Tänkte att jag kunde starta några trådar angående partikulära fallasier - så att vi tillsammans ordentligt kan samtala om deras logiska funktion, hur vi identifierar dem, varför de så ofta är svåra att identifiera, hur och på vilket sätt de förstör inte bara argumentationen i sig och hela diskussioner utan också mänsklighetens hela världsbild och begreppsvärld samt allt annat högt som lågt av allt med filosofiskt värde som kan sägas om fallasin ifråga.
Tråden här är ämnad fallasin ad ignorantiam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...f_(philosophy)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar...from_ignorance
Vad tror ni? Vad tänker ni?
Sugna på att ge exempel på när vi ofta tror att vår okunskap bevisar något?
Eller har ni möjligtvis någon bra metod för att identifiera beteendet och medvetandegöra det för dess brukare?
Tråden här är ämnad fallasin ad ignorantiam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...f_(philosophy)
Citat:
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".
Shifting the burden of proof
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.
[...]
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".
Shifting the burden of proof
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.
[...]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar...from_ignorance
Citat:
An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a negative proof fallacy. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices: 1) true. 2) false. 3) unknown. 4) unknowable.
Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving.
Rules of logic place the burden of proof on the person making the claim.
A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly. But it still may be convincing to some audiences. This is why it is used in politics and advertising.
Examples:
"This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects." This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.
"Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice". The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.
"Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)
Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving.
Rules of logic place the burden of proof on the person making the claim.
A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly. But it still may be convincing to some audiences. This is why it is used in politics and advertising.
Examples:
"This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects." This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.
"Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice". The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.
"Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)
Vad tror ni? Vad tänker ni?
Sugna på att ge exempel på när vi ofta tror att vår okunskap bevisar något?
Eller har ni möjligtvis någon bra metod för att identifiera beteendet och medvetandegöra det för dess brukare?
__________________
Senast redigerad av Datura.Naturans 2021-02-02 kl. 06:41.
Senast redigerad av Datura.Naturans 2021-02-02 kl. 06:41.
