Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[Free]

That is vague and generalized. What exactly do you mean?

The OP is a friendly discussion about logic and its usage or lack thereof on CFnet.
Since the topic is not from the Bible, it is not necessary for the posts to follow the rules for another forum.

Because there have some posts that have gone "off the deep end" and made unsupported allegations and imagined unwarranted conclusions (meaning not supported by facts) is it then against the tos to address the issue in a cordial, non-flaming manner in order to set the record straight?

I ask this because despite the subtitle of the forum, "Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship! " the tone of some posters has been reactionary and personal; nothing resembling the term, " casual conversation". From where I sit, it appears as if you are requesting that some posters put other posters on ignore if they merely ask questions, or attempt to address misconceptions. Is that what your are advocating?

I am posting this because general warnings are generally ignored. I am encouraging specifics.

It is specific and I think he means exactly what he stated. Keep on topic and address the points without attacking the person or risk having access to this thread removed.

 

[reba]

2.14: 1.3: If you feel that any action taken was unfair, it can be appealed. To appeal an action taken against you by CF.net staff, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. Threads in this forum are viewable only by the person initiating the thread and CF.net staff. In this private venue, anyone on the CF.net staff may respond, and the OP can address his/her concerns with regard to the action taken. This forum is intended only for appeals to actions by CF.net staff. TWTS area may also be used, according to Staff discretion, for other expedient purpose of communication. If a member agrees or disagrees with a Moderator's decision, they are not to make their opinion public.(see 1.3)


If you have a problem understanding the above PM the Mod.

 

[By Grace]

I went through the exercises of Divine Logic earlier in this thread. Divine Logic, that Logic that is found in the scriptures, is different than and non-compatible to the worlds logic.

You seem to be creating a term for which there is no definition. Since you are the one using it, it is not wrong for others to ask for the definition of the terms you use. That is the definition of the term "casual conversation"

 

[smaller]

You seem to be creating a term for which there is no definition. Since you are the one using it, it is not wrong for others to ask for the definition of the terms you use. That is the definition of the term "casual conversation"

If you read the (brief) observation that I initially observed it was to a point of "illogic" that applies to a logic standard that is employed by orthodoxy. If you understood why the original poster started the post, it does revolve around the uses of logic in the theological arena. If you want to critique my observation using specifics, knock yerself out.

But to claim the logic sequence I employed to derive the observation is not valid (for whatever reasons you are trying to concoct) for this thread is in fact quite illogical.

 

[Jim Parker]

Logical fallacies describe erroneous reasoning and not 'the most important thing' on the www.

But, they are very important in a rational argument. Use of one would be an invitation for an astute opponent to destroy the user's position.

They are also very important to frauds and charlatans who use them to mislead gullible people and to separate them from their coin. Many TV "evangelists" would starve if they couldn't use them. If people could identify them, and thereby identify the preacher as either a fraud or an ignoramus, the flow of checks for "miracle water from the Jordan River" etc. would soon dry up.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Logic tells me this is going nowhere. Sorry.

I asked for a simple explanation. So that I can better understand what you are saying, please provide me with a definition of your understanding of logic.

Why should this be going nowhere when I'm wanting it to go somewhere with your providing me with a straightforward definition of your view of the meaning of logic.

 

[OzSpen]

But, they are very important in a rational argument. Use of one would be an invitation for an astute opponent to destroy the user's position.

They are also very important to frauds and charlatans who use them to mislead gullible people and to separate them from their coin. Many TV "evangelists" would starve if they couldn't use them. If people could identify them, and thereby identify the preacher as either a fraud or an ignoramus, the flow of checks for "miracle water from the Jordan River" etc. would soon dry up.

iakov the fool

I agree with your assessment. We don't have to go to frauds and charlatans to see illogical fallacies in action. I had to deal with it when I was engaged in a public debate with a leading politician who was promoting euthanasia.

I hear it from the pulpit, in Bible studies and here on the forum.

I commend you for starting this thread to expose the illogical fallacies that prevent rational discussion.

When God said, 'Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord' (Isa 1:18 ESV), God was not calling us to reason with illogic. The Lexham English Bible translates this sentence as, '"Come now, let us argue," says Yahweh (Isa 1:18 Lex). Can you imagine the God of truth calling us to reason with God but with erroneous reasoning of logical fallacies?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Edited reba

2.14: 1.3: If you feel that any action taken was unfair, it can be appealed. To appeal an action taken against you by CF.net staff, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. Threads in this forum are viewable only by the person initiating the thread and CF.net staff. In this private venue, anyone on the CF.net staff may respond, and the OP can address his/her concerns with regard to the action taken. This forum is intended only for appeals to actions by CF.net staff. TWTS area may also be used, according to Staff discretion, for other expedient purpose of communication. If a member agrees or disagrees with a Moderator's decision, they are not to make their opinion public.(see 1.3)

 

[evenifigoalone]

However, isn't the discussion of logical fallacies in this thread involving 'heavier topics'?

I wouldn't have thought so honestly. I learned about logical fallacies in high school. It seems like pretty basic stuff. Is it more debate related, though, I guess.

 

[OzSpen]

I wouldn't have thought so honestly. I learned about logical fallacies in high school. It seems like pretty basic stuff. Is it more debate related, though, I guess.

No, it's conversation related as well. Surely you've seen that here on CFnet with the conversations where we've challenged one another with the use of logical fallacies. Many Christians don't realise what they are doing and what damage that does to reasonable and responsible conversation.

My son and I were in discussion in my home a few months ago over mass media journalists (he works in the media dept. in our federal parliament house in Canberra and is exposed to a lot of journalists). I made a comment about a certain journalist's bias and he immediately jumped in with a comment about another media outlet and its journalists. It was in no way related to the content of my comment. He used a red herring fallacy. What did it do? It diverted conversation away from the topic I raised. It damages conversation with its erroneous reasoning.

Please be assured we were not in a debate situation but were in a father-son discussion.

Oz

 

[smaller]

I asked for a simple explanation. So that I can better understand what you are saying, please provide me with a definition of your understanding of logic.

Why should this be going nowhere when I'm wanting it to go somewhere with your providing me with a straightforward definition of your view of the meaning of logic.

I'm quite logically against discourses where others can't comprehend the dialog from someone else after they've been given, can not form understandable counters and questions to develop dialog and prefer rather to leap into various charges such as red herring and irrelevant to the conversation claims after looking intensely for the slightest threat to what that person themselves might hold as illogical understandings or their pre-set world views.

Most people don't understand others because they really don't want to. I've delineated my positions/understandings regarding the priority over all things including "man's logic" by Divine Sovereignty here for well past a decade now and I know you've managed to read a few of my posts.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm quite logically against discourses where others can't comprehend the dialog from someone else after they've been given, can not form understandable counters and questions to develop dialog and prefer rather to leap into various charges such as red herring and irrelevant to the conversation claims after looking intensely for the slightest threat to what that person themselves might hold as illogical understandings or their pre-set world views.

Most people don't understand others because they really don't want to. I've delineated my positions/understandings regarding the priority over all things including "man's logic" by Divine Sovereignty here for well past a decade now and I know you've managed to read a few of my posts.

I'm still waiting for your definition of logic.

 

[smaller]

I'm still waiting for your definition of logic.

It's been given to you twice now. And you still can't see it. So, yeah, pass from me to entertain this demand further on the basis of logic.

 

[Edward]

If you read the (brief) observation that I initially observed it was to a point of "illogic" that applies to a logic standard that is employed by orthodoxy. If you understood why the original poster started the post, it does revolve around the uses of logic in the theological arena. If you want to critique my observation using specifics, knock yerself out.

But to claim the logic sequence I employed to derive the observation is not valid (for whatever reasons you are trying to concoct) for this thread is in fact quite illogical.

Get 'em Spock...

Lol.

 

[Kidron]

Get 'em Spock...

Lol.

-

""once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth""

Spock

 

[By Grace]

Most people don't understand others because they really don't want to. I've delineated my positions/understandings regarding the priority over all things including "man's logic" by Divine Sovereignty here for well past a decade now and I know you've managed to read a few of my posts.

Not really.
IMO there are several possible reasons for "not understanding" another poster

1. The poster "posts in tongues" meaning that it is grammatical gibberish.
2. The poster feels intimidated/personally attacked when someone asks for an explanation of gibberish or undefined/absurd statements.
3. The poster is lazy, and does not want to learn anything new.
4. The poster has low self-esteem, wanting to be accepted and believes that any challenge is the same thing as a rejection

Any one or more of those can contribute to an emotional reaction, and this post IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU, NOR ANYONE ELSE. For anyone to assume differently is to pretend to be a mind reader, and to call me a liar. But this is a contribution to the "casual conversation" that is required in this forum, and is giving you a direct answer to your statement above: "Most people don't understand others because they really don't want to."

So your statement does sorta require your answer on your take on the fact that the poster Oz requested a definition on what you mean by "logic". No, I am not criticizing, but I do note that in your attempt to supply an answer, you used the word "logic" to define the term, and I also note that you did not bother consulting a dictionary, and used that as a reference. Again, that is a statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with neither your person, nor your character.

Could you please use the dictionary site and provide to him (and to the rest of us here) your answer?

 

[reba]

Agreed By Grace Here are a few more reasons. I am sure some other member have some of their own as staff we see this all the time
IMO there are a number of reason to not understand another poster...
The poster does not want to be understood but wants to show how well she can post.
Posters/readers may get tired of another not willing to accept the answer given.
Posters/readers may understand the other guy knows everything so why bother
Posters/readers may have such an ego they refuse to understand anything other then their own view.
Posters/readers may just be having a bad day..
Posters/readers may have vision problems
Posters/readers get told not to post scripture
Posters/readers get told you did not post scripture
Posters/readers can see though the fog to when there are being attacked

 

[Edward]

The poster does not want to be understood but wants to show how well she can post.

She? Aha, I knew it hadda be a girl...I know just who you're talking about...lol

 

[reba]

 

[jasonc]

Jasonese,a sub dialect of the English language .It has no dictionary ,but only it's user knows the syntax and spelling and definitions. The only way to learn it is by guessing and by trial and error.