Requested discount
Why do you think philosophers treat the desired assumption as a logical fallacy if it is the only way to make a valid logical argument?
Just making a blatantly false assumption is a fallacy. Furthermore, sometimes your interlocutor is unaware of his own assumptions, and the argument will reveal to him that he actually believes in new assumptions. In such a case, presenting a valid logical argument that assumes the false assumption is very helpful, because the person suddenly discovers that he also assumes the false assumption and is convinced.
Beyond that, if it is clear that your interlocutor disagrees with you on the conclusion, there is no point in presenting an argument that assumes the conclusion and building a logical argument on it. In this sense, at least, it is indeed a fallacy. A logical argument never convinces the convinced.
What does "blatant" mean? Who determines whether an assumption is blatant or not?
Blunt is an argument that proves x based on the assumption x. It is a valid and completely worthless argument. An argument that proves x based on the assumption x and y is also quite blunt but less so. The less blunt it is, the more valuable the argument is.
I didn't understand why "the required premise is the only way to make a valid logical argument," as the questioner put it. Is there no logical argument without the required premise?
See the rabbi's article (appearing on the website) ‘Avraham Avinu and His Hat – In Praise of the Requested Offering’
Now I saw that the article appears here under a different name, anyway this is it:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%90%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%94%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%91%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%95-%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%95%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%95-%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%91%d7%97-%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%97%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%95%d7%a7%d7%a9/
Read Truth and Unstable, Aaron. A good book.
The Rabbi wrote, “An argument that proves x based on the assumption x and y is also quite blunt, but less so. The less blunt it is, the more valuable the argument is.” How does adding assumptions that are not relevant to the proof (such as the Rabbi saying that x and y prove x) erase the fallacy?? The fallacy exists, and not only that, but there are also unrelated assumptions. When the Rabbi says that the argument has more value, we mean the value of clarification alone?
Isolation is entertaining for everyone.
You quoted me incorrectly.
I quoted mikyab123 from the fourth comment from the beginning of the thread. Is that you?
That's totally me. Look again and you'll see you didn't quote correctly.
I didn't understand the riddle. The quote is partial and therefore incorrect?
Apologies. I saw the first sentence and not the second. (The devil is in haste). Sorry. 🙂
It is clear that the formulation X and also Y and therefore X does not change anything about the argument. It is like X and therefore X.
What I meant to say is that even if on the level of logical analysis it is about adding premises, but in terms of the appearance of the eyes the argument can already be non-trivial. For example, think about a proof in geometry. The existence of proofs shows that the conclusions are laid down within the axioms. That is, it is an argument of the type X and also Y and therefore X. And yet the arguments there are really non-trivial. The logical structure is (X and also Y) and therefore Y, but the sentence “X and also Y” is not simply formulated as X and also Y but something more complex.
Is the Rabbi in a hurry this early in the morning? The devil works overtime for the Rabbi.
Secrets from the printing press. I just finished a column and sent it to Oren to upload. I'm in the middle of the activity now. 🙂
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
