Comments on: What’s a non sequitur?

By: John Casey

John Casey — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:38:23 +0000

Thanks argumentics, but I think it's fairly obvious we're using terms somewhat differently here. I use "proof" for instance, in the sense of "oh, yeah, well prove it to me." This sense of proof falls far below the sense you employ.

On the other point, sophism is just another word for fallacy. Of course we can quibble about the description. There's nothing formally wrong with pp, but of course, there's a lot that's informally, as it were, wrong with it.

Keep in mind also that logical, as in "logical trick" is used in a broader sense than you're allowing--this includes "informal" reasoning, broadly construed.

Thanks for the comment,

By: argumentics

argumentics — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:16:50 +0000

And again, my comment didn't appear …
This time, I didn't got to save it …

By: argumentics

argumentics — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:14:48 +0000

After a quick view, here are some paragraphs to support Mr. Weaver's accusation: "Yet another term for a logical trick is sophism". A sophism is not a logical trick, not at all. Think of "petitio principii" (aka begging the question): there's nothing "logically" wrong with p therefore p. "After all, the whole point of argument is proof–if your proof fails, you don't earn your conclusion". I would disagree about that: first of all, the whole point of "argumentation" (that is, the process) is smth, whereas an "argument" is that smth in question; secondly, and most important, the whole point of argumentation is not proof - if one had proof, it would appeal to it by prooving instead of arguing. Argumentation occurs precisely where proof is unavailable. Suppose we have two apples, and we disagree about which one is weightier: would we engage in argumentation if right beside us we would have a weighting machine?

By: jcasey

jcasey — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:53:03 +0000

I suppose if you find errors relating to the description of fallacies then no, it wouldn’t be a fallacy to question the reliability of this page. But maybe you wouldn’t mind sharing, however, for the benefit of our gullible readers.

By: Michael Weaver

Michael Weaver — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:50 +0000

Lots of errors in this article. Would it be a fallacy to say that, due to numerous spelling and other errors, the reliability of the article is questionable?

By: Jem

Jem — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:40:49 +0000

go to the "fallacy zoo" link on this page, labeled under "Logic".

By: Jem

Jem — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:39:59 +0000

go to the fallacy zoo link on the main page here, filed under "Logic".

By: M Helton

M Helton — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:35:19 +0000

Could recommend any sites offering simple easy-to-understand examples of the informal fallacies? The thought just occurred to me you may insert the type of fallacy the writer is using within your comments – that would be outstanding – but because my internet connection is so slow resulting in slow page to page movements, I am sending this email just in case my thought is incorrect, instead of checking first – sorry for any inconvenience -