[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You can't read the difference between "believe" and "say"?
This is very dire indeed.
My thoughts go with you.

I know the meaning of words, you have shown that you dont. In this case we both know you actually do know that you made a strawman but rather than admit it are trying and failing to lie your way out of it

STOP LYING!!!!!!!

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I know the meaning of words, you have shown that you dont. In this case we both know you actually do know that you made a strawman but rather than admit it are trying and failing to lie your way out of it

STOP LYING!!!!!!!

You are confused by your inability to read the different meanings of the words "believe" and "say," and prevented by that confusion from recognizing your confusion.
Again, my best wishes for the coming day.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You are confused by your inability to read the different meanings of the words "believe" and "say," and prevented by that confusion from recognizing your confusion.
Again, my best wishes for the coming day.

Wiggle wiggle wiggle they little worm is trying to get off the hook he put himself on, too bad it isn't working

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Wiggle wiggle wiggle they little worm is trying to get off the hook he put himself on, too bad it isn't working

The words "believe" and "say" mean different things. Please try to grasp the difference before you waste any more bandwidth and any more of my time.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesy.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The words "believe" and "say" mean different things. Please try to grasp the difference before you waste any more bandwidth and any more of my time.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesy.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Well my little wiggly friend if you dont make strawmen I want call you out for making strawmen.

 

[PoS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It's always good for a laugh whenever you try and reference logic.

It's like watching someone pine away for a person he's never met.

:lamo

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

:lamo

You look a little green in the face there. Soimethin you et maybe.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

RAMOSS believes something along the lines of: "If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true."
RAMOSS disagrees with gfm7175's use of terms.
RAMOSS then commits the fallacy in question by asserting of some statement by gfm7175:"That is not a true statement, since you keep on misusing terms."
Denying the antecedent and denying the consequent.
Fallacy.

Ironically, this demonstrates that Angel, the self-proclaimed 'expert' in logic who goes around telling everyone else they don't understand logic, doesn't actually understand the Inverse fallacy aka the Denying the Antecedent fallacy himself.

Talk about hoisting himself on his own petard...

The format of the Denying the Antecedent logical fallacy (aka Inverse fallacy) is:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.​

This was Angels failed attempt at an example in his post above:

"If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true. (If P, then Q - correct, the P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent)

That is not a true statement, since you keep on misusing terms." (Not kind of Q?, therefore....since P ???? this is just an illogical mess)​

A correct example would have been:

If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true. (If P then Q)
You are not using terms correctly (Not P)
Therefore your statements are not true. (Therefore, not Q)​

It's a logical fallacy because even if someone is not using terms correctly, their statements may still be true.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with projecting ones own behavior on to others.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Ironically, this demonstrates that Angel, the self-proclaimed 'expert' in logic who goes around telling everyone else they don't understand logic, doesn't actually understand the Inverse fallacy aka the Denying the Antecedent fallacy himself.

Talk about hoisting himself on his own petard...

The format of the Denying the Antecedent logical fallacy (aka Inverse fallacy) is:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.​

This was Angels failed attempt at an example in his post above:

"If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true. (If P, then Q - correct, the P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent)

That is not a true statement, since you keep on misusing terms." (Not kind of Q?, therefore....since P ???? this is just an illogical mess)​

A correct example would have been:

If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true. (If P then Q)
You are not using terms correctly (Not P)
Therefore your statements are not true. (Therefore, not Q)​

It's a logical fallacy because even if someone is not using terms correctly, their statements may still be true.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with projecting ones own behavior on to others.

RAMOSS:
If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true.
You don't use terms correctly.
Therefore, your statements are not true.

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore, not Q

The fallacy

QED

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You dont do logic

Inversion Fallacy. You are the one who denies logic, not Angel.


What circular argument has Angel attempted to prove? He is fully aware that attempting to prove circular arguments is a fallacy...


[P, therefore P] IS a circular argument, Quag... The VERY definition of it... You continue to deny Logic...

gfm7175, the format of the Inverse fallacy (aka Denying the Antecedent fallacy) is:

P, therefore Q
Not P,
Therefore, not Q

Please show how Quag's comment fits the format of the Inverse fallacy.


NB: (As already pointed out to you, it's actually called the Inverse fallacy -, there is no such thing as an "Inversion" fallacy)

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175, the format of the Inverse fallacy (aka Denying the Antecedent fallacy) is:

P, therefore Q
Not P,
Therefore, not Q

Please show how Quag's comment fits the format of the Inverse fallacy.


NB: (As already pointed out to you, it's actually called the Inverse fallacy -, there is no such thing as an "Inversion" fallacy)

As has already been pointed out to you, it's called for want of an official name "Denying the antecedent."

Quag's fallacy:
I you do logic in a way I approve, then you do logic
You don't do logic in a way I approve
Therefore, you don't do logic

Inversion Fallacy

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

RAMOSS:
If you use terms correctly, your statements will be true.
You don't use terms vorrectly.
Therefore, your statements are not true.

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore, not Q

The fallacy

QED

FINALLY you have used the correct format for an example of a "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy (aka Inverse fallacy) - by copying my example, but... it's a start.

I'm glad I could teach you what the Inverse fallacy (aka Denying the Antecedent fallacy) actually means. Your first attempt was an illogical mess. You may now apologise for all your posts insisting I was wrong and calling me a liar (as if you ever would :roll: )

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I'm glad I could teach you what the Inverse fallacy (aka Denying the Antecedent fallacy) actually means. Your first attempt was an illogical mess. You may now apologise for all your posts calling me a liar. (as if)

The logical mess is in your head, and I taught you the fallacy over two weeks ago, but my lesson has yet to find purchase in a willful mind.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

As has already been pointed out to you, it's called for want of an official name "Denying the antecedent."

Quag's fallacy:
I you do logic in a way I approve, then you do logic
You don't do logic in a way I approve
Therefore, you don't do logic

Inversion Fallacy

Complete Bollocks. It's been me who has been pointing out to YOU and gfm7175 that the Inverse fallacy IS the Denying the Antecedent fallacy - they are both the 'official' names. Not the "Inversion" fallacy.

I have also been pointing out to you both that gfm7175 had been using the fallacy incorrectly in place of using the term 'projection'.

Now that you finally learnt how to use the correct format for the fallacy (you're welcome), are you finally admitting that the fallacy has nothing to do with 'projection'?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Complete Bollocks. It's been me who has been pointing out to YOU and gfm7175 that the Inverse fallacy IS the Denying the Antecedent fallacy - they are both the 'official' names. Not the "Inversion" fallacy.

Are you finally admitting that the fallacy has nothing to do with 'projection'?

Look back in the history of our exchanges on this and you'll see that I taught you. Find you're oldest post identifying the fallacy and there'll be an older post where I gave you the name and the schema.
Your earliest posts attacking gfm are all about projection. By the way, you may be right about RAMOSS and Quag and the others projecting -- this is a psychological proposition -- but their psychological mechanisms are getting them to commit the logical fallacy.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The logical mess is in your head, and I taught you the fallacy over two weeks ago, but my lesson has yet to find purchase in a willful mind.

:shock: You can't be serious. Your dishonesty and lies are on a pathological level. You've shown you didn't understand the fallacy at all with your attempt to use an example using RAMOSS's words. It was a pathetic illogical mess - as I pointed out to you.

Try going back to the https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/339155-w-926-central-evolution-problem.html thread where all this silly ridiculous debacle about a silly logical fallacy has been playing out for weeks and you have shown your dishonesty and lies over and over again.

I think I need to go back to my previous statement of: "I am not a psychiatrist so I'm not qualified to deal with Angel's pathological issues"

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

:shock: You can't be serious. Your dishonesty and lies are on a pathological level. You've shown you didn't understand the fallacy at all with your attempt to use an example using RAMOSS's words. It was a pathetic illogical mess - as I pointed out to you.

Try going back to the https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/339155-w-926-central-evolution-problem.html thread where all this silly ridiculous debacle about a silly logical fallacy has been playing out for weeks and you have shown your dishonesty and lies over and over again.

I think I need to go back to my previous statement of: "I am not a psychiatrist so I'm not qualified to deal with Angel's pathological issues"

Listen, mate. If you get off on calling me a pathological liar, jerk away, it's no skin off my nose. Our posts are a matter of record and they show you in the wrong in this fallacy business. End of story. If you need to get in some parting shots in order to salve your bruised ego, by all means take them. Your ego is important to you, not to me. I'm perfectly satisfied to let the record speak for itself.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Listen, mate. If you get off on calling me a pathological liar, jerk away, it's no skin off my nose. Our posts are a matter of record and they show you in the wrong in this fallacy business. End of story. If you need to get in some parting shots in order to salve your bruised ego, by all means take them. Your ego is important to you, not to me. I'm perfectly satisfied to let the record speak for itself.

Cool :spin: bro.

Yep, I'm very glad to "let the record speak for itself"

So we can put a fork in it? You're well and truly done now? Great.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

As has already been pointed out to you, it's called for want of an official name "Denying the antecedent."

Quag's fallacy:
I you do logic in a way I approve, then you do logic
You don't do logic in a way I approve
Therefore, you don't do logic

Inversion Fallacy

Look another strawman fallacy by angel that is not what I gave said you made that BS up and are trying to argue against it

Sorry Angel you cant get out of your failed logic by making up strawmen

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Cool :spin: bro.

Yep, I'm very glad to "let the record speak for itself"

So we can put a fork in it? You're well and truly done now? Great.

It has been over for a long time Angel and gfm just wont admit they have no clue they are far to arrogant in their ignorance and far to dishonest to ever do that.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It has been over for a long time Angel and gfm just wont admit they have no clue they are far to arrogant in their ignorance and far to dishonest to ever do that.

this^^^^

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Look another strawman fallacy by angel that is not what I gave said you made that BS up and are trying to argue against it

Sorry Angel you cant get out of your failed logic by making up strawmen

It has been over for a long time Angel and gfm just wont admit they have no clue they are far to arrogant in their ignorance and far to dishonest to ever do that.

this^^^^

This is a thread on logic, gents, in the Philosophy subforum. If you're looking for Echo Canyon, it's yonder in the Belief and Skepticism forum.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

This is a thread on logic, gents, in the Philosophy subforum. If you're looking for Echo Canyon, it's yonder in the Belief and Skepticism forum.

Yes it is on logic so instead of echoing gfm I suggest you go take some courses on logic so you can have a positive interaction with others on the subject