Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
 
User avatar
flairplay
Posts: 0
Joined: September 26th, 2006, 1:34 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 30th, 2006, 3:33 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonNeither logical, nor rhetorical....You may wish to look up the meaning of satire in a dictionary somewhere.I think I covered the spectrum of possible argumentation types by mentioning logical and rhetorical. Satire is often just a rhetorical device to highlight logical fallacies. Now your arguments are neither logic nor satire. At best I would say you have unwittingly satirised your attempt to win an argument by increasingly muddled references to logic.You poison your own well, you satirise your own arguments, what next?
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 30th, 2006, 3:45 am

ncreasingly muddled references to logic.Let's see. So far, you don't know the difference between a material and formal fallacy, you don't know where the latin names for logical fallacies came from and you seem unaware of the 13th century disputations amongst Western Catholic philosopher-theologian and Muslim ones. Satire is often just a rhetorical device to highlight logical fallacies. Name a famous satire (hey, I'll take anything right now) and please mention what "fallacy" it is being used to illustrate.
Last edited by Hamilton on October 30th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 30th, 2006, 3:56 am

Now your arguments are neither logic nor satireAn argument can be neither logic nor satire. An argument is a part of logic. Satire is an effectachieved by the use of, among other things, rhetorical tropes and schemes and control ofdiction to achieve a literary effect.Arguments are either logically valid or invalid.You also need to determine whether you are dealing with inductive or deductive arguments.As well, you should classify the arguments by form, length, causality, direction of movementand strategy.The reason you are having difficulty achieving anything remotely resembling an analysis isyou are unable to understand how an inductive argument works. You also don't distinguishbetween your own hasty inference that you are drawing and the argument map that you should be drawing instead.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 30th, 2006, 4:10 am

And you really do need to distinguish between dialectical and rhetorical methods of arguing andthe proper use of the enthymeme and argument by example.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 3:43 pm

What is the name of the logical fallacy of "proving" a point by bogging down a discussion with dreary pedantry that no sane person could ever bring himself to read? If there is no name, then I propose, "Hamiltonism."
 
User avatar
zeta
Posts: 26
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 3:50 pm

Hamiltonianism/hamiltonism refers to something else
 
User avatar
Athletico
Posts: 14
Joined: January 7th, 2002, 4:17 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 4:09 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenWhat is the name of the logical fallacy of "proving" a point by bogging down a discussion with dreary pedantry that no sane person could ever bring himself to read? If there is no name, then I propose, "Hamiltonism."A List Of Fallacious ArgumentsHamiltonism is a dreary miasma of many fallacious arguments:Ad Hominem, Appeal To Authority (usually Aristotle), Argument By Pigheadedness, Argument By Selective Observation, Argument By Selective Reading, Argument By Generalization, Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis), Outdated Information, Failure To State, Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection), and particularly (as Marsden is referring to) Argument By Gibberish and Argument By Repetition.Did I miss any?
Last edited by Athletico on October 30th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 4:58 pm

Odd.The thread is called Methods of Inquiry. Yet, no one can tell me what relevance David Hackett Fischer's Fallacies book has to the discussion."dreary pedantry that no sane person"Tut, tut. Its odd to complain, given who generated the title of the thread"I'm starting this thread specifically to address logical gaps as opposed to substance."Given the poor phrasing of this statement, I can see that much work still needs to be done.Please continue with your rants.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 4:59 pm

Did I miss any? There are some 112 in Mr. Fischer's book.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 5:10 pm

You are correct, Athletico; I stand corrected. "Hamiltonism" is a virtual decathalon of logical fallacies.
 
User avatar
Athletico
Posts: 14
Joined: January 7th, 2002, 4:17 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 5:42 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonDid I miss any? There are some 112 in Mr. Fischer's book.Are you implying that Hamiltonism = {set of 112 logical fallacies} instead of the few I mentioned? Interesting ... you might actually be right!
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 7:48 pm

Appeal To Authority (usually Aristotle)An appeal to authority is not a fallacy. An appeal to an illegitimate authority is a fallacy. So, please demonstrate (for a demonstration is proper evidence to a reader) of how it is fallacious to use Aristotle in a discussion of fallacies.Good luck.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 7:49 pm

What is the name of the logical fallacy Well, first we have to clean up your use of the ludicrous phrases:"logical gaps" and "substance".
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 7:58 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenYou are correct, Athletico; I stand corrected. "Hamiltonism" is a virtual decathalon of logical fallacies.Sir William HamiltonQuoteThe philosopher to whom above all others Hamilton professed allegiance was Aristotle. His works were the object of his profound and constant study, and supplied in fact the mould in which his whole philosophy was cast. With the commentators on the Aristotelian writings, ancient, medieval and modern, he was also familiar; and the scholastic philosophy he studied with care and appreciation at a time when it had hardly yet begun to attract attention in his country. His wide reading enabled him to trace many a doctrine to the writings of forgotten thinkers; and nothing gave him greater pleasure than to draw forth such from their obscurity, and to give due acknowledgment, even if it chanced to be of the prior possession of a view or argument that he had thought out for himself. Of modern German philosophy he was a diligent, if not always a sympathetic, student. How profoundly his thinking was modified by that of Kant is evident from the tenor of his speculations; nor was this less the case because, on fundamental points, he came to widely different conclusions.Hamilton was more than a philosopher; his knowledge and interests embraced all subjects related to that of the human mind. His study of anatomy and physiology was minute and experimental. In literature ancient and modern he was well-read. He was particularly interested in the 16th and 17th centuries. Among his literary projects were editions of the works of George Buchanan and Julius Caesar Scaliger. His general scholarship found expression in his library, which became part of the library of the University of Glasgow.
 
User avatar
Athletico
Posts: 14
Joined: January 7th, 2002, 4:17 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 31st, 2006, 10:46 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonAppeal To Authority (usually Aristotle)An appeal to authority is not a fallacy. An appeal to an illegitimate authority is a fallacy. So, please demonstrate (for a demonstration is proper evidence to a reader) of how it is fallacious to use Aristotle in a discussion of fallacies.Good luck.You're missing the point of Appeal to Authority, which doesn't surprise me since you abuse it constantly.The fallacy has nothing to do with how smart or legit the "authority" is. The fallacy is believing (and urging others to believe) that accordance with your authority is all you need to do to prove your argument:"Einstein was very impressed with this Unified Field Theory; therefore it must be so."And with all due to respect to Aristotle he lived 2300 years ago. We've moved on; you should join do the same. In 2006, he's not a legit authority on everything he taught. Do heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies?