Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

plover.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#11

Post by mindcrime »

Humans typically communicate in a way that resists shallow logical analysis. In a real conversation, people use words rather than terms, make utterances rather than sentences, and employ a wider variety of inference methods than modus ponens. A great deal of what is communicated and inferred in a conversation depends on context; the speakers and audience, their history, their shared knowledge and confidences, the feelers they lay out to establish mutual trust and rapport. Poking into this with your ad hominem stick betrays an ignorance of the way people actually communicate, and ignorance in general.

Well said. And it's a lack of awareness of this point that often frustrates me about discussions here on HN. I understand that most of us try to be mostly rational, most of the time, and that we want a high level of discourse here. But too often, you see people acting like every discussion is high-school debate-club practice, and they start slinging "ad hominem" and "fallacy of the excluded middle" around like a high-school kid with a brand new super-soaker, eager to spray anyone in range.

But not everything that is said here needs to be treated like it was uttered as part of a debate. Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#12

Post by snowwrestler »

Deductive logical systems cannot reliably find truth. That is the lesson of the scientific revolution and the revolution in mathematics that is most closely associated with Godel.

Yet when people invoke "logical fallacies" they are almost always fallacies in deductive logic. Hey Internet--how about catching up to the 19th century and employing some inductive reasoning in your arguments?

The problem with that, though, is that the starting point is facts. The arguer actually needs to possess domain knowledge/experience. It's so much more convenient to mock an inferred deductive structure...no real facts required!

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#13

Post by gottasayit »

I really like this author's writing style. The prose flows and is fairly tight yet colorful.

That said, his angst seems to be misplaced.

When younger, he seized upon Sagan's rules as though they were The Way(tm)... and now he's disillusioned that they haven't made him invincible. Then he tries to use mostly logical argumentation to explain how the Baloney Detector Kit is flawed. That's ironic.

Looking at his other blog posts, you can see similar angst at a lack of comfort being completely absorbed in a specific ideology: http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#jump

I guess he has a brain that wants really badly to see everything in black and white - but at least he's smart enough to reason past that.

I would argue that the baloney detector kit, his skepticism, and similar logical mechanisms are all that has kept this individual from going over the ideological cliff into unshakable belief syndrome.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#14

Post by Nursie »

JasonFruit wrote: post #6

Far too often, logical fallacies are invoked in order to run away from an argument. I think this is the core point: the fallacy-lobbers are often looking to dismiss the entire conversation rather than trying to participate in it. There's no counter-argument; instead, the message is, "You're too dumb to bother with." That may sometimes be true, but it's never conducive to enlightening discussion.

I totally agree with his assessment of the misuse of the term ad-hominem too.

An ad-hom fallacy is "your argument is wrong because you're an immoral moron", not "your argument is wrong for these reasons, you immoral moron".

The latter is not very nice and probably shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not an ad-hominem because the insult is not part of the argument, just an unpleasant aside.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#16

Post by saosebastiao »

> The Baloney Detection Kit is a cache of offensive weapons, and for many discussions it's better to leave it behind and go in unarmed. Not every discussion is an argument, and arguments aren't always about winning. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially for strutting alpha male types like myself. But if we want to live in a more just and inclusive world, it's a concept that's got to sink in.

I think of the Baloney Detection Kit as a shield, rather than a sword, and it has worked nicely for me. I always approach an argument by allowing someone to persuade me. I use the BDK as a way of knowing how someone is trying to trick me.

If my goal is to persuade rather than be persuaded, I am better off targeting the Logos-Ethos-Pathos (any combination of the three, preferably all three) than I am trying to use Logos alone.

And if my goal is to attack, I should feel ashamed.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#17

Post by samatman »

Nursie wrote: post #14
JasonFruit wrote: post #6

Far too often, logical fallacies are invoked in order to run away from an argument. I think this is the core point: the fallacy-lobbers are often looking to dismiss the entire conversation rather than trying to participate in it. There's no counter-argument; instead, the message is, "You're too dumb to bother with." That may sometimes be true, but it's never conducive to enlightening discussion.

I totally agree with his assessment of the misuse of the term ad-hominem too. An ad-hom fallacy is "your argument is wrong because you're an immoral moron", not "your argument is wrong for these reasons, you immoral moron". The latter is not very nice and probably shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not an ad-hominem because the insult is not part of the argument, just an unpleasant aside.

Ad-hom is often invoked against arguments of the form "So-and-so advocated that position and look what happened". This is actually argument from consequence and is useful, Godwin be damned.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#18

Post by pestaa »

mindcrime wrote: post #11

Humans typically communicate in a way that resists shallow logical analysis. In a real conversation, people use words rather than terms, make utterances rather than sentences, and employ a wider variety of inference methods than modus ponens. A great deal of what is communicated and inferred in a conversation depends on context; the speakers and audience, their history, their shared knowledge and confidences, the fee…

I've rarely seen well articulated, highly subjective opinions teared into pieces, at least on HN. Usually the provocative, flaming comments get the predictable "you're wrong by definition" responses.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#19

Post by rayiner »

People often fail to make the distinction between a logical argument and a persuasive one. The qualifications of the speaker, for example, are irrelevant when analyzing a logical argument, but are quite relevant when analyzing a persuasive one (why should I trust this doctor's opinion?)

I've always felt that a better set of rules for internet arguments would be the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are explicitly rooted in the mechanics of persuasion.

Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

#20

Post by criley »

>Logical fallacies are only relevant in certain narrow rhetorical modes and contexts. Specifically, logical fallacies are only relevant in rational arguments.

The only quote that matters.

People who use logical fallacies generally consider themselves rational and try their hardest to maintain logical integrity with their positions.

When debating with theists, paranormalists, and others who have faith-based views that are inherently (and intentionally) irrational, you can't use rational arguments and expect anything to happen.

This is why I stopped having all of these arguments in general. You start with an evidence requirement and end at the exact same point, because for many "a voice/book told me so" is the highest form of evidence that can be offered, and such evidence is considered to "trump" all other sources, regardless of what they are.

Without a common foundation from which to communicate, nothing constructive is possible.

Post reply on HN