Those are also the only things which can be unambiguously incorrect. So, the problem isn’t that there are incorrect beliefs that are not due to fallacies, it is that there are beliefs which are not knowably correct or incorrect, which is a very different issue. But even there, if we are to discuss them at all and have a discussion about our beliefs that they are correct or not, the same analytical tools allow us to effectively discuss beliefs and our beliefs as to why and whether they are justified while getting beyond rhetorical trickery. This allows us to pinpoint where disagreement lies, and to either converge on belief rationally, or identify disagreement on premises that are not subject to resolution through logic (which, if they are to be resolved, must be resolved through other means.)
> That, though, wont help them determine logically and agree on whether something like welfare or military spending is good or bad, and it’s usually those latter questions that matter in such discussions.
To the extent that there is a difference in axiomatic preferences, you can’t deal with that through logic. OTOH, you can identify it through logic, and particularly you can pierce the attempts to conceal it that are common rhetorical tools once an actor has determined that that exists and wishes to manipulate another party despite it using the tools of logic.
> Logicians can disagree all they want,
But they don’t. Literally nothing you say prior to this in your post (and nothing after it except for the the last sentence) is even slightly controversial. And while there may be people that meet the description in your last sentence, you seem to miss the point of what the understanding of logical fallacies and the application of that knowledge are about as badly as the people you are attacking.
And yet, the past 2-3 centuries (anglosaxon especially) philosophy is full of counter-examples thinking the opposite - and tons of philosophically naive people today as well.
And some of my beliefs which are pure logical fallacies when it comes to formal debate like 'Brain Force Plus is unlikely to be a useful nootropic because the man promoting it, Alex Jones, is a mountebank' are actually pretty useful heuristics.
"starting with true premises and employing sound logic will always produce a true conclusion"
is only useful where premises can be determined to be true, and the conclusion follows a logical syllogism end to end.
This is only done (or even achievable) for quantifiable / statements of fact ("a book is on the table", "the earth is round", "the GDP is 10 trillion" and the like).
For 99% of what humans care about - claims and their veracity, values, morals, politics, goals, tastes, aesthetics, interests, etc, there are no "true staatements" to begin with, and many of them doesn't involve a sound logical syllogist-sound process, but only regarding their simplest sub-parts.
E.g. two political enemies might have different opinions on what to do with the national debt, but they can agree on the actual amount of the national debt, and use pure logic to calculate it, check where it was spent, etc. That, though, wont help them determine logically and agree on whether something like welfare or military spending is good or bad, and it's usually those latter questions that matter in such discussions.
The thing is, people still name all those other things (that are not ammenable to logical process end to end) as true and false, based on their own opinions.
Logicians can disagree all they want, this ain't gonna change.
And it's those "true" and "false" statements that matter in most arguments, not their less interesting, quantifiable, easily acceptable by everybody and logically analysed brethen.
The "let's point people to logical fallacy lists, as the solution" crowd doesn't understand this.