Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Self-Refuting or Self-denial fallacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Self-Refuting or Self-denial fallacy

    This a common fallacy used by some apologists on Tweb, and of course repeatedly denied. It is usually what I call the Escape or Pixie Dust Fallacy to shut down dialogue. or as is most often the case that they are frustrated with an argument that they cannot constructively respond to.

    Simple forms of 'Self-Refuting Fallacies are:

    "Is it an absolute truth and we cannot know absolute truths?" - seer

    Some call these simple forms of 'Cancelling Hypothesis' where the self-refutation is that the second part cancels out the first part.

    Bo Bennett responded to two examples of this fallacy. Both have similar wording and result.

    Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/TZTcbmLY/Can_it_be_absolutely_true_that_there_are_no_absolute_truths


    The first: "Can it be absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"

    The longer answer: This borders on a "Yogibearra-ism" (e.g., "Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours.") but known in logic as a self-defeating statement. In the movie Philomena, Steve Coogan walks out of a church service and when asked why states, "I don't believe in God, and I think he knows." These are good ways to make people laugh, but not good uses of reason. It is fallacious to make a self-defeating statement (again, unless as a statement of irony).

    © Copyright Original Source



    Note that if the purpose is just a statement of of irony or humor, than of course it is meaningless in any argument as is the fallacy.

    The second example is in response to seer's statement which is similar.

    Source: https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9#null



    "Is it an absolute truth and we can not know absolute truths?" - seer

    It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask. "Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?" Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept, when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly, truth, or whatever.

    The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position. Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 09:55 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      This a common fallacy used by some apologists on Tweb, and of course repeatedly denied. It is usually what I call the Escape or Pixie Dust Fallacy to shut down dialogue. or as is most often the case that they are frustrated with an argument that they cannot constructively respond to.

      Simple forms of 'Self-Refuting Fallacies are:

      "Is it an absolute truth and we cannot know absolute truths?" - seer
      Shuny this does not change the fact that your claim that we can not know absolute truths is merely your opinion. It is neither proven, absolute nor can it be demonstrated. Never mind the fact that we can know absolute truths: true contradictions can not exist. If you don't like the rhetorical device I used, that is fine, it does not change the bottom line.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Shuny this does not change the fact that your claim that we can not know absolute truths is merely your opinion. It is neither proven, absolute nor can it be demonstrated. Never mind the fact that we can know absolute truths: true contradictions can not exist. If you don't like the rhetorical device I used, that is fine, it does not change the bottom line.
        Failure to address the issue of this fallacy does not change the bottom line. I see your greatest virtue is self-denial.

        Your lack of a coherent argument does not justify your use of this fallacy.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Failure to address the issue of this fallacy does not change the bottom line. I see your greatest virtue is self-denial.

          Your lack of a coherent argument does not justify your use of this fallacy.
          You are doing it again. Nothing here changes the fact that your claim that we can not know absolute truths is any more than your opinion - one that has been clearly refuted. And if you do say that your claim that we can not know if absolute truths is itself absolute then that is self-refuting.

          Self-refutation plays an important role in some inconsistency tolerant logics (e.g. paraconsistent logics and direct logic[5]) that lack proof by contradiction. For example, the negation of a proposition can be proved by showing that the proposition implies its own negation. Likewise, it can be inferred that a proposition cannot be proved by (1) showing that a proof would imply the negation of the proposition or by (2) showing a proof would imply that the negation of the proposition can be proved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea
          Last edited by seer; 06-27-2016, 10:56 AM.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            You are doing it again. Nothing here changes the fact that your claim that we can not know absolute truths is any more than your opinion - one that has been clearly refuted. And if you do say that your claim that we can not know if absolute truths is itself absolute then that is self-refuting.
            Address the fallacy, do not repeat it.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Address the fallacy, do not repeat it.
              I can not address it unless you first tell me: is your claim that we can not know absolute truths an absolute statement or is it merely your opinion? I can not say whether it is self refuting until you answer that.

              Self-refutation plays an important role in some inconsistency tolerant logics (e.g. paraconsistent logics and direct logic[5]) that lack proof by contradiction. For example, the negation of a proposition can be proved by showing that the proposition implies its own negation. Likewise, it can be inferred that a proposition cannot be proved by (1) showing that a proof would imply the negation of the proposition or by (2) showing a proof would imply that the negation of the proposition can be proved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                You are doing it again. Nothing here changes the fact that your claim that we can not know absolute truths is any more than your opinion - one that has been clearly refuted. And if you do say that your claim that we can not know if absolute truths is itself absolute then that is self-refuting.

                Self-refutation plays an important role in some inconsistency tolerant logics (e.g. paraconsistent logics and direct logic[5]) that lack proof by contradiction. For example, the negation of a proposition can be proved by showing that the proposition implies its own negation. Likewise, it can be inferred that a proposition cannot be proved by (1) showing that a proof would imply the negation of the proposition or by (2) showing a proof would imply that the negation of the proposition can be proved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea
                Bo Bennett's description is specific and detailed. You are committing the fallacy as defined, and actually refers directly to your statement and and another similar on. Wikipedia cannot help you, but yes it actually does confirm the fallacy you committed.

                The above is incomplete and represents 'cherry picking' the wikipedia reference. It is sufficient if you read the whole reference that the fallacy you used cannot be responded to nor proved, or as some call the 'gotcha fallacy,' because of the contradiction of the fallacy.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 11:12 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Bo Bennett's description is specific and detailed. You are comiting the fallacy as defined. Wikipedia cannot help you.
                  See my last post.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    See my last post.
                    See my last post and Bo's specific descriptions of the fallacy you used.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      See my last post and Bo's specific descriptions of the fallacy you used.
                      Nonsense Shuny, he is not denying that self-refuting fallacies exist. They do in fact exist. And he makes it clear: Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.

                      And that is what I'm asking YOU: Is your claim that we can not know absolute truths, absolute - yes or no? If you say yes, then it is a self-refuting fallacy according to Bo's definition, and according to the link I offered. If it is merely your opinion, then fine.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Nonsense Shuny, he is not denying that self-refuting fallacies exist. They do in fact exist. And he makes it clear: Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.

                        And that is what I'm asking YOU: Is your claim that we can not know absolute truths, absolute - yes or no? If you say yes, then it is a self-refuting fallacy according to Bo's definition, and according to the link I offered. If it is merely your opinion, then fine.
                        You did not use the complete definition, you 'cherry picked' one part you believe agreed with you.

                        See my last post and Bo's specific descriptions of the fallacy you used.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          You did not use the complete definition, you 'cherry picked' one part you believe agreed with you.

                          See my last post and Bo's specific descriptions of the fallacy you used.
                          Shuny are you being dense on purpose? I agreed in the past that if you did not mean that your claim was absolute then it is not a fallacy, but if you did claim it was absolute then it was a self-refuting fallacy. Bo agrees completely with this. The rest is meaningless. So just admit that is was nothing more than your opinion and we have no problem. But Bo makes it clear that if you did mean that your claim was absolute then you are committing a fallacy.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Shuny are you being dense on purpose?
                            Obviously.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Address the fallacy, do not repeat it.
                              It's a fallacy depending on what was meant. It's not necessarily a fallacy. For instance, if I say "The only true statements are analytic or observation statements," it isn't a fallacy for you to say that my statement is self-refuting if I intend to be taken literally...To ask a question (i.e. "Do you intend that to be taken as an absolute truth?") is not a fallacy.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              161 responses
                              510 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X