Is this a logical fallacy?

[The-universe]

I've been getting into discussions on another site about beliefs.

Basically the proponent has said since we 'believe' we're concious, self aware entities and cannot verify it objectively, it's justification for believing in (X).

I'm already dealing with the concious part, but I want to know. Is justifying one belief because we have different beliefs a logical fallacy? If so, what is it?

[Ragnarokia]

We are the dominant life form, what we want to be fact is fact. Does it matter if it is fact? No.

[The-universe]

At 6/5/10 04:41 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: We are the dominant life form, what we want to be fact is fact. Does it matter if it is fact? No.

Uhh...not really. Facts are just classed as verified observations and we use these facts to explain systems. You can't just say "hair = fact" and leave it there. You have to give reasoning as to why it's fact and move on. Facts have an inherent benefit, otherwise doctors will be in trouble.

But this isn't what I was asking for.

The proponent is claiming that we have an intrinsic belief. Ergo having another belief in something else is justified. All I want to know is this a logical fallacy and what it's called because (evidently) I've been unable to find it.

[Ass-Crumb]

i thought you knew

YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE AFTER ALL~~

[The-universe]

At 6/5/10 05:01 AM, Ass-Crumb wrote: YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE AFTER ALL~~

I couldn't think of another username that didn't have a series of numbers and letters after it because remembering RandonName837575543roflmao is a lot harder than what I'm using now. Although back when people were allowed to change their names willy-nilly would have made the process much easier because you could hijack someone else's name when they changed it during the Christmas/Easter/Halloween parties. Which ironically is why they were locked in the first place.

And oh yea, bump.

[Ragnarokia]

At 6/5/10 04:58 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/5/10 04:41 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: We are the dominant life form, what we want to be fact is fact. Does it matter if it is fact? No.

Uhh...not really. Facts are just classed as verified observations and we use these facts to explain systems. You can't just say "hair = fact" and leave it there. You have to give reasoning as to why it's fact and move on. Facts have an inherent benefit, otherwise doctors will be in trouble.

I don't see the problem "Hair? Thats some stuff on your head, you can cut it if you want it to look nicer its not like its important." Why do you need to 'justify' hair? People you are trying to copy worked out everything in the world to satisfy human curiosity, you on the other hand just copy them to get attention making yourself seem clever.

The proponent is claiming that we have an intrinsic belief. Ergo having another belief in something else is justified. All I want to know is this a logical fallacy and what it's called because (evidently) I've been unable to find it.

You aren't smart enough.

Anyway. Clearly you didn't get my point. Us, humans, unless you are something else. Are the dominant life form of the known universe. Whatever we want to view as fact is fact. No one can question us. Thus when someone asks "What is the meaning of life?" We can answer either the accepted truth of passing on genes to the future generations, or to do a popular quote "42" who is to say it isn't 42? Dogs, Cats, Dolphins? If we want the meaning of life to be 42 it is 42.

Oh and by the way the question about beliefs, if you have an army more powerful than your neighbors army, your belief is fact.

Oh if you still think I didn't answer your question it was about us being conscious or something stupid like that. We are conscious, if you want to believe we are a part of some huge computer ran simulation go ahead and believe it. The rest of us will simply sit here and continue our lives without questioning every little pointless thing. "You can't prove it's right though!" So? Read above, what we say is fact is fact, the sooner you appreciate it the better.

[Hoeloe]

As Ragnarokia said, in not so many words, the universe is created simply by your own perception of it. You can't prove, for definite, that anything exists, not even other people. That said, the universe itself is unique to you, as only you can be sure of your own perception of it.

[The-universe]

At 6/5/10 05:40 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: I don't see the problem "Hair? Thats some stuff on your head, you can cut it if you want it to look nicer its not like its important." Why do you need to 'justify' hair? People you are trying to copy worked out everything in the world to satisfy human curiosity, you on the other hand just copy them to get attention making yourself seem clever.

You didn't get my point.

A fact is a very strictly defined scientific term. You can't just say (X) is a fact and leave it there. You have to justify your claim otherwise using your logic your computer doesn't exist, it's obviously a fact, right?

You aren't smart enough.

And you love making statements about other people's intelligence.

Anyway. Clearly you didn't get my point. Us, humans, unless you are something else. Are the dominant life form of the known universe.

And you didn't define the term dominant nor give reasoning as to why.

Whatever we want to view as fact is fact. No one can question us. Thus when someone asks "What is the meaning of life?" We can answer either the accepted truth of passing on genes to the future generations, or to do a popular quote "42" who is to say it isn't 42? Dogs, Cats, Dolphins? If we want the meaning of life to be 42 it is 42.

That would work, if every other human had the exact same perceptions, thinking processes and conclusions. Which evidently, they don't. I love how you say nothing can question us while I'm questioning you.

Oh and by the way the question about beliefs, if you have an army more powerful than your neighbors army, your belief is fact.

Oh if you still think I didn't answer your question it was about us being conscious or something stupid like that. We are conscious, if you want to believe we are a part of some huge computer ran simulation go ahead and believe it. The rest of us will simply sit here and continue our lives without questioning every little pointless thing. "You can't prove it's right though!" So? Read above, what we say is fact is fact, the sooner you appreciate it the better.

Oh, but you didn't answer my question.

The question itself (and my original post explains this) has fuck all to do with what you're talking about and I've asked the same question TWICE. So now I'm going to ask again and only focus on those because I'm not having a thread locked just because you want to drift on topic.

Proponent 1 says:
We all believe (X) therefore we are justified in believing (Y).

(X) and (Y) are completely unrelated to each other. He is trying to justify one belief by saying we believe in something entirely different. Is this a logical fallacy and if so, what is it?

[Carmoil]

I suppose this is basically just another way of saying "I think, therefore I am". In my view, the very fact that you can ask yourself the question of whether you're conscious proves that you are conscious, and that is the only really unequivocal truth . I might not exist as I think I exist, and my environment might not be what I perceive it to be but how can I have thoughts if my conscious doesn't exist? Really though, I think it's best not to think about it, and just assume that what you perceive is reality, just in case it is.

[RubberTrucky]

He's talking about justification. He's not stating it as a certain consequence, so I'm thinking no fallacy. But also not capable of ascertaining his truths.

[jarrydn]

Sounds to me like you're headed for an existential crisis, follow closely by a bout of nihilism :P

Once you realize that everything you believe could possibly be false, you've opened pandora's shitbox.

[Monocrom]

Ever observed a family of Geese on a daily basis? I have.

All they do is eat and shit. The young ones will blindly follow their parents anywhere . . . even into on-coming traffic. The males will posture and hiss at anything they consider a threat to their "family." But it's all bullshit posturing. I have seen both mother and father geese literally abandon their children if they believe they are under attack. Mom & dad can fly away. The young ones can't. I have seen baby geese nearly break their own necks trying to squeeze through a chain link fence, over and over again; despite the fact that their chubby bodies can't fit through.

They are the stupidest of God's creations. Point being, if a creature is self-aware, it has enough intelligence not to behave like a goose.

[Ass-Crumb]

At 6/5/10 05:22 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/5/10 05:01 AM, Ass-Crumb wrote: YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE AFTER ALL~~

I couldn't think of another username that didn't have a series of numbers and letters after it because remembering RandonName837575543roflmao is a lot harder than what I'm using now. Although back when people were allowed to change their names willy-nilly would have made the process much easier because you could hijack someone else's name when they changed it during the Christmas/Easter/Halloween parties. Which ironically is why they were locked in the first place.

usernames were locked because the redesign was going to implement profiles with your username as the domain, ie ass-crumb.newgrounds.com. nothing to do with christmas parties.

seriously i was just joking around i don't care about your internal debate about whether or not your username suits you.

[chiefindomer]

At 6/5/10 04:33 AM, The-universe wrote: Basically the proponent has said since we 'believe' we're concious, self aware entities and cannot verify it objectively, it's justification for believing in (X).

Sounds fallacious to me. Although, I guess it could depend on what (X) actually is. If (X) is supposed to remain undefined, then it is fallacious.

I'm already dealing with the concious part, but I want to know. Is justifying one belief because we have different beliefs a logical fallacy? If so, what is it?

I'm not sure what to call it, other than a logical fallacy.

[chiefindomer]

At 6/5/10 06:27 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: He's talking about justification. He's not stating it as a certain consequence, so I'm thinking no fallacy. But also not capable of ascertaining his truths.

In order for it to be justified, he must show that it's reasonable to believe this, otherwise he shouldn't claim that it's justified.

[The-universe]

At 6/5/10 06:27 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: He's talking about justification. He's not stating it as a certain consequence, so I'm thinking no fallacy. But also not capable of ascertaining his truths.

Thank you. Finally someone gives me a proper answer.

[Ragnarokia]

At 6/5/10 06:20 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/5/10 05:40 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: I don't see the problem "Hair? Thats some stuff on your head, you can cut it if you want it to look nicer its not like its important." Why do you need to 'justify' hair? People you are trying to copy worked out everything in the world to satisfy human curiosity, you on the other hand just copy them to get attention making yourself seem clever.

You didn't get my point.

A fact is a very strictly defined scientific term. You can't just say (X) is a fact and leave it there. You have to justify your claim otherwise using your logic your computer doesn't exist, it's obviously a fact, right?

No, because my computer does exist. You are saying it doesn't exist, while I say it does exist, which if you bother to read my point, means it does exist as I am superior to you and as such my fact is true. If I say to some world leader that something is the case and they say otherwise, they will be true.

You aren't smart enough.

And you love making statements about other people's intelligence.

I am pointing out a fact which you yourself said, you said you didn't know and as such you aren't smart enough to know. If you didn't understand what I said then it proves my point.

Anyway. Clearly you didn't get my point. Us, humans, unless you are something else. Are the dominant life form of the known universe.

And you didn't define the term dominant nor give reasoning as to why.

Are you retarded? Humans are the dominant species on Earth, its a fact.

Whatever we want to view as fact is fact. No one can question us. Thus when someone asks "What is the meaning of life?" We can answer either the accepted truth of passing on genes to the future generations, or to do a popular quote "42" who is to say it isn't 42? Dogs, Cats, Dolphins? If we want the meaning of life to be 42 it is 42.

That would work, if every other human had the exact same perceptions, thinking processes and conclusions. Which evidently, they don't. I love how you say nothing can question us while I'm questioning you.

You still don't understand, this is pathetic. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what many people think. Those who are better than us, lets face it they are, are the ones who tell us what fact is. What you learn in school what we all know is fact because we are told by the superior people it is fact.

Oh and by the way the question about beliefs, if you have an army more powerful than your neighbors army, your belief is fact.
Oh if you still think I didn't answer your question it was about us being conscious or something stupid like that. We are conscious, if you want to believe we are a part of some huge computer ran simulation go ahead and believe it. The rest of us will simply sit here and continue our lives without questioning every little pointless thing. "You can't prove it's right though!" So? Read above, what we say is fact is fact, the sooner you appreciate it the better.

Oh, but you didn't answer my question.
The question itself (and my original post explains this) has fuck all to do with what you're talking about and I've asked the same question TWICE. So now I'm going to ask again and only focus on those because I'm not having a thread locked just because you want to drift on topic.

You aren't smart then.

Proponent 1 says:
We all believe (X) therefore we are justified in believing (Y).
(X) and (Y) are completely unrelated to each other. He is trying to justify one belief by saying we believe in something entirely different. Is this a logical fallacy and if so, what is it?

"he" you clearly have problems with someone. Anyway I will answer again. "he" is superior, as such what "he" says is true, you really aren't an important person you are a whining little child posting on a forum. You will believe that is being told to you.

[chiefindomer]

At 6/5/10 09:55 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what many people think.

When it comes to what is factual, you're right, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.

Those who are better than us, lets face it they are, are the ones who tell us what fact is.

Trying to determine what human is superior when compared to another human is pointless because that is subjective. I'll assume by "better than", that you mean having more power than. Having the most power doesn't mean that you are infallible.

What you learn in school what we all know is fact because we are told by the superior people it is fact.

No. A fact must being something that actually exists or has an objective reality. If a teacher told their students that money grows on trees, they would not be correct. If a teacher tells their students that 2+2=4, they would not be correct just because they have more power, they would only be correct because they are demonstrating an actual fact.

[Bacchanalian]

Ad Hoc Relativism.

[REDSPADES]

Lies explain truth. If i hold up a picture of me at 7 years old, i can't simply say that me, because i'm 20 years old, 3 feet taller and have tattoos, i inevitably have to make up a story, or a lie if you will to connect me to the person in the photo, like "This is me at 7 years old, when i used to live on wallburton street and my mom took this photo in summer after by birthday"

Our consensus of a uniformed perception define human logic. Existence cannot be agreed upon due to certain factors, and remains inexplicable to others, but to yourself, you may fully grasp and accept existence, you just lack the ability to relate this perception to others. It doesn't make it untrue, it just makes it your own view.

[Aigis]

It's not a fallacy, it's a philosophy.

[chiefindomer]

At 6/5/10 11:01 AM, Aigis wrote: It's not a fallacy, it's a philosophy.

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Are you saying that a philosophy is exempt from being fallacious?

[The-universe]

At 6/5/10 10:29 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Ad Hoc Relativism.

Does anyone see this? It's an answer to the question I was asking. How brilliant must he be to answer a question instead of drifting off into a complete tangent about something unrelated?

[NGManiac203]

No, but we may be able to have a logical phallacy.

Ooooh burn.

[satanbrain]

At 6/5/10 11:01 AM, Aigis wrote: It's not a fallacy, it's a philosophy.

One man's fallacy is another man's philosophy