The Fallacy fallacy is an important one, that is all too readily forgotten. It can also be called the "Broken Clock" rule in a positive wording: Even a broken clock is right twice per day. And just because someone used a fallacy does not make their conclusion incorrect. In fact, someone can be completely off-their-rocker insane, and still have a correct conclusion:
As we know, the lizard-people who control the the illuminati who control the governments who control the MSM who control the people have four cones in their eyes, instead of three. This makes them extra sensitive to certain light wavelengths. So when they custom-built the Earth, they ensured that its sealant shell was of an agreeable color to them, and everyone from Darwin to Dawkins knows lizards' favorite color is blue. Thus, it can be resolved the sky is blue. Now, some crazies say the sky is blue because of reflected water light, but last I checked in my Brita filter, water was clear, not blue. So they're clearly wrong, but their conclusion is still correct about the sky's color.
Right, but it's not always just crazy coincidence if a person's correct, when they used a fallacy. Lines of thinking that are fallacies, such as slippery slope, are very valuable in debate, even if they aren't appropriate in writing the conclusion for a scientific paper or a judge writing their verdict.
Very true for the most part, but fallacies CAN be appropriate for a judge writing their verdict:
Ad hominem, in example, while a logical fallacy, can in its most classical form be used as a form of soft evidence: "George Floyd has a medical and criminal history of disposing of drugs in lethal doses by consuming them if pulled over. His lawyer's arguments are moot." is an ad hominem, it doesn't address the current court debate, it doesn't talk about the actions done that night. But it is a form of soft evidence that a judge or jury may take into account as to the character and likelihood of certain events happening as a defense lawyer may present them. Even more loosely, "George was a criminal who robbed women at gunpoint" is even more clear ad hominem, and poisoning the well, but would be taken as weak evidence. On the opposite side, "Chauvin has a history of hurting suspects during arrests, the defense's arguments are spurious in light of this" means nothing, as well, just an ad hominem, but will also likely be used as weak evidence against him as to his actions that night.
The Fallacy fallacy is an important one, that is all too readily forgotten. It can also be called the "Broken Clock" rule in a positive wording: Even a broken clock is right twice per day. And just because someone used a fallacy does not make their conclusion incorrect. In fact, someone can be completely off-their-rocker insane, and still have a correct conclusion:
As we know, the lizard-people who control the the illuminati who control the governments who control the MSM who control the people have four cones in their eyes, instead of three. This makes them extra sensitive to certain light wavelengths. So when they custom-built the Earth, they ensured that its sealant shell was of an agreeable color to them, and everyone from Darwin to Dawkins knows lizards' favorite color is blue. Thus, it can be resolved the sky is blue. Now, some crazies say the sky is blue because of reflected water light, but last I checked in my Brita filter, water was clear, not blue. So they're clearly wrong, but their conclusion is still correct about the sky's color.
Right, but it's not always just crazy coincidence if a person's correct, when they used a fallacy. Lines of thinking that are fallacies, such as slippery slope, are very valuable in debate, even if they aren't appropriate in writing the conclusion for a scientific paper or a judge writing their verdict.
Very true for the most part, but fallacies CAN be appropriate for a judge writing their verdict:
Ad hominem, in example, while a logical fallacy, can in its most classical form be used as a form of soft evidence: "George Floyd has a medical and criminal history of disposing of drugs in lethal doses by consuming them if pulled over. His lawyer's arguments are moot." is an ad hominem, it doesn't address the current court debate, it doesn't talk about the actions done that night. But it is a form of soft evidence that a judge or jury may take into account as to the character and likelihood of certain events happening as a defense lawyer may present them. Even more loosely, "George was a criminal who robbed women at gunpoint" is even more clear ad hominem, and poisoning the well, but would be taken as weak evidence. On the opposite side, "Chauvin has a history of hurting suspects during arrests, the defense's arguments are spurious in light of this" means nothing, as well, just an ad hominem, but will also likely be used as weak evidence against him as to his actions that night.