Question

...
Kostas Oikonomou

Kettle Logic Definition

In the definition of kettle logic we read:

Making (usually) multiple, contradicting arguments, in an attempt to support a single point or idea. 
Logical form
Statement 1 is made.
Statement 2 is made and contradicts statement 1.
Statement 3 is made and contradicts statement 1 or 2
... etc.

Shouldn't the definition say "contradicting statements" instead of "contradicting arguments"?
The logical form also mentions 'statements'.
asked on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2024 12:42:15 PM by Kostas Oikonomou

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Mr. Wednesday writes:

I see what you mean, that the definition provided says "arguments" and then all of the provided examples are statements. I checked a couple other sources, and all of the other definitions of kettle logic I found also use the word argument.

Looking at the examples, what I'm generally seeing is that the statements in the examples aren't codependent to form a single argument, but each one could be used to form a standalone argument with the same conclusion. I could also see a scenario where someone trying to make a point about a more complex topic could make fully formed arguments that contradict each other in support of the same point.

posted on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2024 01:16:13 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:
[To Mr. Wednesday]

Well, If I heard the phrase 'contradicting arguments' I would think of two arguments that defend opposing conclusions, that lead to contradicting conclusions.

What we search for in a Kettle Logic is contradicting statements, (not contradicting arguments). Whether these statements extend a single argument or a series of arguments is I think, unimportant. So in that regard, the definition should mention contradicting statements. The phrasing making (usually) multiple contradicting arguments" I think is misleading and confusing (to me at least it was confusing without reading the examples). 

If we want to be more thorough though and mention the possibility of contradicting statements across a series of arguments why not define it as:

When contradicting statements are used within an argument (or across a series of arguments) to support a single point or idea. 

That way we spare the 'multiple contradicting arguments' (what does it mean multiple? more than two?) or the use of 'usually' (if that happens frequently what is it that happens infrequently?). It's much more concise that way, don't you think? 

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2024 02:30:21 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Bo's Book Bundle

Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!

* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.

Get the Book Bundle

Answers

...
AI Fallacy Master
0
The definition of "kettle logic" as provided is indeed grounded in the concept of using multiple, contradicting arguments to support a single point or idea. However, your suggestion to use "statements" instead of "arguments" highlights an important nuance in logical terminology. Let's examine this focusing on any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, poor logic, or poor reasoning inherent in the definition:

### Analysis:

1. **Conceptual Clarity**:
- **Argument vs. Statement**:
- An **argument** consists of a series of statements (premises) intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement (the conclusion).
- A **statement** is a declarative sentence that is either true or false.
- In the context of "kettle logic", the intent is to indicate contradictions among the points made to support a single conclusion. While "statements" is technically correct, "arguments" might be more contextually appropriate since these statements are being used to make a case (or argument).

2. **Logical Fallacy Detection**:
- **Kettle Logic** is itself a logical fallacy. It can be described as a form of internally inconsistent reasoning.
- By using multiple contradictory statements/arguments, the very act of supporting the point self-destructs, as internal consistency is a core requirement for any valid argument.

3. **Logical Consistency**:
- Whether termed "statements" or "arguments," the essence is that the contradictions undermine the validity of the overarching point being made.
- The shift from "arguments" to "statements" does not materially alter the logical inconsistency inherent in "kettle logic".

### Conclusion:

- While your point about using "statements" for precision is valid, the use of "arguments" is more contextually aligned with how these statements are functioning (as premises in an argument framework).
- The logical form presented is consistent and valid in illustrating the self-contradiction central to "kettle logic".

### Recommendation:

To ensure clarity and precision in the definition, it might be useful to explicitly state that the contradictions among the "statements" or "arguments" (depending on desired usage) serve the same purpose. Therefore, an improved definition might be:

**Improved Definition:**
"Making (usually) multiple, contradicting statements or arguments, in an attempt to support a single point or idea."

This includes the nuance that these statements are part of an argumentative framework while retaining precision in terminology.
answered on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2024 12:42:38 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments