My point is simple: Just because an argument may commit an informal fallacy does not mean it is a bad argument.

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Candy that was stolen from a grocery store was found in Johnny’s possession.
Premise 2: Johnny claims that he did not steal the candy from the store.
Premise 3: Johnny is a known liar and a convicted shop-lifter.
Conclusion: Johnny is lying.

I would argue that this conclusion is a reasonable conclusion in light of the given evidence even though it might be classified as an informal fallacy.  It is not deductively certain, but it does have some inductive force.

What do you think?

Brian
P.S. In the end, Johnny was not lying. His little brother, Cain, framed him for the crime.

Circumstantial evidence supported by character witness.

That may not be conclusive enough in a criminal court of law to send someone to prison, but it would’ve certainly been sufficient for my mom to ground me when I was a kid…

Brian,

I think we see living examples of this sort of phenomenon happening in our everyday lives.  For example, a person with a good intention does something they think is wonderful and helpful only to cause harm.  Conversely, a person with a bad intention attempts to hurt, or deceive somehow, only to find out that they’ve caused a necessary vulnerability for true healing to begin.  Hence the initial premise(s) for one’s actions don’t necessarily prove the outcome.

As with human interactions, so with logic.  A person comes to a right conclusion despite a well-intentioned, wrong premise or two.

What do you think?

Hello Christopher,

I think your illustration is a little off. My point was not so much about intentions as it was the reasonableness of certain arguments classified as informal fallacies.  To conclude that Johnny was lying about the candy in his pocket might be considered a reasonable conclusion given the evidence - even though in the end he was innocent. 

Consider the children’s story, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Technically, the thought process the town’s people went through to conclude they were not going to heed the child’s cries could be classified as an informal fallacy. Was it unreasonable for the town’s people to ignore the child’s cries concerning the wolf? I would argue that it was not.  In short, the situation around some informal fallacies may make the conclusion a reasonable conclusion even though technically it is fallicious.

Brian

Brian wrote:

Hello Christopher,

I think your illustration is a little off.

That’s probably true!

But can you prove it through the fallacy of informal fallacies? 

My point was not so much about intentions as it was the reasonableness of certain arguments classified as informal fallacies.

I understand.  My intention in raising the point about ‘intentions’ was simply to illustrate how that kind of informal fallacy can be lived out on a more informal level than raw logic.  Still, I think because my intention didn’t necessarily address the strict logic inherent in your question (and therefore came to a bad end), you are right to point out that my “illustration is a little off.”

Or, let’s look at this another way:

Premise 1:  In the past, I have usually been able to understand (except in cases of predicate/squiggly logic) your lines of reasoning;
Premise 2: I’m usually honest, if not truthful;
Premise 3: I’m a bit of a mischief maker, and I just might be making mischief right now;
Conclusion: So I think, in spite of my committing a red-herring, I think my argument is true.  Maybe not for this discussion, but whatever!

In short, the situation around some informal fallacies may make the conclusion a reasonable conclusion even though technically it is fallicious.

Brian

So, like in situational ethics (à la Joseph Fletcher), so too with logic: situational logic?

Warmly,
Christopher

Hey Christopher,

I’m a bit of a mischief maker, and I just might be making mischief right now…

Now, this does not surprise me.  All one has to do is look at your Avatar to draw this conclusion!    Did I just commit an informal fallacy?

Your Friend,

Brian

Sorry, I’m a little behind.
What is the definition of an informal fallacy?

Andrew,

An informal fallacy is an argument pattern that is wrong due to a mistake in its reasoning. In contrast to a formal fallacy, the error has to do with issues of rational inference that occur in natural language; which are broader than can be represented by the symbols used in formal logic. Informal fallacies, when deductive, commonly occur in an invalid form. By including an unstated co-premise, most deductive informal fallacies are actually valid, with the hidden co-premise false, making the argument unsound.

Source.

Welcome to the board!

Brian wrote:

Now, this does not surprise me.  All one has to do is look at your Avatar to draw this conclusion!    Did I just commit an informal fallacy?

Yes, but not unintentionally. 

I like your thoughts on this issue.  I wonder if what you’re pointing out is really reflective of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, since there is a gap between what Johnny is accused of (stealing candy), and the evidence necessary to make that accusation bona fide (that Johnny, in fact, actively took the candy, even though he did not)?

So, are fallacies of informal fallacies a matter of undistributed middles?

What are your thoughts?

Intensely interested,
Christopher

Welcome to the board

Thanks

Now let me see if I have this.

Informal fallacies have to do with our use and understanding of language, namely the ues of inferance.
Formal fallacies on the other hand are more mathematical in their approach, i.e., if A+B then C.

Andrew

Brian, why do you always have to bring up the hard stuff?! Some people have too much IQ floating around up there. <grin>