Kyocus t1_itvvj1x wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:09 PM

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

"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.

LukeFromPhilly t1_ity8yhj wrote on October 27, 2022 at 4:33 AM

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.

Kyocus t1_ityf0zp wrote on October 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM

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

platitood t1_itvz74i wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:33 PM

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.