No true citation would be incorrect.
I'm sure there's a Scotsman somewhere that would like to speak to you.
Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
41–50 of 134 posts
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument." Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no ra…
> Why not? Because, while it's a perfectly valid argument to make, technically winning an argument is different to actually winning an argument. If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and the…
> If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well.
That's important, if your concern is convincing general-audience third parties.
In a forum like Hacker News (and, in fact, most internet fora I participate in), I'm usually more interested in connecting to a fairly educated audience and, more than convincing third parties that I am right, eliciting the best possible arguments for a position I don't already agree with, as, even if it doesn't change my mind to the opposing position, that's the best way to grow my understanding of the subject area.
As a result, I'm a lot less concerned about what might win accolades of "most people", and a lot more concerned with what will get someone who is interested in and capable of putting forth a strong argument to do so.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#43For me, fallacies are a great tool for recognizing bad reasoning, which then provides pointers about how to expose it as such using a real argument. The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. In a good debate, the fallacies themselves never come up but you can see how they have influenced the flow of argument. I really liked how it was put in the book Logical Self-Defense: To be valid, an argument has…
"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument." Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no ra…
Because failure to present a proof does not constitute contradiction. This is the so called fallacy fallacy, as I learned earlier today, on reddit of all places.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#44First, I just knew this was going to be about sexism. It's not because your feelings are hurt, that you receive intellectual immunity. If you are making a generalisation about an entire community, consisting of thousands to millions of people, you're going to need to justify that! You're free to say you've encountered some sexist people and I sympathise with that, sexism is terrible. But do not accuse me of being sexist.
Secondly, although I believe logic is the only way to have a real argument, we're all human beings and thus my judgement will be influenced by the colour of your argument. If you have a perfectly logical argument, yet call me a slur, unconsciously you're going to have a way harder time convincing me.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#45> And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist . (Emphasis mine.) And later: > This woman has confided her experiences and concerns; in these responses, you are insultingly and condescendingly attempting to diminish them, by portraying her experiences as irrelevant…
You've fallen into the trap the article talks about, in expecting the woman in the story to be talking logically and therefore held to a high standard of discourse. People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different. Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are,…
Sorry, I don't think I'm going to be afforded the same courtesy if I start ranting about how all Valley girls are sluts because of my few experiences, for instance, even if it happens to be my genuine expression of emotion. Hoping that everyone's interpretation of certain emotions converges on something similar (and civil) is just asking for a clusterfuck.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#46I don't care if it falls under a logical fallacy or not. If you insult me, the conversation is over.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#47For me, fallacies are a great tool for recognizing bad reasoning, which then provides pointers about how to expose it as such using a real argument. The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. In a good debate, the fallacies themselves never come up but you can see how they have influenced the flow of argument. I really liked how it was put in the book Logical Self-Defense: To be valid, an argument has…
> The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument.
It isn't a reason to believe that the position argued for is false, but it is a reason for rejecting the offered argument as a basis for believing that the positioned argued for is true.
I've heard "counter-argument" used both to mean "argument for rejecting the offered argument" (which this satisfies) and "argument for the negation of the position the offered argument supports" (which this does not satisfy.)
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument." Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no ra…
> Why not? Because, while it's a perfectly valid argument to make, technically winning an argument is different to actually winning an argument. If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and the…
I guess we would really have to drill down to what you consider "winning an argument". I am not sure you and I would agree on what that means.
Is winning an argument convincing the person you are arguing with that you are right?
Is winning an argument convincing a 3rd party that you are right?
Is winning an argument whoever makes the greater number of valid points (debate style)?
... what does it really mean to win an argument to you?
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#49I'm surprised that neither the article nor the comments here mention the "principle of charity". I read about this early in my study of logic and philosophy. It basically says that, if your objective is to discover truth rather than to win a debate, you ought to grant the best possible interpretation of the speaker's statement instead of focusing on narrow and literal interpretations which contain obvious logical fal…
Of course, charity only goes so far, if the ROOT of their argument is a logical fallacy, no amount of charitable thinking will repair the hole.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#50> And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist . (Emphasis mine.) And later: > This woman has confided her experiences and concerns; in these responses, you are insultingly and condescendingly attempting to diminish them, by portraying her experiences as irrelevant…
You've fallen into the trap the article talks about, in expecting the woman in the story to be talking logically and therefore held to a high standard of discourse. People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different. Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are,…
> People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different.
Yeah, but that's useless for communication of information (its useful for -- socially important -- request for and reception of sympathy, etc., especially from people with a shared emotional context.)
OTOH, when presented in a context where the intent is to get people who don't share the emotional context, especially in a context which asks for people to accept your position on a fact claim, change behavior, or support some kind of policy proposition, it is not useful, and it is appropriate to point out its deficiencies for that context and call on the speaker to recast it in a manner appropriate to the context.