Lately I've been studying a lot for my philosophy quiz and it has just totally absorbed my mind. So, I thought I would torture my few blog readers even more by telling you all about the complexities of Philosophy. Well, at least what I've learned so far. If you don't know philosophy, you can look it up to try to discover what I'm talking about or you can just sit back and enjoy the ride through this complicated thing called argument. Apparently, it would seem that there are no valid arguments that are not fallacies. Now, considering this is an argument in and of itself, I am aware that someone at some point will probably be able to point out the fallacy in my logic, thus proving the validity of my point.
Anyway, there are all these different types of fallacies that make an argument unreliable. After studying these for a while I came to the conclusion that all arguments are fallacies and that one can only believe in absolute truth, it cannot be proven (which sounds heretical I know, but at least from what I've learned so far, it's true). Basically Philosophy teaches you that you can know nothing for certain except what you believe...and even belief isn't certain knowledge. Thus the complexity of it all.
I digress. Fallacies. Last year in speech class I learned how to make an argument by appealing to authority or the emotions, or a number of different options. This year in Philosophy I am learning that those were all fallacies. This is really complicated to explain so for the sake of our education I will most likely spend the next few days selecting one fallacy and explaining it. I'm sure you have much better things to do than argue about Philosophy, so I understand if you all stop reading my blog, but I'm finding it fascinating and would like to share the complexity of it all with you as I journey through it.
Feel free to point out the errors in my logic...that's the fun of it!
Stay tuned for more Philosophy fun!
14 comments:
I learned that the only thing you can know for sure is this: I think, therefore I am. We must exist because we are having these thoughts, but outside of that, we could be in the Matrix (as my prof said so often).
I don't understand the "all arguments are fallacies" argument. I understand fallacy to basically mean "a false statement." It seems unreasonable to assume that all statements are false. If it's POSSIBLE that a statement is false, but not proven, then it is just as POSSIBLE that the statement is true.
PS I never really got along with my philosophy prof.
amensi
Well, it's not that all statements are false it's just that all arguments in defense of those statements are fallacies, thereby making it impossible to prove the statement is absolutely true.
Although I do remember from studying that my prof provided us with an example of an argument that was not a fallacy, so maybe I exaggerated with the term "all" and should have said "most" arguments are fallacy. That might be wrong though.
Also, your argument that it's "Possible that a statement is false, but not proven, then it is just as possible that the statement is true" is an "appeal to ignorance" because you have no proof either way you simply shift the burden of evidence to the other side. Unless I misunderstood and misrepresented your argument, in which case my argument would be a "straw man" argument and a fallacy.
The appeal to ignorance would really fall onto whoever you decide has the arbitrary burden of proof. So I guess in my mind, you have the burden of proof by claiming that all arguments are false. You're argument is based on the fact that I can't prove that they're NOT false. But since you're making the original claim, you need to prove that they're false; I don't need to prove that they're true.
I'm curious as to what examples he was giving you. My professor used to try to make us prove stuff, and he would always just disagree.
"Prove that this desk is here."
"Well, it's there because you can detect it with all of your senses."
"Sometimes we see things that aren't actually there. The desk might be in my imagination."
And on and on. I got bored of that pretty quick.
uncela
I like cupcakes.
I hate philosophy! I love a good argument! AS for all agruments being fallacies that would not be true because of the word "all". You Prof. will make you think, but as for doing you any good other than that I would suggest he/she get a job. I look forward to your blog comments going forward on you study of philosophy. Since you are Sterling's daughter you will most likely love this class.
Joel - Your argument is basically the very definition of an "appeal to ignorance" informal fallacy. declaring that the other person must provide the proof is appealing to ignorance. Thus, although your argument may be true, your premise is invalid because it is a fallacy. I don't have time right now, but I'll provide some examples in a little while.
Mom - I love cupcakes too :) especially chocolate.
Grandpa - So far I am enjoying it...we'll have to see how that plays out the rest of the semester though :) And I think you're right as far as my argument being faulty because of the word "all." After all, if my statement that "all" arguments are fallacies were true, that would mean that my argument was a fallacy...
The "appeal to ignorance" fallacy seems to be a moot point. By claiming that the other side is appealing to ignorance is the same as admitting that you can't prove your side. So my point was that you can't call my argument an appeal to ignorance without simultaneously admitting your argument to be one also.
I don't think it would be an appeal to ignorance to force Party A to produce the proof. It would only be an appeal to ignorance to force Party B to produce the proof.
For example:
A: "I think all arguments are fallacies."
B: "I don't think that's right. You have no proof, so you could just as easily say all arguments are NOT fallacies."
A: "You're just appealing to ignorance. You need proof."
Party A has made a statement based on the appeal to ignorance, then detracted from the original statement by attacking Party B's method of arguing, rather than the argument itself, simultaneously using an appeal to ignorance, yet claiming it's invalidity.
Also, you didn't really address my second statement. Is your professor just telling your class that they're wrong no matter what they say?
inght
True, both arguments are appeals to ignorance...that's why neither are very good arguments and why I intend to provide more proof in later blogs.
And no, my prof is not saying that, we didn't talk about this in class because that class got canceled. This is just what I deducted from reading the online lecture, studying, and attempting test problems.
That's why I said my argument may not be correct. This is only the capacity of my reasoning abilities...and I'm no philosopher.
lol, so you're not actually taking a philosophy class?? Are you just planning on studying it on your own?
I would agree with Grandpa that any argument that doesn't allow for exceptions is automatically false, just like a T/F test question.
I don't think that ALL arguments are fallacies, but my prof used to say, "All boats leak, but some boats leak more than others." So it's really a matter of figuring out what is least wrong. I didn't like that either.
aphyg
No, I am taking the class, just the day that we were supposed to talk about illogical fallacies got canceled so he assigned us a readable lecture instead.
I just think from reading about all the different types of fallacies that it would be pretty near impossible to make an argument that is NOT a fallacy in one way or another.
I'm still trying to figure out why the guys dead in the phone booth with his fishing gear!
Love,
Aunt Linda :-)
p.s. oniumeti
haha, love you Aunt Linda!
Do you think that the Bible is based on fallacy? After, most of what it teaches can't be logically "proven."
pategre
Post a Comment