Logical Fallacies in Serenity

POSTED BY: CTHawk
UPDATED: Sunday, February 12, 2006 02:26
VIEWED: 9323
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

Formal fallacies have something wrong with the actual structure of the argument. For instance, "Some bankers are golfers; all crooks are golfers; therefore, some bankers are crooks" is invalid, because its conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. Formally fallacies are a matter of invalid form.

Informal fallacies have some problem with the meaning of the argument, as opposed to the form of the argument. An "ad hominem" informal fallacy, for instance is one that attacks the person who articulates the argument, not the argument itself.

The three instances you listed are not fallacies, as such. #1 is an apparent contradiction (though your argument could be attacked as a fallacy of equivocation), #2 questions the truth of one of the premises, but not the structure or meaning of the argument, and #3 isn't even an argument at all. To elucidate:

1) Not a fallacy, just an apparent contradiction. People cannot be made better. But River was made better. This isn't a fallacy, it's a contradiction in the following form (where "P" means "people can be made better" and "~" means "it is not the case that"):
1 (1) ~P A
2 (2) P A

This contradiction can be solved by one of the following:

1 (3) ~P 1,2RAA(2) or
2 (3) P 1,2RAA(1)

But the way you're presenting the argument falls into the category of equivocation, so your argument is false. You're equation the "better" of Mal's speech with the "better" that River was made, and they're hardly the same thing, so the contradiction that you're attempting to draw flies right out the window.

2) The second case looks like a fallacy, but isn't. You're suggesting that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, which would make it a formal fallacy. Your point of contention seems to be with whether or not the Operative would become disillusioned upon learning the truth. This doesn't make the argument fallacious. An argument can still be valid even if the conclusion is false. As long as the conclusion follows from the premises, it's valid. So here are the terms: T=learns truth; D=operative disillusioned; C=capture; K=kill; the "~" means "it is not the case that"; the "->" means "if [the thing on the left] then [the thing on the right]" and the "v" means "or". The movie has this:

1 (1) T->D A
2 (2) D->~(CvK) A
1,2 (3) T->~(CvK) 1,2HS
4 (4) T A
1,2,4 (5) ~(CvK) 3,4->E

You're assuming that the operative would not become disillusioned, which would look like this:

1 (1) T->~D A
2 (2) ~D->(CvK)
1,2 (3) T->(CvK) 1,2HS
4 (4) T A
1,2,4 (5) CvK 3,4->E

This is not a fallacy--you're not attacking the structure of the argument, you're questioning the truth of one of the premises of the argument and offering a completely different argument on that basis.

3) This one isn't even remotely close to a fallacy. We're not offered an argument that can be shown to be fallacious; we're given a statement of facts ("the reavers are insane", "the reavers don't turn on each other" and "the reavers can operate ships"). These three statements are not strung together in an argument. It takes an argument to have a fallacy, and there isn't one here.

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.

For a description of formal and informal fallacies go here: http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/formal_informal_fallacies.htm

For a list of and explanations of informal fallacies go here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

MURKYMERC

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.
________________________________________________________________________

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise I'm sure a lot of us would be giving you a wedgie right now after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

CAUSAL

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise about 30 of us would be giving you a wedgie right now.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's the most hilarious ever! Plus, possibly the truest ever.

I'm a huge nerd! Cheers, everybody!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:43 AM

Causal,

I was reading your post and said to myself, "He's taken a math or philosophy class." Or something like that. Then I got to this:

Quote:
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

-

Just remember most people don't know what they're talking about and a lot of people don't actually know what a fallacy is. It's no one's fault, save the schools they were educated in.

Personally I've mostly given up on correcting people, I just try to make sure the ones doing the correcting remember to be polite about it. Which you were, btw, so good job.

NOSADSEVEN

Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.
________________________________________________________________________

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise I'm sure a lot of us would be giving you a wedgie right now after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

Come on now, MurkyMerc, this is a sci-fi show fansite. We'd all have wedgies just for being here...

And Causal, really, think parsimony. You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

CAUSAL

Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
...after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

And what award, exactly, do you get? Something about snarky, followed by something to do with asses. I suspect. I find it amusing that you felt the need to amend your original post so that it would be perfectly clear that you were being an asshole. Well done!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CAUSAL

Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

Point. But damn, that's irritating. Not excusing. Just saying.

I think that the two things (the pointless picking with plot and the horrible argumentation) in isolation wouldn't have set me off. But together...golly. Again, just saying.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CAUSAL

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
And Causal, really, think parsimony. You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

One final addendum: I'm fair certain that people are up in arms because I'm correcting someone's misapplication of a concept, not because I was a jerk. This would fall into the same category as people who get mad when people correct other people's grammar. It's completely beyond me why this hacks people off the way it does. On the RWED boards people can (and do) act much, much worse (outright insults). Why is it that that behavior is tolerated, but correction of out-and-out ignorance is lambasted? Is it really better to be a complete asshole over some ridiculous political point than it is to provide correction over the misuse of the English language? Honestly, at least the latter is educational...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:22 AM

Cliff's Notes version:

Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
1. The philosophical context of the show seems to be that people cannot be made better. Mal even says this in his monologue. Yet somehow the fates of the entire crew eventually rest in the hands of River who has been made better (although temporarily insane).

A: The philo-text is BELIEF*

Quote:
2. The operative does not kill/capture the crew because he is disillusioned by the Reaver information. It seems to me that the operative would accept that the Alliance is/has/will do bad things in order to eventually make a better world. I don't think we would really care the the Alliance is responsible for bad things.

A: Op thinks he is the "necessary evil" working for good (the Alliance). Good turns out to be evil. Everything he was and is made pointless, like FOX. Nothing left to see.

Quote:
3. This is something throughout the series that doesn't make sense, but I guess just needs to be accepted. The Reavers have been driven to virtual insanity by the Pax yet they don't turn on each other and can still operate complex space machinery.

A: PAX made them aggressive, not dumb. Think tribal. Ritualistic mutilation of self (and most likely others), hunting in packs, and living off the "land" (making use of flesh for clothing, slapping any old parts on that make the ship work/scary, making weapons out of whatever is handy, etc.). Stronger packs probably get the bigger ships too...alpha male syndrome, etc, etc, etc.

*as in, us Browncoats, the Creator, and the cast and crew who all BELIEVED this movie would happen

That's it! Test on Tuesday, remember to bring your number 2 pencil and standard immunization packets...we don't want anyone going home and eating their family again this year...

BWAH!
TCM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Avail yourself of my trade! I have original (meaning: designed by me!) T-shirts, posters, mugs and more at http://www.cafepress.com/10thcrew
*Download my Firefly Games for FREE at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=12622
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In or near Ohio? Join us!
http://p097.ezboard.com/bohiofireflyfans
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio

NOSADSEVEN

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:34 AM

Causal- Sorry if you thought I was lambasting you - I was just amused at how appropriately your comments could be summed up by the Princess Bride line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE