Philosophy Now Forum

For example:

The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.

The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.

The fallacy of slipper slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.


Dually one fallacy negates another:

The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.

The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies.

The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.

I do believe you have hit upon the fundamental principle of all human knowledge. I will now forsake all future participation in philosophy forums, and retire to a monastery in Tibet.

On the other hand, maybe I'll just go to the pub.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 1:59 pm I do believe you have hit upon the fundamental principle of all human knowledge. I will now forsake all future participation in philosophy forums, and retire to a monastery in Tibet.

I will join you...lol.

I think self-referentiality, at least in the arithmetical sense, was sufficiently refuted by the Brónberguer-Schmeltzhoefer hypothesis.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 4:02 pm I think self-referentiality, at least in the arithmetical sense, was sufficiently refuted by the Brónberguer-Schmeltzhoefer hypothesis.

This doesn't negate the fact that self-referentiality negates the fallacies. A fallacy applied to itself or another fallacy negates the fallacies.

Your point however doesn't compute given I am talking about fallacies not arithmetic.