Go back
SF debates: competing logical fallacies?

SF debates: competing logical fallacies?

Spirituality

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
14 Mar 21
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Argument from incredulity, also known as an argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. [wiki]

versus

Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. [wiki]

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
14 Mar 21
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@fmf said
Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. [wiki]
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. [wiki]

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
14 Mar 21
Vote Up
Vote Down

@fmf said
Argument from incredulity, also known as an argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. [wiki]
I concede that I utilize this logical fallacy.

Appeal to One's Own Disbelief

versus

Appeal to One's Own Certainty

These logical fallacies have been ever-present for as long as I can remember on this forum.

Appeal to One's Own Disbelief and Appeal to One's Own Certainty are subjective assertions masquerading as arguments, I think.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
14 Mar 21
Vote Up
Vote Down

@fmf said
I concede that I utilize this logical fallacy.
i.e. argument from incredulity

BigDogg
Secret RHP coder

on the payroll

Joined
26 Nov 04
Moves
155080
Clock
14 Mar 21
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@fmf said
Argument from incredulity, also known as an argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. [wiki]

versus

Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but ...[text shortened]... person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. [wiki]
"Informal Logic" is a new (or perhaps forgotten) term to me.

Edit: looked it up. "Formal" logic is the mathematical version (with operators and symbols).

BigDogg
Secret RHP coder

on the payroll

Joined
26 Nov 04
Moves
155080
Clock
14 Mar 21

Back to the thread topic...I think there is a blurry line between discussion and debate. Discussion may have a "feeling out" process, in which folks aren't making full-on arguments yet. As for myself, I may express incredulity, when a concept doesn't sound right to me, without claiming it is false. Sometimes, I'm only hoping that the other poster will say a bit more on the subject.

For some of the questions pondered here, I think that humanity may never learn the answer. We have only the explanation we deem most likely, based on limited data.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.