This is a good point to clarify, especially after reading some of the other responses. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with how to obtain knowledge. Essentially, it is how we know stuff. Humanity has a bad habit of changing their epistemology to fit around what they currently believe instead of the other way around. Of course, doing this, anybody could believe anything they want and feel they have proof for it.
As an example. Let’s say that I state: “Everybody knows that PI starts with 3.14.” This is a bandwagon fallacy. I am using “everybody knows” as proof for the claim that PI starts with 3.14. While I have never personally calculated PI, I could use the integration formula that Newton came up with to actually calculate it myself. The truth is what we call PI starts with 3.14. The bandwagon fallacy above doesn’t help us to know that. This is why fallacies are discarded as evidence. On the other hand, using math backed with proofs, we can actually know that PI starts with 3.14. One is a good epistemology, the other is not.
To answer your question, fallacies cannot be used to know truth. I would argue that using fallacies is worse than random guessing because they are typically used to reinforce one’s biases while allowing the user to actually believe that they logically justified something when they haven’t. You may use a fallacy and accidentally find truth, but you wouldn’t actually know it, and that’s the problem. We want to reliably know what is true, not guess.
Fallacies do not invalidate a claim, but they cannot be used as evidence to prove a claim and should be discarded as evidence. The problem with unfalsifiable claims like god existing or god healing folks is that they can never be invalidated. A person cannot prove something unfalsifiable false.
@Tia_Thompson With these questions answered, can you please answer my original questions?
Thank you. The likelihood is that I will address people who seem like they would like the same thing as I do: discourse.
For instance @TheMagus broached a decent question in a respectful way. I didn’t have to sift through the character evaluations to get his point. I feel more inclined to respond to him first.
I am not an expert of logical fallacies. Thus, I will ask you: those who actively want me to be wrong.
And then contrast them with opinions from people who know more than me, that I know for a surety just want to answer my question accurately.
That will take time, but my answer will be a more thorough answer.
I don’t mind discoursing with other people in the process, but whether I do or whether I don’t, that along with my already stated busy ( I am a free -lance event photographer and janitor among my domestic responsibilities) and varied life should probably be taken into consideration. Perhaps it might relieve some of the aggression. (Perhaps, not).
@David_Killens I have mentioned before that I have a busy life. I began discoursing with y’all in such a fashion and have been accused of being evasive.
I will come and go. It is easier. I am perfectly okay with y’all doing the same.
Well I’ve been waiting for an answer to the first question I asked you; you know, the one that only required a 1 word answer? 18 months ago? Do you have an idea when you’ll be getting around to it?
@TheMagus As I mentioned to David, I wrote a friend who knows more about this subject that me. I am waiting for his reply and that takes time. As it stands, your question was: could we agree to the following:
If you have said that fallacies are bad epistemologies, but ad hominem fallacies are not always fallacious, does this discrepancy apply to any other fallacies and so forth. Anyhow, I have questions I would like to ask someone else based on y’all’s answers.
Just tuned in and caught up on the discussion. This is hilarious. Check this out…
I make an (accurate) evaluation of a person’s Reading Comprehension abilities based on how they answer questions posed to them (IF they finally bother to answer) and how they interpret what they are asked to read. Same goes for their ability to detect/understand irony. Now, after reading my statements regarding her (lack of) skills in those areas, Tia arrives on the scene all in a fluster and throwing a hissy fit claiming she has been “personally attacked” and insulted, all the while totally failing to see the statements as the mere observations and constructive criticism that they are. Thus, the irony here is that she has effectively VERIFIED my observations on BOTH counts.
That isn’t what was said. Should we blame this on old fashion dishonesty; or give you the benefit of doubt and just assume you have poor reading comprehension?
I mean you just (wrongly) accused someone of saying that fallacies aren’t fallacies.
Please do not misquote me. I was attempting to politely state that what might be viewed as an Ad Hominem attack, might indeed NOT be fallacious. That is not the same as saying a fallacy is not a fallacy. If you are not doing this on purpose, then please try to be more discerning in your evaluation of comments directed to you.
I understand the issues with responding to several posters in a timely manner, as well as the various lines of discourse that may occur.
Feel free not to respond to me if being pressured is going to result in you misquoting me.
BTW…it is always ok to use Ad Hominem on characters of questionable sanity or genetic purity as MIGHT be exemplified in the anonymous mechanical contrivance or un-identified Simian individual(s).
What? When? Where? No…did I miss something? WTF? Are you making shit up again?..here, let me go back and read the thread…(humming to self, takes a sip of tepid coffee, more humming) Oh wait… there’s this uh….oh well, never mind… but, you know, you DO make shit up sometimes…just sayin’.
@Cognostic
Hey, Cog! Come here! Look at this shit! I need a second opinion! I mean, I could be reading this wrong, but it looks to me like Skrit is trying to Ad Hominize both of us. I just need to know if I should feel flattered or insulted.
Why choose? You can have both here. I am well-versed in sycophantic patronizing, as well as thinly disguised sarcastic verbal insults… After all, I aim too please. Or is that I aim to please, or I aim, two please?
Excellent suggestion! Now I can be sufficiently pleased with myself with a warm fuzzy feeling while sobbing quietly to myself over a bowl of warm vanilla ice cream with sardines. Sss-weeet!
Now I can be sufficiently pleased with myself with a warm fuzzy feeling while sobbing quietly to myself over a bowl of warm vanilla ice cream with sardines. Sss-weeet!