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.

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.