The Fallacy of Fallacies and the list of Fallacies Contradicting Themselves

[TimeSeeker]

This "fallacy of fallacies" post seemingly invalidates itself, by using logic to denounce logic. It cuts off (invalidates) the very legs of it's own reasoning.

It's nothing new. We do that all the time. Every system has edge/corner cases. Logic systems are not immune to this. As and when we discover problems we fix them.

Q.E.D We used Constructive logic to invalidate Aristotelian logic.
The Five Stages of Accepting Constructive Mathematics: https://youtu.be/zmhd8clDd_Y

I am sure that at some point we'll find issues with Constructive logic too. And whatever comes next will be better. Like scientific ideas - logics are evolved iteratively also.

[Eodnhoj7]

This "fallacy of fallacies" post seemingly invalidates itself, by using logic to denounce logic. It cuts off (invalidates) the very legs of it's own reasoning.

If you actually read the bottom portion of beginning of the first argument it observes all fallacies as strictly positive and negative continuums.

The fallacies cancel themselves under there own nature leaving truth statements with the localization of any one statement being a premise that progresses to further axioms.

For example with the fallacy of authority:


So all statements are dependent upon authority, however if authority alone is needed to justify the statement the statement is incomplete but true considering authority exists but requires a continuum to prove it.

All axioms are authoritative, but this authoritativeness requires a progressive expansion to further define it, while its self-referencing maintains it as a truth statement.

[Eodnhoj7]

This "fallacy of fallacies" post seemingly invalidates itself, by using logic to denounce logic. It cuts off (invalidates) the very legs of it's own reasoning.

I don't think JohnDoe succeeded in using logic to denounce logic. He succeeded in delusional thinking to denounce logic.

Ad-hominum.

Keep in mind this is coming from a man whose failed writing career is premised on writing a book about farts; this is about has deep as "1" goes, hence his hatred of everyone and everything including himself.


The simple truth, whether logic wants to admit it or not, is that the fallacies apply to eachother and the laws of logic as well; hence they observe truth statements as the fallacy cancels itself out. However the fallacy as cancelling itself out requires a continuity of cancelization as if it cancels itself out once, it always exists relative to the truth statements as being built upon that cancelization.

Hence the fallacy and truth statement exist simultaneously from an axiom of origin as continuums. "Authority" can be observed as an example where it is both a truth statement and fallacy simultaneously without contradiction as both truth and falsity can exist at the same time in different respects considering they are not the same things.


A fallacy is merely a localization of any phenomenon within an argument and saying it is incomplete because of that phenomena.

All logic requires a degree of self-referencing to maintain itself as logical as a strict progress alone results in all the above fallacies. Logic is a system for ordering reality, but this ordering of reality is a set of laws in itself as the ordering of phenomena is dependent upon a form of ordering in itself.



The fallacy can only point to a deficiency in the argument, however this deficiency does not necessitate the argument is completely untrue. So while a person may argue fallacy of authority, this does not necessitate an authority must not be present but rather the authority is not clearly defined and referenced in the argument.

This lack of definition leads to inherent elemnent of subjectivity, relative to the fact an interpretation is necessary, and we can observe that all arguments have an ad-hoministic nature. Hence what we understand of each argument is really a formation of structure through subjective experience as objective reality where the formless subjective is given structure which is symmetrical, hence unified, to other objective phenomena.

[attofishpi]

Because problem of infinite regress we don’t have much “truth” to start with in deductive reasoning...

If God\'God' formed logic as we can comprehend it to form the realms of what is now our reality, from the chaos of the early universe, can we infinitely regress through chaos?

[Eodnhoj7]

Because problem of infinite regress we don’t have much “truth” to start with in deductive reasoning...

If God\'God' formed logic as we can comprehend it to form the realms of what is now our reality, from the chaos of the early universe, can we infinitely regress through chaos?

Chaos as infinitely canceling itself out effectively leaves us with order, no different than the fallacies applied to them themselves leave us with foundations for logic.

[Gary Childress]

This post will be extended over a period of time, from this specific post hence will maintain a progressive increase in definition while maintaining the basic axioms:

When observing the nature of Fallacies the problem occurs that the fallacy is subject to not just its own form and function but an inherent range of fallacies which both proceed/recede from it. The Fallacy is merely a Fallacy as they lead to truth statements.

There is one Fallacy: The Fallacy of Fallacy, where all fallacies either directly or indirectly negate themselves leaving the existing argument or logical discourse as self-evident and true in itself with the truth measured in grades of fullness respective from a focal point of relation. All fallacies are a negative boundary to an argument which observe positive boundaries of truth by observing where they are deficient.

The problem occurs in the respect that the fallacies inevitably negate themselves causing an inversion where they exist dually as foundations of truth with the negative aspects of the fallacies observing an inherent connection of certain axioms within the argument itself. Take the ad-hominum fallacy for example. It observes a fallacy where the argument is directed to the person rather than the argument, however it simultaneously necessitates that the argument comes from a person; hence to attack the argument is to attack the person.



Here is a very basic list:

1) Ad-hominums.

The relativistic subjective angle inherent to all arguments makes them subject to the fallacy of the Ad-hominum, considering all arguments come from the subjective angle of the observer.



2) Equivocation.

Equivocation has the problem in the respect equivocation is subject to equivocation as there are multiple definitions for it.



3) Strawman

Strawman attacks a position the argument does not hold, but this is a problem of relation as all arguments contain inherent axioms not always observable to the position of the arguer yet are "non-observed" foundations. The strawman is a strawman as it prevents any in depth observation or exploration of the subject outside or inside the framework of the argument which determines the framework of the argument.



4) Red Herring

Red Herring is subject to Red Herring as this Fallacy as a statement of Fallacy diverts the argument.



5) Fallacy of Authority

The Fallacy of Authority is subject to the Fallacy of Authority in the respect this fallacy is an appeal to authority of the fallacy itself and the authorities who claim it as a fallacy.



6) The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning

The fallacy of Circular Reasoning is subject to the fallacy of circular reasoning in the respect that all circular reasoning is fallacious because it is circular.



7) No-True Scotsman Fallacy

The fallacy of the "No-True Scotsman" is in itself a "No-true scotsman" as it claims no degree of purity is available in an argument yet this is a pure argument.



Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to ignorance is an appeal to ignorance as the fallacy appeals to the ignorance of a party in the respect those ignorant of the argument revert to it.



9) False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

False Dilemma/False Dichotomy is subject to its own nature as it is either a False Dilemma or a False Dichotomy in one respect, while respectively it is either a Fallacy or Not a Fallacy.



10) Slippery Slope (long causal chain leading to ridiculous outcomes)

The Slippery Slope is subject to its own nature as ridiculousness is subject to personal interpretation with inevitably calling all relativistic ally long causal chains ridiculous which in itself is redicious as "length" is a statement of relation.



11) Hasty Generalization (general statements without sufficient evidence to support them)

Hasty Generalization is subject to its own nature as this is a generalization arguing against generalities considering all generalities cannot necessitate sufficient evidence when evidence is a general term.



12) Tu Quo Que Fallacy (appeal to hypocrisy by diverting blame)

Tu Quo Que is subject to its own nature as it is a diversion of blame towards a fallacy.



13) Causal Fallacy (any logical breakdown/absense with identifying a Cause)

The Causal Fallacy is subject to its own nature as it requires a continuous chain of causes to identify it which eventually breakdown over time.



14) Post Hoc (something as cause because it came first)

Post Hoc is subject to its own nature as it is the first cause of contradiction on its own right.



15) Fallacy of Sunk Cost (continuing project because of sacrifices for it).

The Fallacy of Sunk Cost is subject to its own nature as this fallacy is subject to a problem of continuity where this fallacy and all other fallacies must continually be applied as a sacrifice for truth.



16) Appeal to Pity (argument for compassion)

Appeal to Pity is subject to its own nature as it is an appeal that emotion must be seperate from the argument which necessitates an emotional stance of objectivity where a form of ruthlessness is involved.



17) The Bandwagon Fallacy

The Bandwagon Fallacy is subject to its own nature as the fallacy is determined by a group opinion.

Has there been a "fallacy of fallacy of fallacies" reply yet? If so, sorry if I missed it.

[Eodnhoj7]

This post will be extended over a period of time, from this specific post hence will maintain a progressive increase in definition while maintaining the basic axioms:

When observing the nature of Fallacies the problem occurs that the fallacy is subject to not just its own form and function but an inherent range of fallacies which both proceed/recede from it. The Fallacy is merely a Fallacy as they lead to truth statements.

There is one Fallacy: The Fallacy of Fallacy, where all fallacies either directly or indirectly negate themselves leaving the existing argument or logical discourse as self-evident and true in itself with the truth measured in grades of fullness respective from a focal point of relation. All fallacies are a negative boundary to an argument which observe positive boundaries of truth by observing where they are deficient.

The problem occurs in the respect that the fallacies inevitably negate themselves causing an inversion where they exist dually as foundations of truth with the negative aspects of the fallacies observing an inherent connection of certain axioms within the argument itself. Take the ad-hominum fallacy for example. It observes a fallacy where the argument is directed to the person rather than the argument, however it simultaneously necessitates that the argument comes from a person; hence to attack the argument is to attack the person.



Here is a very basic list:

1) Ad-hominums.

The relativistic subjective angle inherent to all arguments makes them subject to the fallacy of the Ad-hominum, considering all arguments come from the subjective angle of the observer.



2) Equivocation.

Equivocation has the problem in the respect equivocation is subject to equivocation as there are multiple definitions for it.



3) Strawman

Strawman attacks a position the argument does not hold, but this is a problem of relation as all arguments contain inherent axioms not always observable to the position of the arguer yet are "non-observed" foundations. The strawman is a strawman as it prevents any in depth observation or exploration of the subject outside or inside the framework of the argument which determines the framework of the argument.



4) Red Herring

Red Herring is subject to Red Herring as this Fallacy as a statement of Fallacy diverts the argument.



5) Fallacy of Authority

The Fallacy of Authority is subject to the Fallacy of Authority in the respect this fallacy is an appeal to authority of the fallacy itself and the authorities who claim it as a fallacy.



6) The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning

The fallacy of Circular Reasoning is subject to the fallacy of circular reasoning in the respect that all circular reasoning is fallacious because it is circular.



7) No-True Scotsman Fallacy

The fallacy of the "No-True Scotsman" is in itself a "No-true scotsman" as it claims no degree of purity is available in an argument yet this is a pure argument.



Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to ignorance is an appeal to ignorance as the fallacy appeals to the ignorance of a party in the respect those ignorant of the argument revert to it.



9) False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

False Dilemma/False Dichotomy is subject to its own nature as it is either a False Dilemma or a False Dichotomy in one respect, while respectively it is either a Fallacy or Not a Fallacy.



10) Slippery Slope (long causal chain leading to ridiculous outcomes)

The Slippery Slope is subject to its own nature as ridiculousness is subject to personal interpretation with inevitably calling all relativistic ally long causal chains ridiculous which in itself is redicious as "length" is a statement of relation.



11) Hasty Generalization (general statements without sufficient evidence to support them)

Hasty Generalization is subject to its own nature as this is a generalization arguing against generalities considering all generalities cannot necessitate sufficient evidence when evidence is a general term.



12) Tu Quo Que Fallacy (appeal to hypocrisy by diverting blame)

Tu Quo Que is subject to its own nature as it is a diversion of blame towards a fallacy.



13) Causal Fallacy (any logical breakdown/absense with identifying a Cause)

The Causal Fallacy is subject to its own nature as it requires a continuous chain of causes to identify it which eventually breakdown over time.



14) Post Hoc (something as cause because it came first)

Post Hoc is subject to its own nature as it is the first cause of contradiction on its own right.



15) Fallacy of Sunk Cost (continuing project because of sacrifices for it).

The Fallacy of Sunk Cost is subject to its own nature as this fallacy is subject to a problem of continuity where this fallacy and all other fallacies must continually be applied as a sacrifice for truth.



16) Appeal to Pity (argument for compassion)

Appeal to Pity is subject to its own nature as it is an appeal that emotion must be seperate from the argument which necessitates an emotional stance of objectivity where a form of ruthlessness is involved.



17) The Bandwagon Fallacy

The Bandwagon Fallacy is subject to its own nature as the fallacy is determined by a group opinion.

Has there been a "fallacy of fallacy of fallacies" reply yet? If so, sorry if I missed it.

Yeah, already covered it.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=25376

7th post down:

Second all premises as localized axiom maintain a simultaneous truth false value. All premises are localizations of further axioms, hence are always incomplete. This incompleteness in turn observes that while the premise can infinitely regress it must also infinitely progress to maintain a balance. In the respects the premise is a means of balance and is inherently neutral "as is" and can never be true or false unless there is an imbalance. The premise is merely a point of synthesis.


Third, all axioms are continual false as one premise inverts to another premise fundamentally progressing past the original premise effectively making it void. The premise is only true if it continues, with this continuity being a continual inversion to further premises. The premise is void in itself and determined strictly through direction alone where the inversive nature of Each premise is determined as a constant median that exist through form. The premise is merely a point of void.