Even Subtle Fallacies are handled/rectified by logic. Logic is executed by mathematics. In modern day, handled by mathematics/modelling, algorithms.
Fallacy correction (by logic and math or whatever tools you use), has no power or influence on the soundness or veracity of premises or axioms.
Our cognition/mind/intuitive understanding decide what are the acceptable, agreeable premises.
When our dualistic view point discovered the the fallacy of dualism or fallacy within the premises itself, and have seen the gimps of underlying unity, it got scared because that's the best we have got and we are sure its not the ultimate reality.
Instead confronting the truth, it revolted and still trying to make sens of the reality in dualistic term. In doing so, it created the monstrosity of science with few apparently (because we did not create anything, we just used and harnessed what was existing there to begin with), impressive (because for general people are not privileged enough to know how ( often how stupidly the project started and how simple it was, although the apparent complexity seems to arisen because there are many many simple steps) scientific achievements are done. they only see only the finalized product, and hence are impressed) achievements.
Non-dualisting other systems are not looking the unity by dualistic cognition, and they are fine and are not rebel. I don't know if they are consciously aware of the system either. But the the drive to seek unity is still in there.
Science is a reaction/defense of fear.
Fear of the weakness of human language/cognition. Primordial drive to seek leading to the act of observing /sensing the underlying unity by newly evolved dualistic mind created a violent rejection because the duality of the mind itself is in danger. That's the Birth of modern science. And Its based on at least mundane casuistry, if not, sophisticated sophistry.
More From Web:
By "fallacy as a premise" do you just mean a false premise?
Technically, only arguments can be fallacious. Statements (and premises are statements) are either true or false, but cannot be fallacies.
A premise is a statement. And no statements are fallacies. So, no premises are fallacies.
The premises you cite as "fallacies" are simply false statements. It is false that just because a few of something are red, then all of it are red, for instance. And all the rest of the premises you cite as "fallacies" are just, false statements.
But, it makes no practical difference, really, so far as your question is concerned. Call they "fallacies" if you like, I don't mind. But what I said about the consequences to an argument of the premises being false still is true if you call the premises "fallacies." It really doesn't matter.
The fact that premises in an argument are assumed to be true, for the purposes of the argument, does not prevent them from being actually false. In the argument,
All fish are mammals.
All snakes are fish.
_________________
All snakes are mammals
It is, of course, true that if we were to assume that the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true. And that makes the argument valid. But, of course, the premises are not true, they are false. So assuming they are true, for the sake of the argument is not incompatible with their actual falsity. We assume that the premises of an argument are true in order to determine whether the conclusion of the argument follows from them. But whether or not the conclusion does follow from the premises is independent of whether they are true or whether they are false (or, as you want to say, "fallacies.")
If a false premise is used in an argument, the argument may be valid, but it cannot be sound.
A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premise(s). Even an argument all of whose premises are false, and whose conclusion is false, may be a valid argument. For instance:
All mammals can fly
All fish are mammals.
_________________
So all fish can fly.
All the premises are false. The conclusion is also false. But the argument is a valid argument since if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true also.
But the argument is not a sound argument. A sound argument is an argument which is (a) valid, and (b) all of whose premises are true. So an argument with false premises can be valid, but cannot be sound.
A sound argument, however, must have a true conclusion, since it an argument is valid, and all of its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
Fallacy correction (by logic and math or whatever tools you use), has no power or influence on the soundness or veracity of premises or axioms.
Our cognition/mind/intuitive understanding decide what are the acceptable, agreeable premises.
When our dualistic view point discovered the the fallacy of dualism or fallacy within the premises itself, and have seen the gimps of underlying unity, it got scared because that's the best we have got and we are sure its not the ultimate reality.
Instead confronting the truth, it revolted and still trying to make sens of the reality in dualistic term. In doing so, it created the monstrosity of science with few apparently (because we did not create anything, we just used and harnessed what was existing there to begin with), impressive (because for general people are not privileged enough to know how ( often how stupidly the project started and how simple it was, although the apparent complexity seems to arisen because there are many many simple steps) scientific achievements are done. they only see only the finalized product, and hence are impressed) achievements.
Non-dualisting other systems are not looking the unity by dualistic cognition, and they are fine and are not rebel. I don't know if they are consciously aware of the system either. But the the drive to seek unity is still in there.
Science is a reaction/defense of fear.
Fear of the weakness of human language/cognition. Primordial drive to seek leading to the act of observing /sensing the underlying unity by newly evolved dualistic mind created a violent rejection because the duality of the mind itself is in danger. That's the Birth of modern science. And Its based on at least mundane casuistry, if not, sophisticated sophistry.
More From Web:
By "fallacy as a premise" do you just mean a false premise?
Technically, only arguments can be fallacious. Statements (and premises are statements) are either true or false, but cannot be fallacies.
A premise is a statement. And no statements are fallacies. So, no premises are fallacies.
The premises you cite as "fallacies" are simply false statements. It is false that just because a few of something are red, then all of it are red, for instance. And all the rest of the premises you cite as "fallacies" are just, false statements.
But, it makes no practical difference, really, so far as your question is concerned. Call they "fallacies" if you like, I don't mind. But what I said about the consequences to an argument of the premises being false still is true if you call the premises "fallacies." It really doesn't matter.
The fact that premises in an argument are assumed to be true, for the purposes of the argument, does not prevent them from being actually false. In the argument,
All fish are mammals.
All snakes are fish.
_________________
All snakes are mammals
It is, of course, true that if we were to assume that the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true. And that makes the argument valid. But, of course, the premises are not true, they are false. So assuming they are true, for the sake of the argument is not incompatible with their actual falsity. We assume that the premises of an argument are true in order to determine whether the conclusion of the argument follows from them. But whether or not the conclusion does follow from the premises is independent of whether they are true or whether they are false (or, as you want to say, "fallacies.")
If a false premise is used in an argument, the argument may be valid, but it cannot be sound.
A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premise(s). Even an argument all of whose premises are false, and whose conclusion is false, may be a valid argument. For instance:
All mammals can fly
All fish are mammals.
_________________
So all fish can fly.
All the premises are false. The conclusion is also false. But the argument is a valid argument since if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true also.
But the argument is not a sound argument. A sound argument is an argument which is (a) valid, and (b) all of whose premises are true. So an argument with false premises can be valid, but cannot be sound.
A sound argument, however, must have a true conclusion, since it an argument is valid, and all of its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true.