Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
Yes, and that structured, “valid” manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree “philosophy is just a means to an end.”
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it’s a fallacy. If your parents explained it as “it’s not polite,” rather than “it’s nonsense,” that’s on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I’ve been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By ‘previous information,’ what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It’s not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don’t make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can’t communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you’re neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully
like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You’ve spent days arguing against this.
Here’s my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌
Your response:
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn’t have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Well, agree to disagree then.
I never stated there was ultimate truth.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
Yes, and that structured, “valid” manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree “philosophy is just a means to an end.”
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it’s a fallacy. If your parents explained it as “it’s not polite,” rather than “it’s nonsense,” that’s on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I’ve been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By ‘previous information,’ what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It’s not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don’t make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can’t communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you’re neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You’ve spent days arguing against this.
Here’s my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Your response:
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn’t have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.