Self-Refuting or Self-denial fallacy

[Sparko]

Seers reply was not a fallacy, Shuny. It is a rhetorical statement meant to ironically point out the self-contradictory nature of the statement you made in the first place. If anyone committed a fallacy it was you making a self-contradicting statement.

I am sorry you are embarrassed by it, but you can't change the fact that you made a stupid statement and continued to argue about it for pages because you could not see your own self-contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

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.

Again it is you that are conflating certainty with not certainty in your statement. The reference by Bo is in reference to your statement not mine.

[shunyadragon]

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.

Not literally, but your question implies a conflict, and does not reflect the actual views of my posts.

My posts were very clear and specific concerning what I consider concepts such as 'absolute truth.'

I have repeated this many many times. I do not consider the human view of knowledge consistent with the claims of the knowledge of absolutes. Humans may have certainty concerning some things, but claims of absolute truth imply the 'fallacy of universal generalization,' especially when these claims go beyond simple truth statements to include other undefined open ended claims that it is valid for humans o believe in absolute truths. It has never been understood that this includes ALL absolute truths, but the fallacy stands with an undefined set that is open ended and may include 'many absolute truths.

In my view all beliefs and views are fallible human views of the nature of reality, and not absolutes. Of course as with all fallible humans, this is my fallible view. Any more foolish questions without implying a fallacy?

To ask, "Do you intend that to be taken as an absolute truth?" is implying trouble.

[seer]

Again it is you that are conflating certainty with not certainty in your statement. The reference by Bo is in reference to your statement not mine.

No I'm not, if your statement is not absolute then by definition it is uncertain, or relative. Can you prove that we can not know absolute truths?

[shunyadragon]

No I'm not, if your statement is not absolute then by definition it is uncertain, or relative.

Bo was very specific in two very clear descriptions of the fallacy and reference directly to your statement.

Can you prove that we can not know absolute truths?

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal geberalization,'

[seer]

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal generalization,'

But isn't your claim that we can not know absolute truths a universal generalization? Or is it merely your opinion based on your limited experience?

[Sparko]

Again it is you that are conflating certainty with not certainty in your statement. The reference by Bo is in reference to your statement not mine.

ok back up... why should anyone care what "Bo" says?


....Not that you have actually understood what he said.

[shunyadragon]

But isn't your claim that we can not know absolute truths a universal generalization? Or is it merely your opinion based on your limited experience?

No. because I as a fallible human being make reasonable statements of belief, and relative certainties about or reality, and not believe in arrogant absolutes as you do, and conflating fallacies sprinkling pixie dust.

In your view above carried to a logical reasoning concludes that everyone's view is just opinion, and all dialogue and discussion is moot.

The many many fallacies you and others resort to have one purpose, to deflect, avoid, and dodge constructive dialogue and discussion.

Again . . .

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal generalization,'

[seer]

No. because I as a fallible human being make reasonable statements of belief, and relative certainties about or reality, and not believe in arrogant absolutes as you do, and conflating fallacies sprinkling pixie dust.

But you are fallible so you may just as well be completely wrong.

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal generalization,'

No, I'm saying more than that, I'm saying that the law of non-contradiction can not be violated, that true contradictions can not exist - do you disagree - yes or nor.

[shunyadragon]

But you are fallible so you may just as well be completely wrong.

So can all fallible human beings including you. So what?!?!?!?!!?!?

No, I'm saying more than that,

You said specifically said this, "Can you prove that we can not know absolute truths?"

This indeed is a fallacy of trying to prove the negative.

I'm saying that the law of non-contradiction can not be violated, that true contradictions can not exist - do you disagree - yes or no.

From the fallible human perspective contradictions can exist. Fallible humans cannot consistently comprehend absolute truths.

Again . . .

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal generalization,'

[seer]

From the fallible human perspective contradictions can exist. Fallible humans cannot consistently comprehend absolute truths.

That is not what I asked you Shuny, I asked if true contradictions can exist - yes or no.

[shunyadragon]

ok back up... why should anyone care what "Bo" says?

Bo Bennett is a qualified philosopher and publisher with a PhD in Philosophy. His references cited are accurate. You may reject him, because you disagree with him, but nonetheless he is an adequate reference on the nature of logical fallacies.

....Not that you have actually understood what he said.

Simple reading comprehension of the English language. Bo's two different descriptions of the logical consequences of seer's statements concluded that it was a self-defeating fallacy.

[Sparko]

So can all fallible human beings including you. So what?!?!?!?!!?!?




You said specifically said this, "Can you prove that we can not know absolute truths?"

This indeed is a fallacy of trying to prove the negative.



From the fallible human perspective contradictions can exist. Fallible humans cannot consistently comprehend absolute truths.

Again . . .

The fallacies are staking up. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to prove absolutes by citing a few simple true statements, and then concluding openly there are more absolute truths is a 'fallacy of universal generalization,'

Sure you can prove a negative.

Here is one: Shunyadragon/Frank is NOT a car.

You can prove that pretty easily right?

[shunyadragon]

Sure you can prove a negative.

Here is one: Shunyadragon/Frank is NOT a car.

You can prove that pretty easily right?

No, simplistic foolish moronic physical facts does not address the issues in philosophy and logic.

[Sparko]

Bo Bennett is a qualified philosopher and publisher with a PhD in Philosophy. His references cited are accurate. You may reject him, because you disagree with him, but nonetheless he is an adequate reference on the nature of logical fallacies.



Simple reading comprehension of the English language. Bo's two different descriptions of the logical consequences of seer's statements concluded that it was a self-defeating fallacy.

A simple reading comprehension of his example shows that the fallacy would be being committed by the original person, not the one asking if that were absolutely true, depending on the answer to that question.

From your original link With you and seers names substituted.:

A non-fallacious dialog:

Shuny: "There is no absolute truth."
Seer: "So is THAT absolutely true??" (asked rhetorically)
Shuny: "I don't know. In my worldview, my statements are probability based; they're not based on a false sense of certainty."

As Bo says: The fallacy is in making a self defeating statement, not in questioning if it is self-defeating.

So if the conversation went like this:
Shuny: "There is no absolute truth"
Seer: "So is THAT absolutely true?"
Shuny: "Yes!"

Then You, Shuny, would be the one committing the fallacy of a self-defeating statement. Seer would not have committed a fallacy in either example. THAT is what BO said in his page. Go read it again. You just basically shot yourself in the foot and everyone can see it but you.

I eagerly await you putting your fingers in your ears and going "nananananana, I can't hear you!!" and repeating yourself.