Talk:Argumentum ad baculum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Instead of writing phrase we could write term. Sebastian 04:06 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
A related fallacy is the claim that...
How is this a related fallacy? It seems the same to me...
Contents |
[edit] Logical vs Non-logical arguments
I attempted a rewrite of the article to address the alleged claim that appeal by force is not a logical fallacy. I am of the opinion that when defined in a specific way, it is necessarily a logical fallacy, resulting in the edit. Shawnc 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I changed the phrase "violent consequences" to "dire consequences," hopefully broadening the definition to cover more than just the threat of punishment. If I'm not mistaken, Simon Blackburn defines it the same way in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.--WadeMcR 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the bulk of the non-logical section. It's true that the example is not a logical argument, but the reasons were mostly incorrect. Logic is perfectly capable of addressing 'should' (Inductive reasoning). I tried to eliminate terms that aren't commonly defined (e.g. 'quasi-logical'). The assertion that the argument addresses holding a belief in P 'even if P is logically false' isn't why the conclusion is non-logical, so it's removed. This section still needs work, or needs to be scrapped entirely; an article on a logical fallacy needs to address the logical fallacy - not some poorly-worded non-logical variant of it. Tofof 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A better (or at least funnier) example
- If not P, then I will beat you up.
- Therefore P.
Thanks for presenting this as if it were a genuine logical argument. It's both completely valid content and most definitely silly. Excellent. --Kizor 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples vs. Non-examples
The Chewbacca, 3PO reference is pointless and innaccurate. It doesn't represent an example of logical fallacy. It represents an example of threat being used to advise someone to willingly lose a contest. If Han Solo had instead argued "Wookies are known to pull the arms off people when they lose, therefore he is winning." or if instead of playing chess, they were having a philosophical debate, where a logical argument was in question and threat was used to settle that argument, it would be an example of Argumentum ad baculum.
[edit] Moral Relativism
I notice that this page seems to heavily endorse moral relativism. I would consider this to be very biased.
[edit] Name convention?
Is there a naming convention on using the Latin vs. English terms for logical fallacies?
English main, Latin redirects
- Argument from fallacy/argumentum ad logicam
- Begging the question/circular logic/petitio principii
- Correlation does not imply causation/cum hoc ergo propter hoc
- Appeal to consequences/argumentum ad consequentiam
- Argument from ignorance/argumentum ad ignorantiam
- Appeal to tradition/argumentum ad antiquitatem
Latin main, English redirects
- Argumentum ad baculum/ad baculum/appeal to force
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc/coincidental correlation
- Ignoratio elenchi/irrelevant conclusion (I think this is Greek, not Latin, but same principle)
- Argumentum ad populum/appeal to the majority
Okay, after compiling that list, this article doesn't stand out so badly. Still, it doesn't seem like there's a pattern. It seems likely to me that 'appeal to force' could be more well-known, at least now, than 'argumentum ad baculum'. If this is named in the Latin for historical reasons, then shouldn't 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' certainly also be a main title, for example?
If there's a more appropriate and/or more general place to discuss this convention, please let me know and I'll move it. Tofof 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
