Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717

Part 1:https://undertale.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:170064

Part 2:https://undertale.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:170066 (Post 5 of this thread contains the second half of Part 2)

--

So now that we've established how logical arguments work, we're good to go, right? Well... no. There are many common mistakes that people make. Times where they form an argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, even though it looks like it does. These are called logical fallacies.

There are two kinds of logical fallacies:Formal fallacies, and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are problems with the structure of the argument. Informal fallacies are fallacies that are essentially "missing" premises.. Thus containing hidden ones... Which happen to be false (or at least not known to be true). (If a premise that's actually presented is false, that's a factual error. While that's a problem with your argument, it is an entirely separate issue from fallacies, and does not count as one.)

The non sequitor is a generic fallacy; this is because all formal fallacies are also non sequitors. So, we only use the term when a formal fallacy is commited that doesn't already have its own name.

Likewise, the red herring is another generic fallacy-Though it's an informal one.

If you make an argument that proves A.. And then use that to say that B is true, that's a red herring. A fallacy. If you're trying to prove B, then make an argument for B! (You're missing the argument that A implies B.)

A common fallacy is "appeal to authority". An argument that if an authority says that something is true... That means it is. This is not true-They can still be mistaken or lying. Instead, one should analyze the claim itself, and the evidence to support that claim. One can cite an authority... But it's only to present the authority's claim as a claim that you too are making. The authority's claim is only to be cited as a claim-It still needs to be analyzed, and it is bound by the same rules as it would be if you had made the claim on your own. Because all you're doing is presenting another argument made by someone else-Nothing more. If it doesn't hold up, it is to be rejected-Authority or no authority.

"This theory is true because Matpat said so!"-Argument from Authority

In fact, this is a common theme of many fallacies, so I'll get this done with right here and now:One should always analyze a claim strictly on the claim itself. The person making the claim is completely irrelevant. Assuming a link between the person making the claim and the claim itself is the basis for many, many fallacies. You know about the literary theory of Death of the Author? Well, you need to apply that principle to all logical arguments.. Because it DOES apply to all logical arguments. (Death of the Claimer? Death of the Claimant? Death of the Arguer?)

For instance, argumentum ad populum is the fallacy of thinking that since the majority of the people believe something to be true.. That it is. And ad hominem, where someone argues that since the person making the claim isn't credible/intelligent/, the claim is false. And tu quoque, the argument that since the arguer acts contrary to what they're claiming.. It's false.

Remember. The person making the claim doesn't matter. Only the claim itself does.

Another common fallacy is begging the question, also known as circular reasoning. This happens when an argument assumes itself to be true prior to making this conclusion-This would almost always be because the conclusion is given as one of the premises. It's not always obvious, though, as it's usually worded in a different way.


 * Premise 1:Humans have been deemed dangerous to the monsters.
 * Premise 2:If humans are dangerous to the monsters, then they'll declare them as a threat.
 * Conclusion:Therefore, the monsters consider humanity as a threat to them.

...Declaring humanity as a threat and deeming them dangerous are the same thing. No new information is gained. (For example:WHY were they considered dangerous?)

Yet another is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This is the assumption that since event A happened before event B, then event A caused event B.


 * Premise 1:Chara arrived in New Home after the Royal Memorial Statue was built
 * Conclusion:The Royal Memorial Statue caused Chara to arrive there.

There are also those who use anecdotes as evidence... Which it's not. But this doesn't really apply much in Undertale (unless we're theorizing about Chara's morality, and people are discussing Chara's past.)

There's also appeal to incredulity-This is an argument that since you can't imagine a possibility being true... It must be false. ...Yes, it's literally "it's not true because I can't see how it is true"! ...Yes, that is a fallacy.

There's also affirming the consequent. ...Here, have an argument that commits this fallacy.


 * Premise 1:If a monster absorbs a human SOUL, they gain massive power.
 * Premise 2:Undyne gained massive power
 * Conclusion:Undyne absorbed a human SOUL.

The problem here is that "if A, then B" does not imply "if B, then A."

There's plenty more fallacies to go over in the coming parts.. 