[telemachos]

A lot to chew on here. First, I think your distinction between mathmatical proofs and everything else (?) is a bit simplistic. Second, you seem to suggest that the non-math side of the divide ("human language") is necessarily not truth seeking and that any attempt to point out a fallacy in such a context is pointless. That strikes me as far too strong.

Imagine I am discussing a topic with someone. The topic might be anything, but let's stipulate that it's not a member of the mathematical proof family that you mention.

If I or the other person commits a logical fallacy and someone points that out, we can avoid one bad outcome: trusting an invalid conclusion. (I'm using 'valid' and 'invalid' in the sense philosophers use it of an argument where the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. An invalid argument may have a true conclusion, but the form of the argument makes it unreliable. Example: My name is Peter. Therefore, I will die. The conclusion is true, but the premise doesn't actually get me there.)

I completely agree that conversation shouldn't be like a scored debate, and so I think pointing out fallacies to ding other people is childish and largely pointless. But if you are actually striving to understand something, then an awareness of (common) fallacies can be very, very useful.

[loup-vaillant]

> Second, you seem to suggest that the non-math side of the divide ("human language") is necessarily not truth seeking and that any attempt to point out a fallacy in such a context is pointless.

That's a straw man. He said: "it's probably impossible to structure any kind of discussion without introducing [a fallacy]". Because you can't avoid fallacies doesn't mean that pointing to (some of) them is pointless.

I think you agree with Daniel more than you realize.

[telemachos]

> That's a straw man. He said: "it's probably impossible to structure any kind of discussion without introducing [a fallacy]". Because you can't avoid fallacies doesn't mean that pointing to (some of) them is pointless.

Here's his full sentence: Human language and the totality of knowledge is not a formal system with complete rules and non-contradictions, therefore not only will an elimination of fallacies not lead anywhere, it's probably impossible to structure any kind of discussion without introducing one.

The key bit to me is "therefore not only will an elimination of fallacies not lead anywhere." You may be right about his larger meaning, but I take that part of the sentence to mean that there is no point in eliminating fallacies ("not lead anywhere").

[loup-vaillant]

I understood "elimination of fallacies" as "elimination of all fallacies". That wouldn't mean we shouldn't avoid (or point to) the worst ones.

I'm insisting because I can't believe that someone actually think that no fallacy is worth eliminating. Unless he state it without ambiguity. Daniel didn't. Plus, he stated the difference between debate and conversation. I think we can equate "mutual understanding" with "search for the truth" here.

So Daniel, would you tell us what you actually think? Are some fallacies worth eliminating? Can the human language be truth seeking?

[telemachos]

> I'm insisting because I can't believe that someone actually think that no fallacy is worth eliminating. Unless he state it without ambiguity.

Principle of charity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I took "mutual understanding" to be an alternative to "search for the truth" - and a very carefully chosen one at that. Although I don't agree, I can see a number of potential arguments for the idea (given some of his other premises) that in math we find the search for truth, whereas in human conversations we find increased mutual understanding (under the best conditions), but no hope of a search for truth.

I'm insisting myself because the debate is on a topic I care about and one that's inherently interesting.

[loup-vaillant]

Principle of humanity, more likely.

"Find the search for truth"? Either you search for truth or you don't. In the process, you may (or may not) find the truth, and you may (or may not) be closer to it. What did you actually mean by "hope of a search for truth"?

Now, trying to "find some agreeable progress in mutual understanding" sounds like a damn good substitute to "searching for truth". Mutual understanding is the best approximation of truth I know of, when truth actually has something to do with the conversation.

Now that I think of it, mutual understanding may not be such a good substitute, but merely a prerequisite. Meaning, until the different parties understand where they agree, and where they disagree (and maybe even why they do), search for the truth is hopeless.

[telemachos]

> "Find the search for truth"? Either you search for truth or you don't. In the process, you may (or may not) find the truth, and you may (or may not) be closer to it. What did you actually mean by "hope of a search for truth"?

I meant that (per the argument under discussion), in some areas there is no (real) possibility of searching for the truth. So, in those areas you don't "find the search for truth." When the OP talks about math vs. human language (all other contexts?), he appears to imply that in math it is possible to search for truth, but in "human language", there is no possibility of finding truth. So, what I meant was roughly this (the following is a reconstruction of the OP's argument, as I understand it, not my views):

1. In math, where there is "a fixed set of consistent rules" (his words), you can meaningfully search for truth.

2. In "human language", which "is not a formal system with complete rules and non-contradictions" (his words), you cannot meaningfully search for truth.

3. The phrase "mutual understanding" indicates a second-best option (since the search for truth is ruled out) for "human language". As you and I talk - now for instance - we cannot usefully search for truth, but we can at least try to figure out what the other person intends to say. That's "mutual understanding," and I think you can see why it's only a consolation prize compared with the search for truth.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of a certain kind of logical positivism. Only some statements are even potentially truth-evaluable. (For example 'x = x' is truth evaluable.) All the rest is simply an expression of personal belief, attitude, disposition or emotion. Under that view, if I say "action x is always wrong" and someone else says "under some circumstances action x is not wrong", the best we can do is figure out what the other person means by their statement. But there is no possibility of saying whether either of those statements is true or false, since such statements are (by definition) not truth-evaluable. That's the kind of thing I thought the OP was saying.

[stretchwithme]

right on. Many disasters can be easily avoided if we challenge the faulty logic involved.

I'd like to see more real debates amongst our decision makers. Everything today is designed to avoid them. We would certainly get better decisions and the mental demands alone will make for sharper leaders.

[hernan7]

In the real world, unfortunately, if you need to challenge the faulty logic of your opponent, you already lost the argument.

[stretchwithme]

so you've lost the instant someone someone presents a faulty argument? does that mean you win now?