Logical fallacies and inconsistencies

I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.

For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.

That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.

Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

One thing I noticed when I first joined this forum—which isn't always so obvious in real life—is how many people just can't argue without falling into logical fallacies. It seems like a huge crowd will just ignore any evidence that proves them wrong and just keep doubling down on their own nonsense.

What you mentioned definitely counts as a fallacy. In my book, those folks still fall into that same category, even if they show a little "spark" of intelligence here and there.

How do you force them? That's a really interesting question. I'm going to keep following this thread to see if anyone actually has an answer...
Honestly, trying to get someone to use the same logical standards as you is kind of like trying to force someone to stop being so subjective. I don't think you can really change someone like that, but hey, maybe someone here has a bright idea... 😛

Your post really got me thinking about how much better discussions would be if everyone just approached things objectively. Imagine if we weren't all just trying to prove our own theories right, but were actually looking for the truth instead. But man, that's a whole different conversation... ☕

Patrick Wright2 said:I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.

For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.

That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.

Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

People are subjective, especially when it comes to themselves. It’s totally human nature. I don't see anything wrong with it—that's why we have discussions in the first place, to try and find common ground if it's even possible in that situation. 😬

Ronald Rogers27

Patrick Wright2 said:I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.

For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.

That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.

Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

So, what we're looking at here is someone using their own logical reasoning to tear down a theory without realizing they're simultaneously tearing down their own argument in the process.
If they truly don't see it, then you can't really accuse them of being intellectually hypocritical or inconsistent, since they aren't even aware they're creating a contradiction if one exists.
In that scenario, all you can really do is point out where the contradiction lies and try to defend your position logically, or rather, start from the premise of the contradiction itself to prove it.

Regardless, if someone actually realizes their own claim is contradictory and fundamentally unsustainable, but they stubbornly cling to it anyway just because they refuse to back down, then honestly, that's not your problem to solve. 🙂

I'm assuming when you say "quite selectively" or "choosing where to apply logic," you're referring to people who are willing to be critical of others, but lack any sense of self-criticism?

Look, I’m not saying you guys aren't smart—trust me, you definitely are—but let's be real, everyone here is just looking out for number one... you always have to be the smartest person in the room while acting like everyone else is totally clueless and knows nothing compared to you... from what I can tell reading this sub, about half of every single post is just people whining about how nobody else understands basic logic or how to actually explain things, just like this opening post right here... honestly, what I really want to know is why people go out of their way to belittle others just to feel superior (and it's always for that same old "I'm the genius here" ego trip, because obviously, there's no other reason for it besides that)... so yeah, basically, everyone here is just incredibly insecure, no matter how much they actually know... everybody just *has* to be right all the time... if that's the case, then this isn't even a real discussion... peace out

I honestly don't even know how to break this down for you guys, but there’s really no point in wasting good arguments if all you care about is acting like a know-it-all and trying to look superior to everyone else... at the end of the day, you're just performing for attention and waiting for applause, which basically makes you no different from someone like Taylor Swift...

steelridge58 said:So, what we're looking at here is someone using their own logical reasoning to tear down a theory without realizing they're simultaneously tearing down their own argument in the process.
If they truly don't see it, then you can't really accuse them of being intellectually hypocritical or inconsistent, since they aren't even aware they're creating a contradiction if one exists.
In that scenario, all you can really do is point out where the contradiction lies and try to defend your position logically, or rather, start from the premise of the contradiction itself to prove it.

Regardless, if someone actually realizes their own claim is contradictory and fundamentally unsustainable, but they stubbornly cling to it anyway just because they refuse to back down, then honestly, that's not your problem to solve. 🙂

I'm assuming when you say "quite selectively" or "choosing where to apply logic," you're referring to people who are willing to be critical of others, but lack any sense of self-criticism?

Pretty much. You can totally see it happening—people pour all this massive energy into logically dismantling someone else's point just to prove them wrong, yet their own arguments are built on nothing but sand.
How do you even explain that kind of behavior, where a person goes absolutely scorched earth on someone making an illogical claim while their own stance lacks any actual logical foundation? Honestly, I'd call it pure intellectual hypocrisy. It wouldn't even bug me that much if it weren't coming from people who constantly brag about knowing philosophy or formal logic, so it honestly blows my mind how far some folks will go to ignore a blatant error in their own reasoning, even when it's staring them right in the face like a glaring mistake to any objective observer.
Maybe it’s just because some people straight-up lack the capacity to look at themselves objectively. 🤷

goldeneagle8 said:Look, I’m not saying you guys aren't smart—trust me, you definitely are—but let's be real, everyone here is just looking out for number one... you always have to be the smartest person in the room while acting like everyone else is totally clueless and knows nothing compared to you... from what I can tell reading this sub, about half of every single post is just people whining about how nobody else understands basic logic or how to actually explain things, just like this opening post right here... honestly, what I really want to know is why people go out of their way to belittle others just to feel superior (and it's always for that same old "I'm the genius here" ego trip, because obviously, there's no other reason for it besides that)... so yeah, basically, everyone here is just incredibly insecure, no matter how much they actually know... everybody just *has* to be right all the time... if that's the case, then this isn't even a real discussion... peace out

Basically, most people don't have a clue how logic works, so you can easily imagine how much someone who actually knows their stuff is going to lose it when they hit a simple, undeniable flaw in an argument. It's like if you were a pro mathematician and some guy, absolutely certain of himself, tried to tell you that 10+10=21 even though you know for a fact it isn't, and he refuses to budge—of course you're gonna lose your cool and start using ad hominem attacks.
See, logic is a lot like math; both rely on a specific set of rules you absolutely have to follow.

As for looking out for your own interests, you can't ignore the human element, specifically that raw urge to just win an argument at any cost. People who actually think clearly can easily lead an opponent down a rabbit hole and defend their stance with a massive arsenal of points, mostly because they're wired to look pro their own argument from every possible angle. But the real trouble starts with selectivity, which is basically just ignoring anything contra your own point.

goldeneagle8 said:I honestly don't even know how to break this down for you guys, but there’s really no point in wasting good arguments if all you care about is acting like a know-it-all and trying to look superior to everyone else... at the end of the day, you're just performing for attention and waiting for applause, which basically makes you no different from someone like Taylor Swift...

Spot on. You should be using your brain to actually find the truth, not just twisting things to back up some pre-packaged opinion or a stubborn point of view.

Look, I get it, but who actually decides what counts as "truth" in philosophy anyway? It’s like nobody ever wants to step up and admit they’re totally wrong...😍The person sitting in judgment always claims they can see some deeper layer that you're just missing, which is their way of acting like they're somehow more enlightened than you, but if there isn't even a judge to call out, then the whole thing feels pretty pointless because you've got nowhere to go to prove you actually know your stuff...

It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct categories of discourse occurring within this forum: those discussions driven by pure, unadulterated logic, and those fueled by nothing but raw emotion. Personally, I find myself gravitating much more toward the latter.
Now, don't get me wrong; both approaches represent perfectly valid ways for primates—and by extension, humans—to communicate their perspectives.
(However, one must be careful to avoid mixing these two realms together—that is to say, one shouldn't attempt to counter logic with logic, nor should they try to meet emotional outbursts with more emotions.)

Rachel Palmer21 said:It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct categories of discourse occurring within this forum: those discussions driven by pure, unadulterated logic, and those fueled by nothing but raw emotion. Personally, I find myself gravitating much more toward the latter.
Now, don't get me wrong; both approaches represent perfectly valid ways for primates—and by extension, humans—to communicate their perspectives.
(However, one must be careful to avoid mixing these two realms together—that is to say, one shouldn't attempt to counter logic with logic, nor should they try to meet emotional outbursts with more emotions.)

But honestly? Both sides are right in their own way... so at the end of the day, it all kind of evens out anyway...

goldeneagle8 said:Look, I get it, but who actually decides what counts as "truth" in philosophy anyway? It’s like nobody ever wants to step up and admit they’re totally wrong...😍The person sitting in judgment always claims they can see some deeper layer that you're just missing, which is their way of acting like they're somehow more enlightened than you, but if there isn't even a judge to call out, then the whole thing feels pretty pointless because you've got nowhere to go to prove you actually know your stuff...

Look, a judgment has to be logically sound to be considered true, but being true doesn't automatically make a judgment logically sound.
That's why our first move has to be separating the valid arguments from the invalid ones, since an invalid argument can't be true by its very nature. That's really the core of the issue here.

When you're trying to nail down the truth between two valid concepts, it all comes down to checking the premises, and checking those premises depends entirely on your method of verification, which honestly is enough material for a whole new thread on this forum. 😉

Rachel Palmer21 said:It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct categories of discourse occurring within this forum: those discussions driven by pure, unadulterated logic, and those fueled by nothing but raw emotion. Personally, I find myself gravitating much more toward the latter.
Now, don't get me wrong; both approaches represent perfectly valid ways for primates—and by extension, humans—to communicate their perspectives.
(However, one must be careful to avoid mixing these two realms together—that is to say, one shouldn't attempt to counter logic with logic, nor should they try to meet emotional outbursts with more emotions.)

The problem is they get mixed up all the time, and half the time, it's the exact same person doing the mixing.

Patrick Wright2 said:Look, a judgment has to be logically sound to be considered true, but being true doesn't automatically make a judgment logically sound.
That's why our first move has to be separating the valid arguments from the invalid ones, since an invalid argument can't be true by its very nature. That's really the core of the issue here.

When you're trying to nail down the truth between two valid concepts, it all comes down to checking the premises, and checking those premises depends entirely on your method of verification, which honestly is enough material for a whole new thread on this forum. 😉

You're sharp, and I gotta respect that,👍 props to you,🙏

but how the hell are we supposed to decide who actually has the authority to judge, and who doesn't... because everyone walks around thinking they're the one who's right... if you're convinced you've got the truth and you've got your own story playing in your head, there isn't some grand authority coming to tell you what's right or wrong... people are just way too sensitive to criticism... and frankly, everything stems from that criticism...

Patrick Wright2 said:The problem is they get mixed up all the time, and half the time, it's the exact same person doing the mixing.

But they don't actually influence one another at all! It’s much like watching a sports broadcast where half the players are out there playing football while the other half are playing handball on the exact same field. You see, in the area where the football rules apply, you’re watching football, and where the basketball rules take over, you’re watching basketball—they exist in their own separate spheres despite being mentioned in the same breath.

and quite often, it's the very same individual trying to blend them both.

Well, you simply cannot mix those elements within a single premise! Because when you introduce that second part—which is fundamentally logically unsound—it renders the entire argument structurally flawed from the ground up.
The statement doesn't even have to be strictly true or false; it just becomes nonsensical.

goldeneagle8 said:You're sharp, and I gotta respect that,👍 props to you,🙏

but how the hell are we supposed to decide who actually has the authority to judge, and who doesn't... because everyone walks around thinking they're the one who's right... if you're convinced you've got the truth and you've got your own story playing in your head, there isn't some grand authority coming to tell you what's right or wrong... people are just way too sensitive to criticism... and frankly, everything stems from that criticism...

The only thing a human brain can truly master is reality itself, because once someone realizes the truth, they have this innate ability to shatter any illusion they previously clung to.
Does intelligence have a built-in flaw—that it’s always tethered to a specific goal?
And is it impossible for anyone to maintain a negative self-image over the long haul, simply because it would lead to a total psychological breakdown?
Are these two concepts intrinsically linked within the human psyche?
Do you see any logical fallacies in that reasoning?

You’ve gotta realize that this isn't some kind of personal assault, so there's zero need to get all defensive about it. Because let's be real—once you start defending yourself, you inevitably pivot into an attack. And we all know that attacking is usually the best way to defend. You just do whatever it takes.

I mean, you really have to move past this whole ego trip where you think "I" am defined by my own thoughts, thinking I don't even need to protect myself...

It all just boils down to the specifics of the situation—what actually caused the mess and how to fix it.
The one thing you can say for sure is that a person has to stumble upon the answer themselves. Telling someone what to do doesn't actually do anything. There's no such thing as an "instant epiphany" regarding your own mistakes—that's just one of those delusions people fall into when they're being overly spiritual or idealistic.
Some people put in the work, some need a little nudge when they hit a wall, and then there are the ones who just won't try at all.

As for the solution... it's different for everyone. There's no one-size-fits-all fix.

Anonymous said:The only thing a human brain can truly master is reality itself, because once someone realizes the truth, they have this innate ability to shatter any illusion they previously clung to.
Does intelligence have a built-in flaw—that it’s always tethered to a specific goal?
And is it impossible for anyone to maintain a negative self-image over the long haul, simply because it would lead to a total psychological breakdown?
Are these two concepts intrinsically linked within the human psyche?
Do you see any logical fallacies in that reasoning?

Look, there are two big mistakes here.
Who actually keeps the controllers in check?
Don't you get that control is basically just a fancy word for subordination? Control is straight-up abuse.

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, there are two big mistakes here.
Who actually keeps the controllers in check?
Don't you get that control is basically just a fancy word for subordination? Control is straight-up abuse.

Whoops! So, being rational means bowing down to reason? Being logical means surrendering to logic? ... It sounds like a total power trip—denying me the freedom to be completely unrealistic while still discussing reality, or to just do whatever I want and then blame "reality" for being unfair.
Take a closer look at what I said regarding the brain—specifically its capacity to ditch illusions the second it recognizes the truth, no matter how much we clung to them before. Where exactly is the abuse in that?