<p>gotakun, those “logical fallacies” have little to do with correct logical reasoning. Logic provides rules for valid inferences, but it does not provide a set of assumptions to start with. You can start with almost any assumptions you like. For example, IF you assume that all life is to be protected, THEN you can conclude that abortions are to be avoided. But who says that all life is worth protecting? And how do you define life anyway? </p>
<p>That’s where religion comes in. It provides a set of assumptions or principles or believes, and people can use those assumptions to draw logical conclusions which guide their decisions.</p>
<p>Religious leaders start committing those logical fallacies you quoted when you challenge them to defend their basic assumptions. That’s because it’s often impossible to prove or disprove the basic axioms you are working with. You just have to make a choice and go from there.</p>
<p>Logic is sometimes taught in high school in English courses. I have a bunch of high school English textbooks in the basement and have run across a set of basic rule of argumentation and reasoning. One can always pick up a textbook on logic and read through it.</p>
<p>As to the usefulness of logical reasoning, it helps if there is a common set of premises. This is often not the case in political discourses. If we do not have common premises, then it is really difficult to use logical systems to make rational judgements.</p>
<p>Copi’s book is very good in the areas of logic, debate and reasoning. It often is he case that the person that isn’t the best in logic wins the debate.</p>
<p>I go to a small catholic high school and your required to take 4 years of both English and Ethics/Religion course. This year I’m taking Moral Issues, and we have to dissect controversial issues and make a resolution for it. If every high school had a ethics/philosophy class maybe people can think more logically about things. If I’m not mistaken public high schools don’t teach it but all catholic schools make it a requirement.</p>
<p>You beat me too it b@r!um. I’ll add something though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apply regress ad infinitum and you will quickly realize this fallacy requires the existence axioms. Otherwise, all knowledge would be illogical, ergo the only logical thing to do would be to stop studying logic.</p>
<p>The Catholic Church has a pretty strong history on logic.</p>
<p>Logical systems are an important part of the study of artificial intelligence in the area of expert systems. Discrete structures are a typical prerequisite for artificial intelligence and they cover proposition and predicate calculus so you’ll get some exercises in symbolic manipulation.</p>
<p>Another way to get a lot of insight into logical reasoning and its limitations is to go through the Prolog textbook by Clocksin and Mellish (this came out in the 1970s I think).</p>
Logical fallacies have everything to do with correct logical reasoning. The “assumptions” you appear to be referencing are actually morals. Morals are completely arbitrary and exist separate from logic. Morals are not facts but cultural rules of behavior, so it doesn’t fall under the category of firehose’s bare assertion fallacy. You reason within a certain moral framework, like you said.</p>
<p>I guess when it comes to morals, there are no rules, but logic completely breaks down when a moral behavior is “believing.” A great disservice is done to children who are indoctrinated with a moral like this. If you are morally required to believe in a logical fallacy (or a false statement), all of the reasoning that branches from that belief is invalid.</p>
<p>Can everyone please be sure to state what their argument is? I’m not really sure if people are trying to invalidate the entire subject of logic, explain why it isn’t in schools more explicitly, prove that it is already in schools, or what…</p>
<p>I think it’s somewhat ironic that the OP apparently has been taught a list of fallacies yet thinks he’s actually been taught logic.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think the main reason it isn’t taught is that most people aren’t really capable of grasping it. I’ve taken a couple classes in symbolic logic, and I found it amazing that so many people had difficulty coping with the idea that if the premise in a conditional statement is false, the full statement is automatically valid. (i.e. [~P => (P–>Q)] )</p>
<p>There’s your problem. You’re saying that the axiomatic moral framework is untrue because it can’t be logically proven. The whole idea of logic is that you operate based on an ASSUMED PREMISE.</p>
Is this in reference to my declaration that religious beliefs are false and/or delusional? This thread is losing focus… My response is that any arguments I make targeted at religious people are not the original premises by which I came to my own conclusion. I have to play by their rules if I want to convince them of the truth. My own logical proof would be meaningless to a religious believer and would do nothing.</p>
<p>To clarify, it isn’t true that I am “saying that the axiomatic moral framework is untrue because it can’t be logically proven.”</p>
<p>Yes, to logically disprove religion, you would have to play by the same base premises. If you’re saying then that it’s impossible to disprove it under those premises, then you’re also saying that religion is logically valid.</p>
<p>Well, any sort of religion that professes belief in an omnipotent being is by breaking the rules of logic, since an omnipotent being is by definition able to violate any rule of logic, including the most basic: x is either y or not y. Which means this god can be two mutually exclusive things, which means there is no possible way to describe a god, since he can be benevolent and evil at the same time, help and not help, exist and not exist at the same time. Any sort of description is meaningless since they do not circumscribe any possibilities (a description is only useful if it limits the set of things a particular element can belong to). Thus professing to know anything regard such a being is impossible and a logical contradiction.</p>
<p>I think it’s very possible for religion and logic to co-exist. </p>
<p>But yes, I want more logic classes! I like reasoning. Most english classes in the US teach you jack squat in my experience. I would certainly appreciate a logic class, because that means I would actually learn something.</p>
You have every right to reject religious beliefs. That is very different from saying that religion is illogical, which people have been arguing is not (necessarily) true.</p>
<p>Assuming we’re talking about Christianity, all I would have to do is prove that it’s illogical to believe in their god or the legitimacy of their bible (either would take care of the other). If their bible is not historically accurate, it is fiction. If enough evidence suggests it is not true, it is not logical to believe that it is. If the existence of their god is dependent on the legitimacy of their bible, then I have successfully disproved the existence of their god.</p>
<p>“Everytime a humanities major sells his/her degree by saying that he/she learns how to ‘think critically’, unlike those science and math majors who just memorize formulas and push symbols around all day, I cringe. Humanities majors really need to be exposed more to the analytical subjects.”</p>
Because the only evidence of its existence is the book. Even assuming there is a god, which is a ridiculous assumption to make because no one is able to even define the term, the specific character of god that the Christian bible describes cannot logically be assumed to exist if the book is determined to be fictional. If the rules of logic don’t even coincide with that, then there is no logical reason to believe that fairy tale characters have never existed.</p>
<p>
In that example, the working premise is “if the Christian bible contradicts itself, any Christian belief is false.” Obviously, that is a non-sequitur.</p>