Couple general thoughts. First, it seems to me that the notion of
“fallacy” contains within it the possibility of coherent thinking. It
is to be distinguished from heresy, which resembles it structurally, but
which lacks the innate confidence that improvement beyond the current
“reality” is possible.
Also, we don’t punish fallacy, per se. We seek to understand its
nature since the progressive elimination of error leads naturally to a
fuller or closer approximation of truth.
All approaches of this sort rely on some form of Rationalism. The
West does not have a monopoly on the use of formal logic, but I think we
are unique in our efforts to create universally coherent but still
liberal narratives.
A fallacy is when you try, and fall short. However, it is not the
proper term for efforts which are intrinsically designed to subvert
Reason. According to the fit between goal and method, they are in fact
internally highly rational, and to the extent they succeed, the term
fallacious cannot be used.
I will add that all erroneous thinking involves some misuse of the
If/Then operation. As I see it, there are three components, or points
of potential error.
First is the “If” condition. This necessarily involves either direct
perception, indirect perception, or a guess. ANY conclusion can only be
as good as the initial premise, which means that perception, pure
perception, is the root of logic.
Secondly, there is a train of thought from If to then, some of the
constituents of which are masked. For example, the logical proposition
that IF Intelligent Design cannot be incorporated within the scientific
method, THEN it is not only false, but should not be discussed.
However, this neglects many potential areas of interest. For
example, the–to my mind indisputable–fact that morphogenesis through
random change coupled with random benefit cannot account for the
existence of cells.
If we forbid the discussion of apparent falsifications of the
dominant paradigm, we prevent the emergence of a new paradigm which CAN
be incorporated within the scientific method.
Moreover, we are forbidding communities which wish to include support
for their beliefs in schools which the State compels their children to
attend, from expressing their opinions on the education of their own
children. They pay taxes for schools, regardless.
This is just one example, but shows the power of what might be termed moving perceptual horizons.
Quite often, you can shrink ideas to their basic components, and you
can equally grow them to where you begin to see the gaps, as in the
space that exists in all atoms.
Much sloppy thinking happens in this middle part.
Finally, with respect to the conclusion, you can use correct
premises, and follow a correct chain of logic, but mischaracterize the
nature of the conclusion either temporally or spatially. What I mean by
that is a conclusion might be valid in one place or time, but not valid
in another.
This is the reason that humility is an essential ingredient for
avoiding on-going error, even in the highly intelligent. Perhaps
ESPECIALLY in the highly intelligent.
Arrogance is a mistake in the future, as Edward de Bono said.