“I graduated on June 1, 1996. That was 10,167 days ago, and it has been 10,167 days that I have not used algebra,” Farnsworth said on the Senate floor.
“I graduated on June 1, 1996. That was 10,167 days ago, and it has been 10,167 days that I have not used algebra,” Farnsworth said on the Senate floor.
Introduction to logic, including: logical fallacies, types of logic, building a logical argument, and identifying logical inconsistencies.
That’d be great, too, but I’d prefer rhetoric or debate, which could include a unit on some of that. People put too much emphasis on logic, especially logical fallacies, as being important to understanding the world or thinking well. It’s possible to construct logical arguments that “prove” things that are untrue, because your logical model does not actually map to the real world. And it’s also possible to make a reasonable conclusion that is technically logically fallacious. “If Donald Trump says it, it’s not true” is ad hominem, but it’s also a really good heuristic.
The problem with debate in the US is that it always devolves in gish gallop nonsense because everyone does L-D in the US which is about overwhelming the other person with too many things for them to respond to, meaning you win on a technicality. It’s like teaching to a standardized test. Did you learn something? Yes. Is it useful outside of the context of that standardized test? Eh kind of maybe sometimes, generally not.
Seriously talk to someone who did debate in high school. It’s wildly frustrating. The goal isn’t even a “debate.” It’s submission.
I’d be interested to see what an example of constructing a logical argument that proves something that isn’t true. In my experience the logic is sound, but the assumptions going into it (often unstated assumptions) are garbage. The other thing I see ALL the time is people using inductive as opposed to deductive reasoning to prove that something is “true”.
When I mentioned the model not matching reality, that’s basically the same thing as saying your assumptions are incorrect. That’s the fatal flaw of logic: you can’t really use it to model the real world without making tons of assumptions about how the world works. For instance, technically speaking, science as a whole is illogical. If 9 people who jump off a roof fall to their death, there is no purely logical reason that the 10th person to jump won’t fly instead.
As to “an example of constructing a logical argument that proves something that isn’t true” I’m going to be a bit pedantic here and point out that I said
And draw attention to those quotes. You can construct a logical proof, but that doesn’t mean that actually says anything about the world. What I’m meaning is when someone uses a logical proof to claim something untrue is true.
Part of developing a logic an argument is stating your assumptions.
Also, the example you pointed out is actually something I see all the time. You’ve tried to draw a deductive conclusion by using inductive logic. This is why we need ACTUAL logic training in schools. Most schools don’t even teach the difference.
No I didn’t. Did you read my comment?