logical-flaws - Revision history

Tantek: suggestion to familiarize and use for reference

2009-05-29T21:45:35Z

suggestion to familiarize and use for reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 29 May 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	This page is for documenting logical flaws and fallacies that the microformats community has in particular encountered on microformats [[mailing-lists]]. This is <em>not</em> intended to be a comprehensive documentation of all possible logical flaws - there are other resources on the Web for that.		This page is for documenting logical flaws and fallacies that the microformats community has in particular encountered on microformats [[mailing-lists]]. This is <em>not</em> intended to be a comprehensive documentation of all possible logical flaws - there are other resources on the Web for that.

			Familiarize yourself with these so that you may [[mailing-lists#Avoid_logical_flaws\|avoid logical flaws]], and reference specific flaws as necessary when [[mailing-lists#Point_out_logical_flaws\|pointing out logical flaws]] on the [[mailing-lists]] or other microformats discussion forums such as [[irc]].

	Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

Tantek at 22:55, 23 June 2008

2008-06-23T22:55:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 23 June 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h1>logical flaws</h1>		<h1>logical flaws</h1>

	This page is for documenting logical flaws that the microformats community has in particular encountered on microformats [[mailing-lists]]. This is <em>not</em> intended to be a comprehensive documentation of all possible logical flaws - there are other resources on the Web for that.		This page is for documenting logical flaws and fallacies that the microformats community has in particular encountered on microformats [[mailing-lists]]. This is <em>not</em> intended to be a comprehensive documentation of all possible logical flaws - there are other resources on the Web for that.

	Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

Tantek: cited another example of Assumptions of lack of foundation or justification

2008-01-08T00:56:29Z

cited another example of Assumptions of lack of foundation or justification

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 8 January 2008
Line 45:		Line 45:
	"That assertion is completely without foundation or justification."[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-July/010261.html *]		"That assertion is completely without foundation or justification."[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-July/010261.html *]

	are themselves unfortunately without foundation, because the person making the response doesn't and can't know from what foundation or justification the assertion could have been made.		or:

			"You seem to be making unsubstantiated assertions…" [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-January/011280.html *]

			are themselves unfortunately without foundation and unsubstantiated, because the person making the response doesn't and can't know from what foundation or justification the assertion could have been made.

	If you don't know the foundation or justification for someone's assertion, don't assume it doesn't exist, rather, ask for it, e.g.		If you don't know the foundation or justification for someone's assertion, don't assume it doesn't exist, rather, ask for it, e.g.

Tantek: added "legal weight" variant.

2007-07-26T00:40:07Z

added "legal weight" variant.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 26 July 2007
Line 31:		Line 31:

	when made by individuals who are not lawyers and who thus lack the authority to make legal statements, do not add any semantics to the remainder of the phrase "xyz", and thus the expression "Legally, " is meaningless.		when made by individuals who are not lawyers and who thus lack the authority to make legal statements, do not add any semantics to the remainder of the phrase "xyz", and thus the expression "Legally, " is meaningless.

			=== legal weight variant===

			Statements of the form:

			"xyz doesn't carry much legal weight."[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-July/010261.html *]

			when made by individuals who are not lawyers and who thus lack the authority to make legal statements, similarly are meaningless.

	== Assumptions of lack of foundation or justification ==		== Assumptions of lack of foundation or justification ==

Tantek: added logical flaws: "Legally" is meaningless from nonlawyers, assertion of lack of foundation is itself without foundation.

2007-07-26T00:13:30Z

added logical flaws: "Legally" is meaningless from nonlawyers, assertion of lack of foundation is itself without foundation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 26 July 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Absence of input/objections means no one else cares, it means something is not relevant enough to bother with. Thus absence of input/objections is actually a far harsher criticism than any specific objection. Thus topics which fail to raise input or objections can be considered a very low priority for the community.		Absence of input/objections means no one else cares, it means something is not relevant enough to bother with. Thus absence of input/objections is actually a far harsher criticism than any specific objection. Thus topics which fail to raise input or objections can be considered a very low priority for the community.

			== Legally is meaningless from non-lawyers ==
			Qualifications of the form:

			"Legally, xyz".[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-July/010261.html *]

			when made by individuals who are not lawyers and who thus lack the authority to make legal statements, do not add any semantics to the remainder of the phrase "xyz", and thus the expression "Legally, " is meaningless.

			== Assumptions of lack of foundation or justification ==
			Responses of the form:

			"That assertion is completely without foundation or justification."[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-July/010261.html *]

			are themselves unfortunately without foundation, because the person making the response doesn't and can't know from what foundation or justification the assertion could have been made.

			If you don't know the foundation or justification for someone's assertion, don't assume it doesn't exist, rather, ask for it, e.g.

			"What is the foundation or justification for that assertion?"

	== Related ==		== Related ==

Tantek at 01:11, 18 July 2007

2007-07-18T01:11:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 18 July 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

			__TOC__

	== Absence of a negative is not proof ==		== Absence of a negative is not proof ==

Tantek: drafted based on recent examples

2007-06-28T23:54:49Z

drafted based on recent examples

New page

<h1>logical flaws</h1>

This page is for documenting logical flaws that the microformats community has in particular encountered on microformats [[mailing-lists]]. This is <em>not</em> intended to be a comprehensive documentation of all possible logical flaws - there are other resources on the Web for that.

Author: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

== Absence of a negative is not proof ==

Statements of the form:

"I can see no good reason why ABC should stop XYZ"

... do not provide justification for XYZ.

== Absence of objections is not approval ==

Statements of the form:

"I have heard no objections, therefore everyone must approve."

are false.

Absence of input/objections means no one else cares, it means something is not relevant enough to bother with. Thus absence of input/objections is actually a far harsher criticism than any specific objection. Thus topics which fail to raise input or objections can be considered a very low priority for the community.

== Related ==
Here are a few general pages on logical flaws which you may find of some utility, no guarantee is provided as to their fitness/consistency. Evaluate them critically before using/referencing.
* [http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html sfdebris Logical Flaws]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html Logic & Fallacies]