Get That Gish Out of Here by Maclain Hunter

Authored by Maclain Hunter · first-party-authored · authored-foundational-record

Stored 4P source diagnostic: clear · finding no_violation_detected · admission admitted_provisionally. This intake result is separate from the theorem checks of the exact propositional sequent.

Get That Gish Out of Here by Maclain Hunter: Premises: P: The so called “gish gallop fallacy” is an example of an arbitrary fallacy. Assume it is not. This leads to logical contradiction where valid sets of arguments can be rejected as fallacious merely based on the number of arguments in the set, which is irrelevant to the validity of each argument or the set. It conflates a large number of even valid arguments with a weak argument, which violates principles of Logic including the Law of Non-Contradiction. Q: Assume ~P. This leads to logical contradiction as there is no rational “line” that exists—inherent in Logic and logical rules—past which “too many valid arguments” are made. Such a cut off point is arbitrary, if set at a fixed or even limited number. Only if a non-zero set of logical arguments somehow exceeded an infinite number of valid logical arguments would that number of valid logical arguments defy Logic and be grounds for suspecting some kind of invalidity in the set. R: The so called gish gallop fallacy wouldn’t even make sense to invoke in the case where the arguments are all invalid, as even then the number of arguments is not the important. The fact that some or all of the arguments in the set are invalid by core logical rules would be the truly invalid part, and the fallacy doesn’t actually aid in identifying or resolving that situation. S: The “gish gallop fallacy” lacks irrefutable logical rule based formal proof. It can ironically be argued that in the context of fallacies the gish gallop fallacy is itself gish galloping, by adding it to the common list of fallacies, which is itself poorly substantiated (ie - the fallacy of circular reasoning that often is interpreted to ignore that tautological circularity exists and is foundational to Logic itself) and lacking formal proof to support many of the fallacies that are commonly (arbitrarily) accepted. The fact that the gish gallop fallacy CAN be coherently argued to violate its own standard, by being one of a very large set of fallacies (that are often used by atheists or deniers of Reason/God to deny the Logos) demonstrates that it is not irrefutable by its own standard like Logic is, and cannot be considered a logical necessity and principle, or a real example of true fallacy. Logical Argument: {P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S, S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S) Conclusion: {P, Q, R, S}: The proof here gives sound reasoning that refutes the so called “gish gallop fallacy” as an arbitrary and meaningless/unhelpful “fallacy” that cannot be considered a true and formally proven logical fallacy. There is no such thing, logically, as making too many logical arguments so long as the number is a feasible and rational number (ie - not “more than infinity”). If your opponent in a debate is making too many logical arguments for you to reply to, you’re simply losing the debate, and inventing a fallacy to make your opponent wrong for making too many arguments is itself the more fallacious/illogical route. Logically the remedy is to simply make more logical arguments, and to keep up with your opponent. If you cannot you have simply and logically been outclassed, not cheated. The “gish gallop fallacy” is not the only false formal fallacy, as the “fallacy of circular reasoning” is another example of a poorly proven “fallacy” that argues with and does not comport with the tautological and circular (self-evident) nature of Logic itself. The false fallacy argues with true logical principles that are true by their own accord like Identity and Non-Contradiction. This reasoning shows that adding the gish gallop fallacy to a list of fallacies—especially one that includes other false or potentially false fallacies, like those based on misconceptions that tautology isn’t valid (a claim that is directly opposed to the tautological nature of Logic itself), can be considered a commission of the fallacy itself, making it even more self-defeating than it already is as an arbitrary rule. Note my certainty and the strength of my language. I do not say that the fallacy of circular reasoning or “gish gallop fallacy” are merely “potentially” flawed. They are clearly and logically flawed for the reasons I said - according to Logic and self-supporting logical rules themselves. Truth Table Analysis: valid ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ PQRS⎪P P↔Q Q↔R R↔S╞(P&Q)&(R&S) ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― TTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT T TTT TTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF TTT F TFF TTFT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT F FFT TTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF TTT F FFF TFTT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF F TTT TFTF⎪T TFF FFT TFF TFF F TFF TFFT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF F FFT TFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF TFF F FFF FTTT⎪F FFT TTT TTT FFT F TTT FTTF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT F TFF FTFT⎪F FFT TFF FFT FFT F FFT FTFF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT F FFF FFTT⎪F FTF FFT TTT FFF F TTT FFTF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFF F TFF FFFT⎪F FTF FTF FFT FFF F FFT FFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFF F FFF Q.E.D.

Lean 4 verification and timestamps

The machine formalization date is separate from the original authored work. See the verification record for exact checked scope and any unresolved parts.

Logic-centered continuity

This authored proof is connected to Logic, Logos, God, and the self-evident Ground of Reality, and to the distinct systems 4P Engine, MCB Core, 4P-MCB, and the source-first Canon. Formal proof, empirical evidence, and system-generated records remain separately typed.