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

Guide to cognitive biases

en.shortcogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#81

Post by entropicdrifter »

lhorie wrote: post #51
bradrn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you really want to go this route, you can beat them at their own game and accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy. (A nice illustration: https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/comic/logical-fallacies-ar... ) That being said, I do think it’s important to avoid fallacious reasoning — it helps in making arguments clearer. As mentioned above, just because someone uses a fallacy doesn’t mean their conclusion is wrong, but…

> accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy But then, you're just doing an ad hominem...

That's not an ad hominem. You're attacking their argument, not them as a person.

An ad hominem would be like saying, "Oh yeah, well you're an alcoholic", for instance, as though that could discredit their argument even if it were true.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#82

Post by necheffa »

mopierotti wrote: post #77
necheffa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't exactly call the urban dictionary a reliable source. Doing a DuckDuckGo for "apex fallacy" turns up a bunch of incel and mgtow sites. Is this even a _real_ fallacy?

This is my first time seeing this one mentioned, but I'm curious, what makes something a "real" fallacy? It seems like it's a real mistake that people make. I guess one could categorize it as a more specific case of misunderstanding a distribution of values. (In the same vein as mean vs median, outlier skewing, assuming unimodal vs bimodal distribution, etc.)

The "realness" is determined by the signal to noise ratio. In this case I find mostly joke sites, memes, and sites trying to sell a political/social agenda using it.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#83

Post by eivarv »

teachrdan wrote: post #75
eivarv wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it actually matter? An argument doesn't get any more or less fallacious based on who believes in it (the authority, in this case) – that's not an argument in itself. It might be reasonable (a useful heuristic) to lean to the side of the expert, but the fact that an expert believes something doesn't in itself make the conclusion correct.

To the contrary, if someone is a correct authority, their statements have more weight on their domain of expertise. While all of us on HN are very clever and could think of a number of exceptions, I would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person.

I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing.

I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#84

Post by TeeMassive »

Uehreka wrote: post #18

When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority. I feel like these kinds of sites are often just used to shut someone down by saying that they’re doing something wrong, without actually going through the work of following through with why the “fallacy” makes their argument weak. Also, in…

> When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority

It's called the fallacy fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy)

But yeah, pointing to websites like these, especially with no other explanation is annoying and pointless (although I have been a bit guilty of that too). Projection through accusation.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#85

Post by entropicdrifter »

nostromo wrote: post #65
teachrdan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit funny because Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. The actual fallacy is Appeal to Incorrect / False Authority: "An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed." https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app... .

> The actual fallacy ... according to linguistics researcher with a website. He sounds like as much a false authority on philosophy as anyone else.

From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#86

Post by entropicdrifter »

eivarv wrote: post #83
teachrdan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the contrary, if someone is a correct authority, their statements have more weight on their domain of expertise. While all of us on HN are very clever and could think of a number of exceptions, I would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person.

I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).

That would be a fallacious argument because it does not follow (non-sequitur) that the beliefs of scientists can cause shifts in reality, but nobody was arguing that.

They were arguing that it is logical to conclude that climate change is real because the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (the actual domain experts) is that it is real.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#87

Post by tomcatfish »

nostromo wrote: post #65
teachrdan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit funny because Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. The actual fallacy is Appeal to Incorrect / False Authority: "An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed." https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app... .

> The actual fallacy ... according to linguistics researcher with a website. He sounds like as much a false authority on philosophy as anyone else.

The point the parent was making is that citing authority isn't a bad thing to do. Citing authorities in _a different field_ often is, though.

(Citing a doctor on the common cold is not a fallacy, but citing a doctor on global economics is)

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#88

Post by eivarv »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #86
eivarv wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).

That would be a fallacious argument because it does not follow (non-sequitur) that the beliefs of scientists can cause shifts in reality, but nobody was arguing that. They were arguing that it is logical to conclude that climate change is real because the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (the actual domain experts) is that it is real.

That's not an argument that deals with whether climate change is real or not – but whether it's reasonable to believe it is, based on one's own lack of understanding in combination with making (reasonable) assumptions.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#89

Post by ElFitz »

Uehreka wrote: post #18

When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority. I feel like these kinds of sites are often just used to shut someone down by saying that they’re doing something wrong, without actually going through the work of following through with why the “fallacy” makes their argument weak. Also, in…

Also, a cognitive bias isn’t necessarily a fallacy.

It’s only a prism that deforms our perspective of the world.

Fallacies are a different beast altogether.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#90

Post by ElFitz »

netr0ute wrote: post #43
bradrn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you really want to go this route, you can beat them at their own game and accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy. (A nice illustration: https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/comic/logical-fallacies-ar... ) That being said, I do think it’s important to avoid fallacious reasoning — it helps in making arguments clearer. As mentioned above, just because someone uses a fallacy doesn’t mean their conclusion is wrong, but…

The Fallacy Fallacy doesn't actually do anything because it is covered by itself and creates a loop.

And that’s how you get a stack overflow.

Always remember your exit condition when doing recursion, folks!

Post reply on HN