Can philosotards explain this?

?

Then why do logical fallacies exist in rhetoric?

Also why can someone's rhetoric be discredited if they use a logical fallacy if rhetoric is not equal to logic?

as in, there are other systems that arent accounted for that are also affecting our examples

a rule could generally be true, for instance you could say "this type of economy works best", and have this be generally true, but one country could have a different one and be economically better than the others, but that country could also have a natural resource none of the others had,or whatever

>a rule could generally be true, for instance you could say "this type of economy works best", and have this be generally true, but one country could have a different one and be economically better than the others, but that country could also have a natural resource none of the others had,or whatever
that would mean the rule is poorly written and not true

I don't know. Fuck rhetoric.

This if were the case then the principle should be resources determine how well an economy works.

Rhetoric doesn't have to be "true", just because a statement isn't logical doesn't mean it's not good on pure rhetorical grounds... bullshitting is an art form

If this were the case then logical fallacies wouldn't exist or be discussed in relation to rhetoric.

Have you considered that the person you were talking to may just be really really stupid?

Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of logical fallacies. Are they supposed to strengthen your rhetoric/speeches or something to avoid, i.e, they are bad rhetoric?

The logic of a statement and it's rhetorical presentation are two separate things, a statement can lack logical fallacies and be rhetorical bland, logical fallacies don't have anything to do with rhetoric it's a semantical thing

>Science is perfectly logical
lol
>Eggs are halthy
>Nuh uh mu mama said so
>Yes they are look at this one specific study
>Hah, you fell for the study bait, check out this counter study

Don't even get me started on racial discussion, that's some of the most autistic shit man has ever presenciated.

is there some philosopher who says everyone is a moron who talks and acts like a predictable flowchart, human existence is pitiful and banal, no one holds a gun to your head and tells you to live or get out of bed. That the only escape from meaningless is cognitive dissonance and ignoring transactional logic tree of interacting with anyone else

I think you need to get your eyes checked, and work on your reading comprehension and understanding.

You need to work on your meme interpretation.

Op said, and I quote :"In math and science all one has to do to disprove a theory is to show a single counter-example."
I, being the fuckwit I am, gave him an example in which counter examples nullified jack because THEY WEREN'T FUCKING ENOUGH. Which is, coincidentally, what happens in philosphy a lot.

Good thread.

Well done ya'll.

The two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. They can both have an affect on the outcome. A counterexample only raises a problem if it can't be accounted for by other variables. For example if you consume caffeine and Benadryl and then you become tired, that wouldn't be contrary to the claim that caffeine decreases drowsiness because the drowsiness can be accounted for by the fact that you took Benadryl. Just because you can find a counter example like the one you mentioned doesn't mean the claim has to be rejected. Not every counterexample is relevant - there could always be cases where it falsely appears as if given rule is being violated.

I'm pretty sure he meant science as in "natural science", not pseudo-science.

>Nutritionism
>Pseudo-science
Oke dokes them, am leaving board.

Perhaps you misunderstand science. They conduct studies to test the validity of a hypothesis. If the results prove over and over the hypothesis then it is a theory. So if they are conducting studies on something that means what they are testing isn't a theory...

Kek. Food science is pseudo-science user.

Yes it does. It means your claim was poorly worded. In your case it should be caffeine alone decreases drowsiness.

>Yet in rhetoric bringing up a specific counter-example is considered a logical fallacy.

Can anyone provide an example

Example 1
>books are printed in black ink
>There is a red letter edition of the Bible
Example 2
>apples are healthy
>rotten apples are not

Both claims are retarded, nothing about the concept of book dictates color of anything and nothing is healthy in and of itself without regard to other variables.

>Gravity makes things go down
>But birds go up
>No because...
>Lol check mate science

>biology
>pseudo-science

>Example 1
>>books are printed in black ink
>>There is a red letter edition of the Bible

Ok. So books can be printed in black ink. Books can be printed in red ink. Dont see the problems or notion of logical fallacy.

>Example 2
>>apples are healthy
>>rotten apples are not

Apple = x
x = healthy

Rotten apple ≠ x

Dont see the problem, or example of logical fallacy.

Any other examples to the OP's claim?
>Yet in rhetoric bringing up a specific counter-example is considered a logical fallacy

rhetoric is the art of persuading an audience or conversant.

if the audience/conversant isnt smart enough to identify a particular fallacy then use it.

also not all fallacies are logical fallacies. a logical (or formal) fallacy is one which is fallacious due to the FORM of the argument. e.g. "All bachelors are men, therefore all men are bachelors" is fallacious because the form of the argument "All X are Y, therefore all Y are X" is not valid. All arguments with this form are false (if X!=Y).

informal fallacies are stuff like ad hominim, appeal to authority etc.

But OP seemingly was about:

Yet in rhetoric bringing up a specific counter-example is considered a logical fallacy.

A specific counter example

It depends on the context. A single counter-example only disproves a generalized statement if it is postulated as an absolute truth. But this is not always the case with generalizations.

If I say "women are physically weaker than men" I can mean either a) that all women are physically weaker than all men, or b) than women are generally, but not necessarily always, physically weaker than men.

Mathematics and the more exact sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry) are concerned pretty much exclusively with truths of the former kind. In "softer" sciences, where you can't have the same kind of exactness due to a combination of methodological difficulties and the higher complexity of the systems being studied (e.g. biology, medical science, psychology, sociology etc.) you have to make do with truths of the latter kind (e.g. "people with a very high BMI are generally sicker and more short-lived than people with a normal BMI," statements of this kind frequently being put, for reasons of convenience, in simpler but not entirely accurate terms, e.g. "fat people are unhealthy").

So if it is specified whether the claim is exactly absolute or if the claim is general then a specific counter example could not be considered a logical fallacy?

Pretty much. If someone says "every single immigrant is a criminal," then it's obviously not fallacious to counter that with a specific example of an immigrant who isn't a criminal.

Of course, people usually aren't that exact in debates, because debating and rhetoric is less about truth than about the appearance of truth. If you want to be as convincing as possible it's often to your advantage to avoid exactness and to make use of every fallacious argument that you can, as long as those arguments have the air of truth about them and are unlikely to be effectively countered by your opponent.

>because debating and rhetoric is less about truth than about the appearance of truth.
>make use of every fallacious argument that you can, as long as those arguments have the air of truth about them and are unlikely to be effectively countered by your opponent.

With the internet existing and all, why would ^^^ even exist?

>In math and science all one has to do to disprove a theory is to show a single counter-example.
Science don't actually work like that, user. There is a very narrow understanding of it.