Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20200214154305/@comment-32182236-20200214192628

Alright, this is the next part of Part 4.

Let's review what we've gone over, putting it all into a simple model.

Propositions begin as indeterminate:A third value in logic, besides the classical true and false. It is then possible for it to "collapse" into one of the two classical values:True, or false.

But what exactly causes collapse in the first place?

It happens upon observation.

In Part 1, we've gone over what canon is. In Part 2, we've gone over how to use true premises to show more are true as well.

An argument, thus put, is an attempt at making such a collapse in our knowledge.


 * Premise 1:Toriel is a monster (TRUE)
 * Premise 2:All monsters have magic (TRUE)
 * Conclusion:Toriel has magic (TRUE)

In order for such an argument to be sound, all the premises must definitely be true (As in, they can't be false or indeterminate), and it must also be a valid argument (ie:No fallacies are used-Conclusion follows from premises.)

Otherwise, the argument has failed to prove the conclusion:It didn't get collapsed. So it's still indeterminate.


 * Premise 1:Humans don't kill (FALSE)
 * Premise 2:Frisk doesn't kill in Pacifist (TRUE)
 * Conlusion:Frisk is a human in Pacifist (Failed to prove:Therefore, indeterminate)

Note here that I said indeterminate. Not false. That's an important distinction.

In fact, we can already tell through canon that Frisk is a human in Pacifist.. And in the other routes as well. So in fact, the conclusion does collapse into true, but the fallacious argument failed to collapse the value of the conclusion.

Given this, I'd say it's about time for me to finally explain what argument from ignorance actually is, and why it's a fallacy!

Argument from ignorance is what happens when one falsely gives the skeptic the burden of proof. In order words, it's claiming that since no proof exists that the premise is true, it must be false (or that it's false because there's no proof that it's true).

So, why is it a fallacy? I wouldn't be able to explain it using only the two values of logic.. But the indeterminate value makes it trivial.

It's rather simple! The lack of proof means that the value is still indeterminate:We don't KNOW if it's true or false (or if it's literally indeterminate!) So then claiming that the premise is FALSE is quite the fallacy indeed! Indeterminate->False is truly a bad leap in logic.

See? This new value lets us look at some fallacies that really don't look like them.. And expose them for the fallacies they really are.

It's going to help us with some other fallacies as well! But before we get into them, it's about time we talk about arguments about arguments:In that sense, meta-arguments, as most of these fallacies involve meta-arguments. I'll also be revealing yet another special property of the indeterminate value...