Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3039992" data-attributes="member: 18280">You have a builder.  That you assume the builder is "moronic" is a non sequitur, an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.I would also say that several of your previous statements fall under the ad hoc fallacy:If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.  The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.Until you have established that you have a cat, said cat has no power as evidence.  Until you establish that the builder is moronic, you are simply adjusting the facts to meet your ad hoc assumption.1.  You assume the trap is moronic,2.  Therefore, whoever built the trap was moronic.Without a line of rational thinking that demonstrates (1), (2) is meaningless.OTOH, the examples I am providing are not necessary cases for the trap to not be moronic.  They are simply examples that demonstate that the first premise (1) is not conclusive.  It is as though you were claiming that you had the cat without any evidence that the cat exists.Your argument for the builder being a moron requires that a previous assumption (the trap is moronic) be true.  Your argument is, in effect, "It is unproven that there is a good reason for this trap to exist, therefore no good reason exists."In other words, argumentum ad ignorantiam.Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.The existence of A is simpler than the existence of A + B, so long as circumstances do not make A + B necessary, in accordance with Occam's Razor, but there are again two things we must guard against:(1)  The presumption of A.  We know that a builder exists.  By making the claim that the existence of a builder implies the existence of a moronic builder, you hide and attempt to confuse your base assumptions.  The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly.  It's not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.(2)  Mistaking Occam's Razor for proof.  Simply because you have a cat, one cannot conclude definitely that your cat drank the milk.You conclude that the trap cannot be effective because "The party got the McGuffin!" but again your logic fails on two points:(1)  The assumption that the purpose of the trap was to prevent the party from getting the McGuffin, and(2)  The assumption that, when the lever was pulled, the monk's death was the only thing that happened.Neither one of these assumptions can be rationally inferred from the original post.You are also guilty of Argumentum ad hominem, literally "argument directed at the man,"If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.and shifting the burden of proof.The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.The assertation is that the trap is unfair, made long before I posted.  I simply deny the assertation, and point out the flaws with the "proofs" thus far offered.  RC</blockquote>

Verification