Formal Fallacies

 This gave me a better understanding of Logical fallacies.

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:
(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal fallacy”.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Logical Arguments

"The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example:

"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge." "Dogs cannot see colour."
"Berlin is the capital of Germany."

Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny", not the everyday meaning. The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular arrangement of words used. So "A God exists" and "There exists a God" both express the same proposition.?

Logic arguments

I came across this article and found it as a very interesting way to look at logic.

"If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth."

Inductive, Deductive

When we first started with inductive and deductive it was a little fuzzy to me so I tried to find ways on how to understand them better and i came across this,

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:

Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too. Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.

Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.

Now i feel much more confident on my judgment to decide which one is which.

So much to Logic

Taking this Logic course has opened my eyes up to how much is really involved within this subject. When you hear someone make a statement, you just hear the statement and think that's it. When really there is many other things to think about such as if it's an argument or non-argument, inductive or deductive, valid, strong, weak, cogent etc. It goes on forever, before these couple weeks of classes I would of never put so much thought into a single statement.

Logic

It's funny how we use methods and principles as criteria for evaluating others arguments to guide our own constructive arguments of our own. If we never listened to the way others explain their reasoning's then we would not be able to evaluate what they are saying and build on that topic. We create idea's from building off of others thoughts that we have heard. I don't mean necessarily copying word for word but we create new thoughts from listening to others.

About me

Hey everyone! I just wanted to let people know a little about myself. My name is Michael Sullivan and I am currently an undeclared major. I'm very excited to start this school year at MCLA and make the best of it. Cape Cod is where you can find me when not at school. My first year of college was at Massasoit Community College, where i was a business major and also played on the baseball team. I intend to play baseball for MCLA also. Golfing is also a big hobby of mine, I've worked at a local golf course right down the street from where i live since about 8th grade. This is my first year staying at a school and it seems to already be an awesome experience. My goal is to study and work as hard as I can so I receive the best grades as possible and to become a college graduate. That's me short and sweet, thanks for taking the time to read it!