After the response(s) I’ve given upthread I think it might be helpful for Marcus to do a rewrite of the statement in which she thinks I’ve contradicted myself.
You did contradict yourself. That’s been made very obvious by several of Marcus’s posts.
As it is, I think I’ve already responded to any concerns and there may be nothing else to add.
Regardless of what you think, you haven’t.
I’m going to stop conversing with you now because I suspect, strongly, that you have one of the more serious personality disorders. I think you’re unable to see anything different to how you want to see it. I don’t think conversing with you is helpful to anyone.
And I corrected any misunderstandings that others and/or myself might have had. That’s called back and forth conversation seeking for greater understanding. Jumping to conclusions and making possibly unwarranted judgements are dangerous and unproductive. Especially if there are no guardrails (others to jump in and make corrections) to protect the innocent.
As it is, it is left up to me.
Flying solo is indeed a risky prospect. And knowing the flak is coming from all directions makes it even more hazardous. But fun in a way. A challenge.
I won’t lose any sleep if you stop conversing with me. But thanks for the conversations we’ve had.
IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Is this an example of a logical fallacy?
This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." In this case, the argument assumes the conclusion that eye witness testimony is unreliable, and then uses that assumption to conclude that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is also unreliable. However, the argument doesn't actually provide any evidence to support the claim that eye witness testimony is unreliable in this specific case, or that the eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon is unreliable. Instead, it simply assumes that eye witness testimony is generally unreliable, which may or may not be true in this particular instance.
PiAI
…you have one of the more serious personality disorders. I think you’re unable to see anything different to how you want to see it.
In a nutshell, coincidentally, that’s the way I view certain posters here. I don’t chalk it up to personality disorders as you do, however. I see it as simply having dogmatic worldviews that are pretty solid and are unlikely to change.
Other than that though I figure people are at least somewhat stable psychologically. But now that I think about it…personality disorders…that might explain a few things.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Yes, the argument you provided is an example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning or begging the question. This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises, essentially restating the initial assumption as proof without providing any new evidence.
In your example:
Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Therefore, the best evidence for The Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The conclusion is essentially a restatement of the first premise, making the argument circular. It doesn’t provide any new information or evidence to support the conclusion, but rather relies on the initial assumption to prove itself.
Copilot A.I.
ETA: when I used copilot against you (to show you had committed some fallacy), I had to redact a bunch of stuff and hope nobody repeated the exercise.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
ETA: when I used copilot against you (to show you had committed some fallacy), I had to redact a bunch of stuff and hope nobody repeated the exercise.
Two LLM’s are wrong?
Let’s go with a third:
This argument contains a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization or faulty generalization. The reasoning assumes that because eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable, any specific instance of eyewitness testimony (in this case, the testimony supporting The Book of Mormon) must also be unreliable.
While it is true that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, this does not automatically discredit all instances of such testimony. The argument fails to consider the possibility that the specific eyewitness accounts related to The Book of Mormon could be reliable or that they might be supported by additional evidence.
Conclusion
In summary, the argument is indeed an example of a logical fallacy, as it draws a broad conclusion about the reliability of evidence based solely on a generalization about eyewitness testimony without considering the specific context or additional supporting evidence.
You.com
I don’t know. Maybe you’re right. But three for three?
I’m thinking that at the very least IHAQ ought to be a little more careful. Someone might actually take what he is saying as gospel truth.
Also, at the very least, his statement falls not the ‘questionable’ category it seems.
MG, your LLMs are all wrong. sorry. It's not surprising at all. It would be downright scary if they were consistently right calling fallacies.
from Merriam Webster:
syllogism
1
: a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable")
2
: a subtle, specious, or crafty argument
3
: deductive reasoning
We are going with definition 1. If you think definition 1 must also be specious per definition 2, then look also at definition 3 and decide if you really want to claim deductive reasoning is specious.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
MG, your LLMs are all wrong. sorry. It's not surprising at all. It would be downright scary if they were consistently right calling fallacies.
Why do you say that? It seems as though it would be scary if each one disagreed with the other. The fact that they all ‘see right through’ the logical fallacy is what one might expect from a highly trained algorithmic super computer.
I guess it becomes a question as to whether or not a person is going to give preference to your ‘protection’ of IHAQ’s reasoning and conclusions over the determinations of multiple A.I. systems.
The things is, both you and IHAQ have a dog in the fight. One must consider that.
It would be scary because if an LLM could consistently nail logical fallacies as they occur in natural languages, and across a broad range of topics, then I'd think it would be a strong sign of general intelligence.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
