Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kyocus t1_itvowb8 wrote

Reply to comment by LukeFromPhilly in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

No it's not, it's literally as I described it, which is why it's stupid.

from Wikipedia: "Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

My point being that the fallacy fallacy is a red herring that leads you away from good epistemology, because the truth of a claim arrived at from a fallacy is irrelevant until substantiated regardless.

2

LukeFromPhilly t1_itvqxge wrote

Ah, I didn't realize "fallacy fallacy" was actually an established term, I was just being cheeky. The definition I gave was just me stating my intended meaning.

I suppose I agree that the "fallacy fallacy" you're referring to is a red herring although that's not necessarily clear to me either. It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made.

4

Kyocus t1_itvvj1x wrote

"It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made."

I agree, where we differ is that "A" is a claim of truth, and if that claim is based on a fallacy, Logical Positivism says A should be disregarded until it's been substantiated, which is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time and why I still think the fallacy fallacy is dumb.

2

LukeFromPhilly t1_ity8yhj wrote

I don't disagree with that though, at least I don't think I do. If there is no evidence for a claim then it should be disregarded. But disregarding it is not the same thing as accepting the negation of it.

2

Kyocus t1_ityf0zp wrote

Indeed. That's why I called it a Red Herring, because I've never seen anyone commit the falacy.

1

platitood t1_itvz74i wrote

I think the fallacy fallacy is intended to avoid poisoning the well through an easily refutable argument and favor of some proposition.

If a proposition is argued poorly it can be seen as less true than a proposition that wasn’t argued at all. This is commonly a useful observation, but strictly speaking it is fallacious.

1