This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Informal fallacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Seabrams305.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have revised this to improve accuracy (as discussed professionally in logic texts, etc.) and to help align and coordinate it with other Wiki articles on logic, fallacies, etc. I have a partial draft to expand this article, and hope to post it over the next several days. jbessie 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, again, GYM--I'm not sure how I ought to format a thread like this--just keep indenting? I'm not sure what you have in mind re. material implication--nothing I mentioned connoted that. The so-called paradoxes of material implication involve certain counter-intuitive aspects of the accepted truth conditions for the material (or, as it is also called, truth-functional) conditional. In part, these result from reading "if p, then q" as "p implies q," and then asking a question like, "Why should it turn out that p implies q just because p is false??" The problems, as you know, can be multiplied. Part of the solution is to note that to generate a "paradox," one must exploit an ambiguity of the word "implication," which tends to connote a strong logical connection. However, "implication," as defined in formal logic, doesn't mean the same thing as "if.., then---." "If p, then q" is false only when p is (materially) true and q (materially) false; A statement 'p' implies a statement 'q'(note, too, a grammatical difference--"If..., then---" is a connective, whereas "implies" is a verb, requiring nominal expressions on each side) is true just in case it is not possible for 'p' to be true while 'q' is false. There is a connective that expresses this relationship, referred to as the "fish-hook" symbol, called "strict implication."-- jbessie 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I added an external link about logical fallacies, which seems interresting to me (but I'm not an expert). Feel free to remove it if you think it is not appropriate here.-- OlivierMiR 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument map we are talking about is available at Image:Traffic_congestion_straw_man.png. How can I include a link here to this image (without displaying it in this page)?
The argument map is difficult to understand and lacks an explanation. I think this has already been said here above, but I'd like to add something.
Is the red "oppose" thing supposed to explain why the green argument is false? If yes, then there is a problem: the red part does not explain why the green part is false. Furthermore, the middle red sentence ("People would want to take the same number of trips (...) regardless of (...) roads (...)") is most probably false.
The green part (together with the conclusion) is incorrect because of the upper-right "support": "If people take more trips by car then traffic congestion will increase", which suppose that the roads number remains constant, and thus may not be used to support the conclusion which suppose that more roads are built.
I think that this argument map is either incorrect or misleading because of the lack of explanations. If nobody has time to rewrite the article, I propose to remove the argument map.-- OlivierMiR 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this:
"Could have an extra premise added such as:
- For any X and for any Φ, if X is P and X is Φ, then all P's are Φ"
This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a math book. If there's anything worth saying there, can someone add the information to the article in a way understandable to the general public? Thanks. Gronky 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The current definition given for an informal fallacy is "an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion". Doesn't that make every inductive argument an informal fallacy? But then the page goes on to say that inductive arguments can be convincing, even if they are informal fallacies. So--what makes something an informal fallacy? Is an informal fallacy just an unconvincing argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.37.62.241 ( talk) 22:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is about "informal fallacies." But then the body of the article describes "formal fallacies," and "inductive fallacies," and never mentions "informal fallacies." I'm left to surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that an "informal fallacy" is synonymous with an "inductive fallacy." Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 ( talk) 12:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to point out there is some duplication between the topic of this article and a section in another article. There is more content in the other article. See: /info/en/?search=List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies Xblkx ( talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Informal fallacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Seabrams305.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have revised this to improve accuracy (as discussed professionally in logic texts, etc.) and to help align and coordinate it with other Wiki articles on logic, fallacies, etc. I have a partial draft to expand this article, and hope to post it over the next several days. jbessie 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, again, GYM--I'm not sure how I ought to format a thread like this--just keep indenting? I'm not sure what you have in mind re. material implication--nothing I mentioned connoted that. The so-called paradoxes of material implication involve certain counter-intuitive aspects of the accepted truth conditions for the material (or, as it is also called, truth-functional) conditional. In part, these result from reading "if p, then q" as "p implies q," and then asking a question like, "Why should it turn out that p implies q just because p is false??" The problems, as you know, can be multiplied. Part of the solution is to note that to generate a "paradox," one must exploit an ambiguity of the word "implication," which tends to connote a strong logical connection. However, "implication," as defined in formal logic, doesn't mean the same thing as "if.., then---." "If p, then q" is false only when p is (materially) true and q (materially) false; A statement 'p' implies a statement 'q'(note, too, a grammatical difference--"If..., then---" is a connective, whereas "implies" is a verb, requiring nominal expressions on each side) is true just in case it is not possible for 'p' to be true while 'q' is false. There is a connective that expresses this relationship, referred to as the "fish-hook" symbol, called "strict implication."-- jbessie 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I added an external link about logical fallacies, which seems interresting to me (but I'm not an expert). Feel free to remove it if you think it is not appropriate here.-- OlivierMiR 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument map we are talking about is available at Image:Traffic_congestion_straw_man.png. How can I include a link here to this image (without displaying it in this page)?
The argument map is difficult to understand and lacks an explanation. I think this has already been said here above, but I'd like to add something.
Is the red "oppose" thing supposed to explain why the green argument is false? If yes, then there is a problem: the red part does not explain why the green part is false. Furthermore, the middle red sentence ("People would want to take the same number of trips (...) regardless of (...) roads (...)") is most probably false.
The green part (together with the conclusion) is incorrect because of the upper-right "support": "If people take more trips by car then traffic congestion will increase", which suppose that the roads number remains constant, and thus may not be used to support the conclusion which suppose that more roads are built.
I think that this argument map is either incorrect or misleading because of the lack of explanations. If nobody has time to rewrite the article, I propose to remove the argument map.-- OlivierMiR 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this:
"Could have an extra premise added such as:
- For any X and for any Φ, if X is P and X is Φ, then all P's are Φ"
This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a math book. If there's anything worth saying there, can someone add the information to the article in a way understandable to the general public? Thanks. Gronky 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The current definition given for an informal fallacy is "an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion". Doesn't that make every inductive argument an informal fallacy? But then the page goes on to say that inductive arguments can be convincing, even if they are informal fallacies. So--what makes something an informal fallacy? Is an informal fallacy just an unconvincing argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.37.62.241 ( talk) 22:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is about "informal fallacies." But then the body of the article describes "formal fallacies," and "inductive fallacies," and never mentions "informal fallacies." I'm left to surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that an "informal fallacy" is synonymous with an "inductive fallacy." Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 ( talk) 12:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to point out there is some duplication between the topic of this article and a section in another article. There is more content in the other article. See: /info/en/?search=List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies Xblkx ( talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)