Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whetfarts69 t1_jd7liw4 wrote

Really depends on where the fallacy is, and how many forks exist within the argument - that is how complex and dependent upon arguments vs evidence - and how many credible arguments are necessary to consider. What the magnitude and scope of the argument is, and how important it may potentially be or influential it is, on something say socioeconomic quality of life or morality, immediate physical threat, etc. VS something like which artwork is better or whether pineapple belongs on pizza 😂 (it's been firmly-regarded as irrefutable philosophical truth that it doesn't FYI).

I mean yeah technically containing a fallacy doesn't make the whole argument fallacious or worthless...but it still often does. So I don't think we need to do away with Fallacy Theory; we need to use it more appropriately/proportionally; conversely we also should make better arguments, with few, less extreme, or no logical fallacies.

I can readily disregard Fallacy Theory, then proceed to have my above argument become stronger, or more true than not, at least partly due to Fallacy Theory not being here to thwart me! 😂

2

VioletKate99 t1_jd7nvgb wrote

Just pointing out a fallacy is not enough, you also have to be able to show how that fallacy discredits the argument as it is used. People commiting fallacies are just doing a quick patch job on a structure that is their argument. And as any patch job it can be just fine, ugly, or it can be a life hazard.

2

bigbenis21 t1_jdgbqcz wrote

I really like your patchwork analogy because I always think of ideas as a boat with fallacies being flex tape. If I just put flex tape on a tiny hole in the back of my otherwise usable boat because I don’t like water splashing on my leg and making my pants wet, it’s really not that important and more of a personal preference thing.

If I have to wrap the whole middle of my boat so it doesn’t split in half, I might just need to accept the fact that it’s no longer seaworthy.

2

XiphosAletheria t1_jdjbz03 wrote

>Just pointing out a fallacy is not enough, you also have to be able to show how that fallacy discredits the argument as it is used.

By definition the fallacy discredits the argument it was a part of. It does not, however, disprove the conclusion. If you say "the sky is blue because Joe Biden says so", I can point out that this is an argument from authority, and doing so immediately discredits your argument. The sky remains blue, however.

1

VioletKate99 t1_jdjo2br wrote

That is true, but the point of the post is that people don't make these kinds of arguments in real life. If I say "yesterday the bottom of the sky was red, and I know because my brother told me and I don't think he would lie to me". This sentence reflects real life more because you example is based on the absurdity of someone arguing a known universal truth, that creates the exact kind of toy sentence example that can then be easily discredited.

1