I don't think this is so simple to explain, because to really understand logical fallacies you need to understand what a proof is. Not a lot of people understand what a proof is.

Could you explain why it is necessary to understand what a proof is in order to understand logical fallacies? Most commonly mentioned fallacies are informal. I'm not seeing how understanding the notion of proof is necessary (or even relevant) for understanding informal fallacies.

1NancyLebovitz6yOn the other hand, I think people can acquire a pretty good ability to recognize fallacies without a formal understanding of what a good proof is.

Open thread, January 25- February 1

by NancyLebovitz 1 min read25th Jan 2014318 comments


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.