The Fallacy of Fallacies and the list of Fallacies Contradicting Themselves

[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.

[surreptitious57]

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

Circular reasoning is only fallacious if the premise is false because the conclusion will be false too
Where the premise is true the conclusion will be true too and so the reasoning cannot be fallacious

[surreptitious57]

Take the ad hominem fallacy for example. It observes a fallacy where the argument is directed to the person rather than the argument how
ever it simultaneously necessitates that the argument comes from a person hence to attack the argument is to attack the person

The argument and the arguer are entirely separate from each other. An argument is correctly attacked when it demonstrates flawed
reasoning. This can be done without also attacking the arguer. You are not your thoughts and equally so you are not your arguments

[Impenitent]

but if you attack the attacker with a bazooka, the ad hom explodes...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Circular reasoning is only fallacious if the premise is false because the conclusion will be false too
Where the premise is true the conclusion will be true too and so the reasoning cannot be fallacious

If the premise is false and the conclusion is therefore false, the circularity will prove it as false and dissolve into further axioms.

So let's say -A leads to B. (With negative equating to falsity as a deficiency)

B leads to -A in turn when cycled.

-A and B are connected if and only if one leads to another. However -A cannot lead to B therefore the axioms dissolve strictly to -A as separate from B.

A mathematical example is 2+2=5 therefore 5=2+2. 2+2 cannot equal 5 and 5 cannot equal 2+2 (unless the statement is deemed incomplete in which case it is possible) therefore the resulting axioms are 5 and "2+2", considering the axioms dissolve through the circularity.

If one wants to be more technical 2+2=4 and 4=2+2. The circularity observes that while 2+2=4 and 4=2+2, 4 is equal to further infinite variables of (4+(0 -> iy)) - (0 -> iy)


So (2+2=4 and 4=2+2) leads to (4+(0 -> iy)) - (0 -> iy) as an axiom dissolved from this circularity.

*** -> will mean "approach" and "iy" will mean infinity since I am on an ipad




It is a fallacy where the individual begins with what they end with in the standard definition, with the standard definition being subject to all the other fallacies including but not limited to: equivocation, bandwagon, fallacy of authority, no true scotsman, etc.

Circularity is unavoidable as it not only maintains the axioms and shows them as extensions of eachothet as one axiom, but effectively dissolves them as well into further axioms.

Take for example the circularity of A and B.

A leads to B
B leads to A

Therefore A and B are connected.

This connection of A and B observes A and B existing through eachother as 1 where A and B dissolve into a further axiom of C.

(A and B) leads to C for A and B are C.

C is not A. C is not B. The dissolution of A and B effectively is the conjoining, or "closing in" (in the respect they are effectively directed towards eachother to convergence) resulting in C as a separate entity from both A or B respectively while is connected to each in a manner where A is connected to C through B and B is connected to C through A.

C is a new axiom in its own right while A and B are maintained through eachother.

Under these terms Circularity maintians axioms while dissolving them into further axioms.

If this makes sense....it is a very base nature of the mirror theory I argue in the math/logic section.

[TimeSeeker]

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

Circular reasoning is only fallacious if the premise is false because the conclusion will be false too
Where the premise is true the conclusion will be true too and so the reasoning cannot be fallacious

How do you know the premise is true?

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

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Circular reasoning is only fallacious if the premise is false because the conclusion will be false too
Where the premise is true the conclusion will be true too and so the reasoning cannot be fallacious

How do you know the premise is true?

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

Good question actually, because the premise would maintain itself in an expansive circular manner as argued above. We know that 2 exists because 1 directed through itself as 2 and 1, this results in two. Two therefore contains as an element its premise of 1.

The foundational axiom is carried through the argument as a constant with the maintainance of the argument in turn forming the axiom. The truth of the premise is determined by the complex limits, or structure which extends from it, considering both are extensions of eachother. The structure equally determines the premise axiom. The premise is merely a point of everything.


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.

In these respects the premise maintains a triadic nature of everything, nothing and synthesis as balance and have truth values accordingly.

[surreptitious57]

How do you know the premise is true

Any premise that is sound is by default true and a sound premise is one that is true in relation to observable reality
So therefore it can not only be logically consistent within the argument itself but has to be objectively true as well

[commonsense]

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.

Very clever--using a tautology to provide an explanation in place of an explanation.

[TimeSeeker]

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.

Very clever--using a tautology to provide an explanation in place of an explanation.

It is not “clever” it is this problem from
computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_election

Two people with different background knowledge, different language and different rules for argumentative discourse are trying to come to a consensus.

How do they come to a consensus on the rules for discourse?

In practical terms: how do you convince an Aristotelian who knows no other means of thinking than classical logic that classical logic is broken?

The Aristotelian is ignorant (but doesn’t know it). The mathematician knows the Ariatotelian is ignorant, but cannot communicate it because in the Ariatotelian’s eyes the mathematician is
“breaking the rules of logic”...

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Very clever--using a tautology to provide an explanation in place of an explanation.

The nature of all definition, whether empirically or abstractly (through intuition/reason), is dependent upon a tautology where a framework, and the definitions stemming from the framework as frameworks in themselves, effectively replicates. This replication observes a taugtologies as both directed and moving.

Now in respect to the nature of the contradictions contradicting themselves, what we see is a threefold nature within all fallacies (at minimum).

1) They are continual forms of negation in the respect The fallacies continually negates and acts as a negative boundary to truth where x axiom(s) may be negated according to y fallacy, however the axiom(s) are deemed as deficient according to the fallacy with the fallacy observing a connection to further axiom(s).

So for example axiom "a" observes the fallacy of authority. What this fallacy observes is the axiom is defined by what it is not, in this case an extension of an authority figure as the foundation of it. In simpler terms, to say axiom "a" is a fallacy of authority, is to say the axiom is deficient due to an authority being referenced as the source.

In a dual respect the fallacy acts as a connector between one axiom and another, thus observing a relation between axioms and necessitating the existence of one axiom through another. For instance axiom "a" existing as a fallacy of authority observes an authority figure exists as one axiom that is connected to axiom "a". Under these terms the fallacy is an observation of a dual set of axioms (axiom "a" and the axiom resulting from the fallacy) effectively existing as 1.

In these respects all fallacies observe the connection of axiom(s) and do not exist in and of themselves as laws.

2) The fallacies as tautologies existing through tautologies, observes the fallacy existing through further fallacy of both it itself and respectively separate fallacies.

So where the fallacy of -a applied to its own nature as -a results in the cancelization of the fallacy into an axiom. So the fallacies of authority, as contradicting itself results in authority as an axiom of logic.

In a dual respect where fallacy -a suffers from fallacy -b , and vice versa we can observe both fallacies cancel dissolve into the axioms of logic as a and b. For example the fallacy of authority is subject to the bandwagon fallacy and vice versa. Thus both fallacies negates themselves leaving both "authority" and "group agreement" as axioms but simultaneously as connected being "authority as group agreement".

In these respects all fallacies as tautologies through tautologies exist as under a self dissolving nature resulting in further axioms.


3) All fallacies are merely points of inversion. They invert in such a manner where one fallacy results in another; hence a unified fallacy results in multiple fallacies. So the fallacy of authority inverts to a fallacy of bandwagon (authority as one to authority as many). In these respects all fallacies are connected as one point and that is fallacy as a form of defiency.

As points of inversion they observe all axioms as directives simultaneously exist exist fully in themselves as themselves through which all further axioms are connected. So for example the axiom of authority is connected to all other axioms, in one degree or another either directly or indirectly. "Authority" as a pure axiom, in the respect it is directed to further axioms as itself though itself, observe authority (and hence the axiom as an "axiom") purely as directed movement.

This axiom of authority, as effectively all axioms, observes a dual nature as void in the respect The axiom inverts from one axiom into many with many axioms being inverted into one. So authority takes on a negative role as not a thing in itself but rather a negation of axioms into many axioms where "authority" becomes a void that results in a separation of axioms into many through negation. I may have to extend further on this.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Very clever--using a tautology to provide an explanation in place of an explanation.

It is not “clever” it is this problem from
computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_election

Two people with different background knowledge, different language and different rules for argumentative discourse are trying to come to a consensus.

How do they come to a consensus on the rules for discourse?

In practical terms: how do you convince an Aristotelian who knows no other means of thinking than classical logic that classical logic is broken?

The Aristotelian is ignorant (but doesn’t know it). The mathematician knows the Ariatotelian is ignorant, but cannot communicate it because in the Ariatotelian’s eyes the mathematician is
“breaking the rules of logic”...

This addresses some of the problems I am going through now. I got into a master's program for philosophy, found out day before yesterday, and they are coming from an Aristotelian perspective. Aristotelian logic contradicts itself under its own terms, hence if I want to pass and get a master's I have to bite my lip and shut up.

However that is the problem with much of the west's foundations, the logic. This is considering logic is a perspective, perspective forms reality, and this reality is the framework in which all perceivable problem exists.

The Aristotelian would have to be shown how the logic not just contradicts itself, but how the logic is a framework composes of and composing further logics; hence the logic and it's corresponding foundations are merely a localization of truth.

The problem of localizing any one truth is that while the truth exists as true, it in itself is incomplete hence contains an element of contradiction and can be equated dually as a fallacy in itself. All localized truths exist dually as fallacies observing an inherent dual nature of true and not true.

All localizations of truth exist as distortions of truth.

Also considering logic is based upon belief, all logic contains an inherent dogmatic element of religion to it and most people will believe in it regardless of what argument is presented about it. In these respects the ruled of logic are subject to the fallacies which stem from them.

[Eodnhoj7]

The standard laws of Logic apply to these fallacies as well:

1) The Law of Identity: P=P

P can be observed as "all definitions" leading to the fallacy of equivocation, as well as P as a variable being subject to equivocation.

2) The law of non-contradiction:

P≠-P

However standard math observes 1=0

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a ... ual_to_one

or:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/p ... -1.195945/


3) The law of Excluded Middle:

P ⋁ - P

Contradicts law 2 and 1 if P = 1 and -P = 0

[RG1]

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.

[-1-]

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.