Forum:Sound argumentation fallacy?

< Index | General discussion

Hi. This thread is best suited for logic and rhetoric enthusiasts. I don't know where to begin, so I thought about the forums. On RationalWiki, I probably have spent the biggest deal of my time on logical fallacies. Here's what has come to my mind:

Let's imagine a debate between two people in which one person is right. We don't know which one.
One person (A) has sound argumentation, their point isn't known to be right or wrong, though.
The other person (B) doesn't have much argumentation (just for the sake of this thought experiment) and thus their point seems less plausible than the first person's.

What I want to do right now might sound a bit counter-intuitive and might directly oppose logic. If we come to this consensus, that's fine.

What if, despite the sound argumentation A has, A is simply wrong, while B doesn't have much good argumentation, but he is actually right?

Of course, everything can be objectively proven to be right or wrong. Earth is a geoid (or, being less accurate, a sphere). Jews are evil Hitler thought Jews are evil. Those are undeniable truths. There's no going around this.

But haven't we all met at least one situation where we were proven wrong by argumentation which is actually sound and we had no sound argumentation against that while we were certain we were right? I guess it can be blamed on fallacious reasoning, after all. Even saying outright bullshit while evidence points out that it actually isn't bullshit is... still a fallacy, if you ask me.

It's hard to make a good example for me. But that's what I was thinking about at the moment.

To sum it up:
Is there such a thing as sound argumentation fallacy? Some sort of a razor (like Occam's razor) which says that despite all the soundness of our arguments, we can still simply be wrong? Loc (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Inverse fallacy fallacy. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, as you said. It seems to say that just because a premise is correct, any argumentation that backs it must be correct. That wasn't my point, although I appreciate your contribution. :) Loc (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where I read it, but there was an article on inability to respond to an argument not meaning it's accurate. (Related to argument by silence.) The idea was specfic to science: that you might simply not know why an argument's wrong because of lack of experience in a field.

Though I think that, theoretically, there should never truly be a sound argument against a known fact -- that'd make logic incorrect. FuzzyCatPotato of the Anal Riddles (talk/stalk) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is kind of an odd proposition, but you can make sound arguments that logically follow that don't make much sense. Arguments without sound premises aren't really a sound argument. I am eating a sandwich on bread that is white, I am also white, therefore I am a piece of bread. Logically it follows al la transitive property but it's really silly. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be a very obvious logical fallacy. What I thought about was more similar to this example straight from RW. Loc (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, argument by silence is the closest thing that matches what I mean. Thanks, FCP. While still not exactly what I was looking for, we're headed in the right direction. That's good! Loc (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're basically describing the difference between formal logic and traditional reasoning. Anyone basically versed in philosophy or logic wouldn't have much trouble distinguishing between the two classes.

The formally structured, sound argument adds something, of course. It adds the ability to see where you went wrong. Nominally, the same point argued in both forms, the former would be preferable for accuracy because it would allow you to reason out any potential mistakes more easily. Two different points argued in the two different forms are impossible to compare meaningfully. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So... is it simply impossible to be wrong while making very meaningful points (which would also render my original question useless)? My brain kinda hurts after coming to this conclusion, because, well, I thought of something, but it just slipped away from my mind, so it's kinda hard to say why I came to this conclusion. Loc (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sound argument fallacy - (n.) the fallacy committed in arguing in defense of the sound of a piccolo. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, good one! Loc (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So... after sitting and thinking for a while, I came to a conclusion that it's simply impossible to make a sound argumentation fallacy. I think that sound argumentation fallacy, as I described it, isn't actually a fallacy, but a failure to properly notice and address fallacious reasoning your opponent is making (and thus take it as a legitimate point). At least that's what I think right now. One thing FCP said convinced me to take such a belief:

Though I think that, theoretically, there should never truly be a sound argument against a known fact -- that'd make logic incorrect.

Everyone is still welcome to give their share of thought on this matter, I don't want to say this thread is closed. If you think you can convince me otherwise - try it. If you don't care about my convictions but simply want to explore the concept for any reason - do so, as well. Loc (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If your logic is sound but the conclusion is wrong, doesn't that just mean your starting assumptions are incorrect?

Adam Lambsbreath (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)