previous discussion: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/224405-introduction-logic

a lot of people in this forum like to attempt to have debates about various topics, but don't have even a basic understanding of how logic works. it is my aim that this post will help them begin to form coherent arguments.

these are the four most common logical fallacies i see committed here:

strawman argument -- attacking an argument that was not made, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

ad hominem attack -- making a personal attack and pretending that is an argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

red herring -- bringing up something unrelated and irrelevant, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

genetic fallacy -- attacking the history of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.

notice anything these all have in common? in each case, the argument that was made was not addressed. if you wish to actually debate constructively and with some semblance of intelligence and coherence, you need to address the argument that was made. If you're not addressing the argument made, you're not even in the game. you're just babbling irrelevant bullshit and making a fool of yourself.

i was going to provide some examples but then I realized this forum is full of stubborn trolls who don't have even a basic grasp of logic, who will not heed or likely even be able to understand my advice, so they'll provide the examples for us. i'll identify fallacies in the thread as they are committed.

This is a good introduction to logic: http://www.springer.com/la/book/9781447121756

hi timon92, thank you for demonstrating a red herring. bringing up irrelevant nonsense. mathematical logic, the subfield of mathematics exploring the applications of formal logic to mathematics, is distinct from logic, the systematic study of the form of arguments.

well the first 60 p seems to be about first order logic so.... and that is likely an introduction to what it is, since it is needed if you are to understand anything about mathematical logic

Edited 12/19/2016 16:52:53

Mathematical logic is the foundation of any logical argument. A thorough understanding of mathematical logic is very valuable to anyone attempting to make sound logical points. It helps one understand what combinations of information allow you to draw new conclusions.

Of course it doesn't help in generating your axioms in the real world, so you can have a good understanding of logic and build up a self-consistent worldview which is still based on nonsense. Nonetheless, without the formal definitions of logic there would be no way to prove that conclusions based on evidence are valid or unjustifiable.

Timon's post is therefore not irrelevant.

I smell fallacy by reading berens post

Mathematical logic is the foundation of any logical argument.

nice strawman

see this is why red herrings are bad, it takes you to entirely new places and you forget what the discussion is all about.

this thread is not about math. go start a math thread if you want to discuss math.

here we are discussing common logical fallacies committed by trolls in this forum.

still there seem to be a introduction to first order logic in the book, hence making timons message relevant

Timon's post is therefore not irrelevant.

It's irrelevant to my argument. It does not address it. It does not present reasons why I'm right or I'm wrong.

If your argument is that water is wet, and I say water is the main ingredient in beer, that's a red herring. It doesn't matter that I discussed water. I did not address your argument.

Edited 12/19/2016 17:23:57

Maybe you should have titled your post "an introduction to online arguments" rather than "an introduction to logic" then.

Another red herring. Irrelevant nonsense. My argument is clear in the body of my post.

Maybe you should called your clan 'apex the warlight.net clan' instead of 'apex' since apex has other meanings.

but i dont understand what the red herrings that you are mentioning are deraling us from? you simply state some fallacies, what is there to discuss? they are correct, we have known that for around 2.500 years

Edited 12/19/2016 17:34:25

so given that there is nothing to discuss there can't be any red herrings by definition

just because you agree doesn't mean there is nothing to discuss. there is nothing for you to discuss.

"i agree, now i'm changing the subject" would not be a red herring. nobody has said that.

ok..... who disagrees then?

also what do you want to have discussed.... you do not mention that

a lot of people in this forum like to attempt to have debates about various topics, but don't have even a basic understanding of how logic works.

If you're not addressing the argument made, you're not even in the game. you're just babbling irrelevant bullshit and making a fool of yourself.

this forum is full of stubborn trolls who don't have even a basic grasp of logic, who will not heed or likely even be able to understand my advice

You really think there is nobody in this forum who would disagree with any of that?

The whole point of the four fallacies is that they don't address the argument. So that people are not saying specifically that they disagree with me is to be expected. That is the natural result of their red herrings and genetic fallacies and strawmen and ad hominems. They dodge my arguments with that shit.