and the unstated interests involved here (Misplaced Pages's editorial policy is based to a great extent on "appeal to authority", for instance), I will not attempt to edit the article myself, but leave as a record on the talk page that this article deceives its reader by incorrectly describing what it claims to describe. 92.214.206.250 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see with weary resignation but little surprise that above this comment there is a long discussion about removing the example, the only damn thing the article does right. If only there were such a lot of effort removing or heavily revising the rest of the text! 92.214.206.250 (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes the article and Talk page are a travesty. It is ridiculous that about the only thing actually illustrating the fallacy on the page had to have such a massive debate. Hopefully someone cleans it up soon. I don't think I want to touch an article that explodes so violently at the slightly touch though. There needs to be a new class of UserFauna: the EOD for people who'd go near this thing. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How is the article "protected"?

I had a similar reaction to the article. Please see the discussion here. I still dislike the way it is written for reasons described in this section. I had a long discussion with those who have defended its current form, and I understand their view. The version you give is the "strong form", and that's the way I tend to think of it too. However, Philosophy books--including the one I studied from--say that in normal life we do rely on authorities to make decisions and this does not make us uncritical thinkers. So, the Philosophy books talk about fallacies of appealing to an authority in the wrong field, appealing to an authority who holds a disputed view, etc. I am not going to speculate on how all Philosophy books treat this, but I know I did give an example of RS where the strong form is mentioned. To me the solution is to give better treatment to the strong form. I suggested an RfC about it and would love to see that happen. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I have improved it somewhat by looking through prior versions. A lot of rather unnecessary detail based on (and in fact mostly about - who cares about in-depth discussions of what random philosophers have said????) obscure sources had been added. I like the way the page is now. It quotes a well-known scientist right at the beginning, gives an actual summary of what an argument from authority is rather than give weird "well this philosopher nobody's ever heard of says they run like this, and this other guy says they run like this...", the history section notes that the argument has both its defenders and detractors and that views on it shift throughout time, and then it goes into a very informative example and an interesting discussion of the thinking behind the argument and how our minds tend to handle it. Excellent if I do say so myself! 209.188.51.125 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Importance of Independence

It seems important to clarify that an appeal to an expert is only valid if that expert is independent of the issue being discussed. Conversely, if even a true expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the topic being debated, then an appeal to this expert is invalid. --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: Makes perfect sense. Sounds exactly correct. However, my opinion and yours about the matter is irrelevant. It has to be in the RS. Have you seen it there? It's been a while since I looked at the RS or the current version of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely untrue. There is no such thing as an expert independent of their field. Capeo (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Lbeaumont did not say that the expert had to be "independent of their field". S/he said that the expert should not have a "vested interest" in the "outcome of the topic being debated". Consider Wernher von Braun's opinions of the rocket projects he worked on both under the Nazi's and the U.S. An excellent example of the problem of vested interest when Chinese officials inflated production estimates to please their bosses: Great_Chinese_Famine#Government_distribution_policies. They were authorities, but they could not be counted on to be honest, because of their vested interest. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fallacy or Valid Argument

There seems to be a long-running edit-war over whether Appeal to Authority is a fallacy or a valid argument. See . Edits like this are very problematic as they change the entire nature of the article's meaning and focus.

It seems to me it might be BOTH:

In sum, Charles Hamblin states, “Historically speaking, argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies.” Charles Hamblin, Fallacies (London: Methuen Publishing, Ltd., 1970).

1. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

If this back and forth keeps going on I might end up launching an RfC to resolve it.

I am also a bit troubled by how much the article has changed from work by philosophers to quotes from scientists. This article is clearly the subject of Philosophy and not science. I'm not convinced this series of edits was an improvement to the article. Use of Google and Google Scholar indicate that Hamblin was a major player in philosophy. The work in question, "Fallacies" is cited by 1514 . He is not an "obscure" philosopher.

I am going to try to keep an eye on this article.

I might revert back to an older version that mentioned Hamblin, but I am torn what do to about this edit. I might use the above reference that quotes Hamblin to justify calling it both a fallacy -and- a valid form of argument (as is done here on "rational" wiki), but I welcome feedback before proceeding.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Having stopped editing this article over a pair of other editors endlessly disagreeing with the RSs over this very issue, I've recently come back just to take a look at what happened after I left. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the current state. There are NO Reliable Sources about this subject which clearly identify an argument from authority as a logical fallacy, full stop. Yet this article does just that. In every single case, the argument is identified as an argument. Arguments are not always valid, but they are always arguments. Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default.

For example, consider the Argument from analogy. One could quite rationally argue that because a hostile takeover in business is similar to a military invasion, another similarity between them would be that there are three possible results: A full takeover, a failure of the takeover, or a partial takeover, just as a full annexation, a failed annexation and a partial annexation are the possible results of an invasion. That would be a perfectly valid argument from analogy. However, if one then posits that because the two are similar, and because soldiers usually fight and die in a military invasion, that employees will fight and die in a hostile takeover, that would be a fallacious use of the argument. There's no debate whatsoever about this, however. That's because the internet hasn't popularized "That's just an argument from analogy!" as a pseudo-intellectual 'gotcha' the way it has popularized "that's just an appeal to authority!"

I personally feel that as long as WP is full of neckbearded pseudo-intellectuals who can't be bothered to actually learn about the subjects they feel they already know so much about, we're going to continue to see these problems. I've had admins involved who've issued bans over this, I've documented straight up lies and dishonesty on the part of those wishing to identify this as nothing but a fallacy, and I've refuted them over and over again. All to no avail. I honestly have no idea what to do with this level of sheer dishonesty and ignorance, which is why I stopped editing. So for now, all I can do is offer you moral support in your efforts to fix this page full of crap. If you can find enough honest editors to establish (and maintain, because this has been established time and time again) a consensus that the page will reflect the reliable sources, I'll throw my hat back in. But as long as it's just me and one or two others fighting against the tide of ignorant bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time. Honestly, I don't think anything will get accomplished outside of ArbCom and a new set of DSs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I used to edit Misplaced Pages years ago and am returning to comment on this. Since I've been away so long and forgotten formatting, this comment may come out improperly formatted, so please fix that if so. I have a bachelor degree in philosophy. I believe the confusion and debate over this topic is mainly due to a lack of understanding of the definition of "appeal to authority."

MjolnirPants writes, There are NO Reliable Sources about this subject which clearly identify an argument from authority as a logical fallacy, full stop. I can probably find some sources in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, but it looks like this article is an exercise in futility in trying to justify basic philosophy to people who don't understand it. If people really want me to, though, I can see if I can find those sources.

MjolnirPants writes, Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default. I totally disagree. Again, this sounds like a misunderstanding of how logical fallacies are defined. When an argument meets the definition of the relevant fallacy, it is always a fallacy. Just like an object that meets the definition of a rectangle is always a rectangle, regardless of whether it's also a square.

MjolnirPants writes, That's because the internet hasn't popularized "That's just an argument from analogy!" as a pseudo-intellectual 'gotcha' the way it has popularized "that's just an appeal to authority!" Because argument from analogy is NOT a logical fallacy, while appeal to authority IS. If an argument from analogy takes the fallacious form, then it's called a "weak analogy," a fallacy whose definition is apparently missing from Misplaced Pages.

Going back to the topic of this article, if a person cites an expert's opinion as evidence for the truth of a claim, then that is not a fallacy. However, if a person says that an expert's opinion is PROOF that a claim is true, that therefore it MUST BE TRUE, or simply that it IS true, then that is always a logical fallacy. It's that simple...unless someone can name at least one example of the latter form not being fallacious (i.e. the expert is always right). And even the former, though somewhat logical, is a logically weak argument.Chris Dubey (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Pants' argument is very misguided. He's basically saying "some sorts of arguments are wrong sometimes therefore all sorts of arguments are only wrong sometimes". His analogy about analogies is like some sort of weird metafallacy. Overall excellent reply Mr. Dubney! 2607:FB90:2B0C:45A0:703F:CAA0:206A:ABAE (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha, thank you. Not to mention that his/her use of "neckbearded pseudo-intellectuals" is an example of ad hominem. Chris Dubey (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to further illustrate a problem with the reasoning put forth by MjolnirPants, using analogy.

MjolnirPants says, Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default. Huh. Well, then...

Simply because water can be composed of H₂O molecules does not mean it's composed of H₂O molecules by default. Sometimes water may be composed of nitrogen atoms.

Simply because some butterflies are insects does not mean all butterflies are insects. Some butterflies may actually be mammals.

Simply because some humans are apes does not make all humans apes by default. Some humans may instead be cetaceans.

Chris Dubey (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot begin to express how fundamentally flawed and ignorant the logic used above is. This is precisely why I'm disgusted by this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If my logic is flawed, MjolnirPants, then explain how it is flawed. Simply calling it that doesn't show anything. Here's a word of advice for you: If you want to grow as a critical thinker, then you need to stop clinging to your naive belief that the experts you admire so much are necessarily trustworthy. History is full of examples of experts being wrong or even downright dishonest, both long ago and in the recent past. If you need examples, I'll happily provide. Oh and by the way, if you still want to engage in arguments from authority, just remember I have a degree in philosophy, magna cum laude. Why don't you tell me how what I said is illogical? Where is your substance? All you seem to have are empty accusations and ad hominem attacks. Why don't you stop calling other people ignorant and realize that you are throwing stones while living in a glass house. Chris Dubey (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It would be a phenomenal waste of time and energy. Even if you were eager to learn, explaining everything would take a wall of text. Forget I said anything and do whatever you want to this article. I'm done here. By the way, that was a brilliant example of a fallacious appeal to authority you just made, there. Claiming to have a degree in philosophy. Ha! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could show you my degree or the old college page on the University of Hartford philosophy department Website that showed me winning an award in the College of Arts & Sciences in 2005, in which I was one of only 2 students who won it. Call me whatever you want, while failing to show anything. But here's a page briefly listing my academic history. Unfortunately, the link to Examiner.com no longer works, as the site went down in 2016.

http://www.madinamerica.com/author/cdubey/

Here's a copy of a philosophy department award I won in 2003 at the University of Hartford.

https://app.box.com/s/k11dj9hywgi75ahp9h27mdk418faamw7

Here's an issue of the U. of Hartford alumni newsletter. I'm mentioned in the 2005 alumni section, on page 31, for winning an award in biotechnology while working on my second undergraduate degree, at Middlesex Community College in Connecticut.

https://www.hartford.edu/observer/files/pdf/winter-2010/winter10_alumni.pdf

Chris Dubey (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Harry Gensler, Doug Walton, John Bire, Harvey Siegel, Merrilee Salmon, Edwin Coleman, John Locke, the Texas State University Department of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all apparently are wrong (not to mention the more tangential sources in that link, plus every single work in the field of philosophy cited in the article as it currently exists). Meanwhile, you; the gentleman who claims to have degrees in both English and Philosophy, yet can't puzzle out what the subject in my sentence referencing ignorance above (which, you may note, I have struck) was, nor argue that the appeal to authority is a fallacy without appealing to his own authority in a way that would be fallacious even if I were correct (which I am) are right. Sure thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests