[snowwrestler]

Deductive logical systems cannot reliably find truth. That is the lesson of the scientific revolution and the revolution in mathematics that is most closely associated with Godel.

Yet when people invoke "logical fallacies" they are almost always fallacies in deductive logic. Hey Internet--how about catching up to the 19th century and employing some inductive reasoning in your arguments?

The problem with that, though, is that the starting point is facts. The arguer actually needs to possess domain knowledge/experience. It's so much more convenient to mock an inferred deductive structure...no real facts required!

[Jach]

Furthermore, many deductive fallacies can turn into inductive, probabilistic theorems simply by moving to evidence-backed arguments instead of proof-backed arguments. (Authoritative claims can be evidence for a shift in probability, correlation is evidence of causation, absence of evidence is evidence of absence... How much that evidence is worth, of course, depends on the context.)

[GalacticDomin8r]

> Deductive logical systems cannot reliably find truth.

Don't you mean inductive.

> That is the lesson of the scientific revolution and the revolution in mathematics that is most closely associated with Godel.

A lesson which hasn't permeated the "scientific revolution" perhaps with good reason.

[snowwrestler]

Prior to the scientific revolution, philosophers attempted to deduce truth from first principles. Their record was mixed to say the least.

The revolution of science was to say we don't need Truth, we just need to look systematically at real facts, and come up with provisional theories that provide testable predictions about them. It has pulled humanity's collective head out of the clouds and created useful, practical, actionable knowledge.

[GalacticDomin8r]

> Their record was mixed to say the least.

As is post-"scientific revolution", whatever that means.

> The revolution of science was to say we don't need Truth

Do you have anything real to say?