My college English class was recently given the assignment of writing a persuasive essay on a controversial issue. We will be spending the next class or two discussing logic. I thought I would share here concerning the Bill Bauer/LizardKings situation. In my textbook, under "Recognizing Logical Fallacies," I found the following: "Allness. The allness fallacy means stating or implying that something is true of an entire class of things. There are exceptions to every rule, and your readers are likely to find them.... Be wary of *allness* words -- *all*, *everyone*, *no one*, *always*, *never*." Other standouts in the list are "oversimplification" ("offer[ing] neat and easy solutions for large, complicated problems"), "either/or reasoning" ("a special brand of oversimplified thinking"), and the argument from ignorance, which fallacy of course allegedly includes the rejection of arbitrary claims. I had planned to argue that there is no reason to fear the Bill Bauer/Lizardking criticisms and tantrums, by pointing out the (real) ad ignorantiam fallacy of their oppositions to each other. I am not sure how to proceed knowing that my post will be judged by the above standards.
Re: Allness Factor Bauer/Lizar Never post things like that again please, No one ever likes anything like that!
Re: I enjoyed it I enjoyed it too. As far as I'm concerned, the Doctor is always welcome to post this type of material. Let me just point out, Doctor, that an argument from ignorance isn't always false. It simply isn't valid, but may nevertheless lead to a true conclusion. To point out that there is no evidence for a particular proposition doesn't disprove it, that's true. But it is incumbent upon the one who asserts a proposition to adduce evidence in favor of the proposition. Pointing out that no evidence has been forthcoming is absolutely necessary whenever that is, in fact, the case. Even if lack of evidence doesn't disprove a proposition, it does tend to discredit the reasoning ot the person who asserted the proposition without proof. (And don't tell me, Doctor, that I am engaging in ad hominem argumentation. There is no fallacy of relevance in criticizing the characteristic reasoning methods of another person.) For instance, you would have strengthened your own argument, if indeed you had one, by introducing examples of the argument from ignorance as used by both LK and BB. I am now left in the position of wondering whether either of them used fallacious resoning, and referring to my own ignorance of whether that is the case. If I were to accept your unproven assertions to that effect, I would be employing the argument from ignorance myself. Of course, I would have been induced to do so by your own faulty argument. So please, Doctor, instead of saying that you "had planned to argue" a point, simply argue the point and provide evidence to support it.
Let's not get personal now! For instance, you would have strengthened your own argument, if indeed you had one, by introducing examples of the argument from ignorance as used by both LK and BB. Just kidding! bill bauer
