Logical fallacies and inconsistencies

It seems to me that people tend to build their entire worldview upon the narrow foundation of their own lived experiences—those specific, gritty realities they’ve touched and felt personally. There is this stubborn refusal to truly grasp someone else's argument if they haven't walked in those exact shoes themselves; they won't even bother to squint and try to view the landscape from another person's vantage point. It’s a fundamental failure of empathy, really. Then, of course, you have the ego at play, that heavy, suffocating weight that prevents most folks from ever admitting they were wrong or pivoting when presented with a better truth. But honestly, that’s an internal battle they have to fight within their own souls; they need that sudden, sharp moment of clarity where it finally clicks that learning from others is the only way to actually grow. And don't even get me started on the types who feel the need to belittle others just to prop themselves up—people driven by a deep-seated dissatisfaction with their own lives and a pervasive sense of frustration. Such individuals will never touch wisdom, because true wisdom is born from understanding others, not crushing them. Ultimately, trying to apply rigid, textbook logic to the messy reality of human interaction is a lost cause; it’s much like trying to speak nothing but high literary prose in a casual conversation at a local diner. Just as formal language exists primarily in books, there will always be a "vernacular logic" and a "conversational reasoning" that governs how we actually interact in the real world.

Anonymous said: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?

I mean, seriously, do you actually control your own reason? Do you have any say over logic itself?

Just look at what I was getting at regarding how the brain works—specifically its capacity to ditch illusions the second it hits on a truth, no matter how much you believed those delusions before. How on earth is that an act of oppression?

You used the word "control." Either find a better way to phrase that, or you're essentially handing me an oxymoron on a silver platter.

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?

-Can you give us one or more actual EXAMPLES so we aren't just talking in circles?

-And can everyone else chime in with some examples too? 🙂

I was wondering—if you don't mind me jumping into this conversation—whether anyone has some solid examples of a strong thesis statement?

Peter Phillips32 said:I mean, seriously, do you actually control your own reason? Do you have any say over logic itself?

Just look at what I was getting at regarding how the brain works—specifically its capacity to ditch illusions the second it hits on a truth, no matter how much you believed those delusions before. How on earth is that an act of oppression?

You used the word "control." Either find a better way to phrase that, or you're essentially handing me an oxymoron on a silver platter.

I totally see where you're coming from, and I appreciate the reality check. I also realize I can't exactly condense eighty pages of my thoughts into just three sentences.
What I was trying to get at is this: If the brain actively shapes our reality, it’s only logical that reality should loop back and influence the brain in return. So why doesn't it happen most of the time? Usually, when the brain is hyper-focused on its own knowledge or perceptions, it completely ignores what's actually happening around it. When reality finally hits us—often in an uncomfortable or jarring way—that's when we feel the need to defend ourselves. To me, that explains human inconsistency; I truly believe the only way out of that cycle is through a conscious awareness of that very reality. I hope I haven't gone off the rails again and that my original point is coming through. Thanks again. 🙂

.. reason is nothing.. reason is a total joke.. people will trade everything just for a feeling.. it’s only natural for logic to lose its grip--and honestly, that's a good thing.. the more chaotic that inconsistency becomes, the more people will be ready to actually see it.. they'll become witnesses to the truth.. people of faith..

.. regarding the brain and reality..
.. you have to use clear examples so it clicks immediately..
.. take someone like Hitler—he conceives one specific reality.. but that reality doesn't exist yet.. so he starts trying to force it into being.. then he hits roadblocks like Midway or Stalingrad.. the mind won't let go.. it stays convinced that a reality as perfect as the one in his head simply *must* be real.. .. and in the end, it's just a bunker and death waiting there.. damn it.. hoping for some new chance.. .. is that what you meant..? .. well, why not just say so..?

Reasoning is a tricky thing... It’s a total mess and then some. It's supposed to be a witness to the Truth. But whose Truth are we talking about?

Truth comes in many flavors. Hitler's truth is treated as truth. Stalin's truths are treated as truths. Even Jesus' truths are held up as truth.😬

The real question is who's going to use logic—and sheer force—to impose THEIR version of the truth on everyone else! 😍

The reality is that old-school dictators managed to force THEIR reality on the world. Honestly, that doesn't seem all that bad compared to how today's creators of Democracy try to strip away that fundamental power... 👍

Ronald Rogers27

.. no .. you've got it wrong .. you're sounding like a total hack -- we both missed the mark here ..

Bachukka raised me... Back in the late 70s, I was hanging around Gold dust (they had two military bases stationed in Czechia at the time; I actually dated this girl who was in my class, and her old man was a Lieutenant General commanding a Soviet tank brigade)...

I messed up... Or maybe Ryan played me. Who knows...

Yga... This isn't even the first time I've blown it, let alone the hundredth... 😬

Ronald Rogers27

.. those old souls are gone now .. and once the spark catches .. it becomes .. eternal .. and you stay eternal too .. .. do you know what the actual problem with consciousness is .. ? .. it’s that it never ages .. it stays forever young
.. you are the thunder .. the oldest Karamazov archetype .. the first son of the hexagram ..

(.. there isn't much to say to that .. so just act accordingly .. there's no point proving anything by having an answer for every single thing .. damn it all ..)

Patrick Wright2 said: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. 🤷

It's probably more about a lack of willingness to look at oneself with enough objectivity or from a certain distance, rather than a literal inability to do so. When you actually have that willingness, doors open up to understanding and the possibility of revising your own stances and so on. But when that willingness isn't there, then all that insisting on pointing out a logical fallacy—one that some third-party observer clearly sees in their own reasoning—is just futile and pointless.
Now, why that willingness is missing... well, that depends entirely on the individual and their deep-seated beliefs. You can only tolerate your own mistake if you're aware of it or at least harbor some doubt; otherwise, you don't even have a relationship with the error to begin with (so you couldn't possibly tolerate it).

As has already been pointed out here, being right isn't the point; that shouldn't be the goal of a discussion anyway. So, as an outside observer, if you spot something you feel the need to react to, it's enough to just state your opinion and stay involved in the conversation as long as it remains meaningful and constructive, without feeling any pressure to convince anyone of anything.

Patrick Wright2 said: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. 🤷

I think I follow what you mean when you talk about intellectual inconsistency, though I tend to view it a bit differently—more like an inconsistency with the very definition of what intellect actually is, since at its core, intellect is all about perception, cognition, and true understanding, which really shouldn't be closed off to any kind of exploration, especially since the whole point of using our minds is to investigate the very possibilities that allow us to keep searching, meaning we have to stay open to every single facet of a problem we're looking at.

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?

The "problem" is that people often argue just to win. I don't think anyone is immune to that ego boost, even when they enter a debate thinking they're being objective. It clouds the logic—inevitably.

Another thing—this logical inconsistency is especially prevalent among highly intelligent people. They're used to winning intellectual sparring matches. Once they've built a conviction, it's usually well-reasoned, but that "certainty" can become a blind spot that overrides pure logic.
edit: which explains why most members of Mensa just bicker instead of building anything constructive. 😁

I wouldn't define "certainty" as much as an emotion—one that overpowers the rational side. Avoiding it requires specific training. 😁

Have you encountered this mindset before? And how do you force those types to apply the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

It won't always work. Some people are simply closed off to changing their minds. You have to respect their perspective while pointing out where they're right and highlighting the new evidence they've conveniently ignored.

Patrick Wright2 said: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.

seeking truth is a much higher motivation than what most people actually bring to a conversation or an argument in their daily lives. It's hard to shake those lower motives—they're baked right into how we function.

Those lower motives are usually about climbing the social ladder—elevating yourself by tearing someone else down, or both at once. Evolution hardwired this into us because status brings benefits, and all of that carries over perfectly into the digital world.

For instance, the subtext in the very first post of this thread is basically, "They’re inconsistent, I’m not; I’m better/above them."
Or take this post here: "I am explaining things to you, therefore I am superior." 😬
Subtle stuff. If memory serves, it's called meta-communication. Messages hidden between the lines.

placidranger said:seeking truth is a much higher motivation than what most people actually bring to a conversation or an argument in their daily lives. It's hard to shake those lower motives—they're baked right into how we function.

Those lower motives are usually about climbing the social ladder—elevating yourself by tearing someone else down, or both at once. Evolution hardwired this into us because status brings benefits, and all of that carries over perfectly into the digital world.

For instance, the subtext in the very first post of this thread is basically, "They’re inconsistent, I’m not; I’m better/above them."
Or take this post here: "I am explaining things to you, therefore I am superior." 😬
Subtle stuff. If memory serves, it's called meta-communication. Messages hidden between the lines.

Not even close, man. It’s common sense that it's way easier to spot the exact same crap in someone else when you're already doing it yourself, so I actually caught my own hypocrisy before I ever noticed it in anyone else, and honestly, it bugs me just as much when I see it in myself as it does when I see it in others.

Patrick Wright2 said:Not even close, man. It’s common sense that it's way easier to spot the exact same crap in someone else when you're already doing it yourself, so I actually caught my own hypocrisy before I ever noticed it in anyone else, and honestly, it bugs me just as much when I see it in myself as it does when I see it in others.

Solid point. 😁

placidranger said:The "problem" is that people often argue just to win. I don't think anyone is immune to that ego boost, even when they enter a debate thinking they're being objective. It clouds the logic—inevitably.

Another thing—this logical inconsistency is especially prevalent among highly intelligent people. They're used to winning intellectual sparring matches. Once they've built a conviction, it's usually well-reasoned, but that "certainty" can become a blind spot that overrides pure logic.
edit: which explains why most members of Mensa just bicker instead of building anything constructive. 😁

I wouldn't define "certainty" as much as an emotion—one that overpowers the rational side. Avoiding it requires specific training. 😁

Have you encountered this mindset before? And how do you force those types to apply the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

It won't always work. Some people are simply closed off to changing their minds. You have to respect their perspective while pointing out where they're right and highlighting the new evidence they've conveniently ignored.

Man, I think you hit the nail right on the head here.
A person can be incredibly sharp and analytical, building an opinion on a foundation of solid arguments, yet when they actually sit down to talk it out, their whole position gets dismantled logically without them even realizing it, simply because that "certainty"—that deep-seated confidence in their own lived experience—makes them mentally lazy, so instead of actually weighing the new evidence that proves them wrong, they’ll just go on autopilot and hunt for any random counter-argument to shake the other person up, even if the other guy is actually onto something.
So even though there was a real chance to actually uncover the truth of the matter, that window slams shut because they just couldn't stay intellectually honest.

steelridge58 said:It's probably more about a lack of willingness to look at oneself with enough objectivity or from a certain distance, rather than a literal inability to do so. When you actually have that willingness, doors open up to understanding and the possibility of revising your own stances and so on. But when that willingness isn't there, then all that insisting on pointing out a logical fallacy—one that some third-party observer clearly sees in their own reasoning—is just futile and pointless.
Now, why that willingness is missing... well, that depends entirely on the individual and their deep-seated beliefs. You can only tolerate your own mistake if you're aware of it or at least harbor some doubt; otherwise, you don't even have a relationship with the error to begin with (so you couldn't possibly tolerate it).

As has already been pointed out here, being right isn't the point; that shouldn't be the goal of a discussion anyway. So, as an outside observer, if you spot something you feel the need to react to, it's enough to just state your opinion and stay involved in the conversation as long as it remains meaningful and constructive, without feeling any pressure to convince anyone of anything.

I love how you lay things out so clearly because if I actually tried to match that kind of precision myself, I’d probably end up cutting half my response just to keep up with you. 😉

Think of it this way. Logic is basically just a tool, right? It’s like having a heavy-duty hammer in your kit that you use to build out an airtight argument from scratch. But at the same time, it’s that exact same hammer you swing to absolutely demolish someone else's point if their reasoning turns out to have flimsy walls or a shaky foundation.
Look, the thing is, sometimes our own arguments have these massive walls and foundations that our hammer can just absolutely demolish. If we’ve already got that hammer in our hands and actually know how to swing it, isn't it way better to just tear down our own shaky claims ourselves before they fall apart? Otherwise, those half-baked ideas are just gonna come crashing down on our heads right when we least expect it.

steelridge58 said:I think I follow what you mean when you talk about intellectual inconsistency, though I tend to view it a bit differently—more like an inconsistency with the very definition of what intellect actually is, since at its core, intellect is all about perception, cognition, and true understanding, which really shouldn't be closed off to any kind of exploration, especially since the whole point of using our minds is to investigate the very possibilities that allow us to keep searching, meaning we have to stay open to every single facet of a problem we're looking at.

That's exactly it. We've been blessed with this intellect that gives us the ability to truly perceive the world, so when we start chipping away at knowledge or trying to break it down into tiny, isolated little pieces, we're basically just degrading our own capacity to understand anything.

I feel like I should draw a little parallel here. A short while ago, I was watching some news footage that showed this kid trying to smash a storefront window with a rock just to get to whatever he was after. I have no clue what his motive was or what he was aiming for, but every single time he hurled a stone at the glass, it just bounced right back until, finally, one of them caught him square in the head—it must have been some heavy-duty reinforced glass or something. 🙂

The other day, I heard someone say that logic is unforgiving. What they meant was that regardless of how much we might wish things were different, if a conclusion follows validly from its premises, then that’s just the reality we have to face.

Patrick Wright2 said:I love how you lay things out so clearly because if I actually tried to match that kind of precision myself, I’d probably end up cutting half my response just to keep up with you. 😉

Think of it this way. Logic is basically just a tool, right? It’s like having a heavy-duty hammer in your kit that you use to build out an airtight argument from scratch. But at the same time, it’s that exact same hammer you swing to absolutely demolish someone else's point if their reasoning turns out to have flimsy walls or a shaky foundation.
Look, the thing is, sometimes our own arguments have these massive walls and foundations that our hammer can just absolutely demolish. If we’ve already got that hammer in our hands and actually know how to swing it, isn't it way better to just tear down our own shaky claims ourselves before they fall apart? Otherwise, those half-baked ideas are just gonna come crashing down on our heads right when we least expect it.

If an idea isn't true, it's definitely better not to stay trapped inside it.
And if we aren't even sure it's true, that alone should be enough reason to go out and try to find the actual truth.