81–90 of 134 posts
This is wrong on so many levels that it's difficult to keep track of them all. Let's start with the introduction: Why did people who deployed these [critical thinking] terms always look so rigid, so predictable, so feeble? Why did people who avoided them look so confident in comparison, so much more in command of their resources, so much more mature? Their arguments seemed to possess an inner strength; the baloney de…
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…
Logical fallacies can be misused. They can be applied incorrectly, or used to shut down discussion. I therefore sympathise with the point that the OP is trying to make. However, does it then follow that logical errors should be given a pass? Does this somehow make muddled thinking valid or persuasive? The correct course of action is to raise standards on all sides. If a logical fallacy is incorrectly used, then the c…
This is wrong on so many levels that it's difficult to keep track of them all. Let's start with the introduction: Why did people who deployed these [critical thinking] terms always look so rigid, so predictable, so feeble? Why did people who avoided them look so confident in comparison, so much more in command of their resources, so much more mature? Their arguments seemed to possess an inner strength; the baloney de…
Just two examples upon many:
>Translation: Some people never shut up after they have been proven wrong, and the author values this assertiveness over whether their arguments are logically sound. He concludes that the most assertive arguer is automatically correct. He calls for the total abandonment of logic and reason and to respect force and effect in their stead.
Very bad translation. He does not say, or even suggest, that he values the assertiveness. He ACCESSES the baloney detectors not as less assertive, but as less persuasive, and their argumentation of lower quality. He judges, in the VERY quote you mis-translate, the worth of their argument --not of their assertiveness: "their arguments seemed to possess an inner strength".
You choose to interpret that strength as they believing strongly in it, but his argument makes clear he says it's strong because it's less "feeble", more in "command of their resources", and "much more mature".
If anything, the baloney detectors are equally assertive ("rigid"), stubborn and utterly convinced for their reasoning superiority.
>Next he says that the correct identification of a logical error does not imply incorrectness of the argument. No comment is needed.
Actually comment very much needed. In real human conversation, as opposed to medieval formal argumentation, the correct identification of a logical error does not prove any incorrectness of the whole argument. It's not some axiomatic system or a formal proof, so that everything relies on a single, unified, core. Arguments in actual human conversation are multifaceted, nuanced and complicated. One --or even a bunch-- of logical errors in them do not suffice to invalidate them.
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…
Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.
At the same time, some people employ logical fallacies to push an agenda and make it effectively impossible to respond without dismantling their entire argument... by pointing out the logical fallacies. Hmmm.
Unsurprisingly, the author of this piece is a dishonest shill who wants free reign to use logical fallacies to advance his agenda.
When I clicked the link, I was certain the author would find a way to push his radical, post-modern feminism. As @realtalker has pointed out, the author almost certainly wrote this in response to the stinging criticism he received for this piece the Islamaphobia section in particular): http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia
Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. As I said, the only way to respond to inherently dishonest arguments like that is to point how the arguments are dishonest.
The author wants full immunity.
[And to be abundantly clear, by "author" I don't mean @mindcrime. I mean the author of the linked piece.]
Those are the two that drive me nuts. They're statistical arguments, not ones you can just toss out. All causal relationships are also correlated relationships - if you're asserting a correlation isn't the result of causation, it would behoove you to at least have some notion of what might be confounding it.
The same thing with sample size. "Well, their sample size is small..." gets trotted out. How do you know that? If you want to bring statistical power into an argument, come prepared to show your work.
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…
Would possibly expand by saying, in my experience, self-awareness in society as a whole, appears to be a scarce and somewhat underrated quality.
Obviously not implying anyone is perfect in that regard (I for one, am not), but I feel it's something that could be useful to work at.
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…
Logical fallacies can be misused. They can be applied incorrectly, or used to shut down discussion. I therefore sympathise with the point that the OP is trying to make. However, does it then follow that logical errors should be given a pass? Does this somehow make muddled thinking valid or persuasive? The correct course of action is to raise standards on all sides. If a logical fallacy is incorrectly used, then the c…
A sentence "all skeptics are assholes" does not mean that the speaker literally asserts that the conditional statement "you are a skeptic → you are an asshole" is true. Someone saying "you are an idiot" to me does not mean that they literally assert that I have been medically diagnosed with IQ less than 30. In both cases, it is more likely that the true meaning of the sentence is an subjective expression of frustration at some behaviour they experienced.
There is no useful place for pointing out logical fallacies by name in a real discussion among people. Instead of rejecting "arguments", a good discussion requires asking questions to understand each others' viewpoints, empathising with each others' concerns, trying to convince the other party of your viewpoints in a persuasive way, and being open to changing your own viewpoint. Pointing out a logical fallacy by name will not persuade the other party, any other readers/listeners, nor help you learn anything about their actual views.
If somebody says "you are an idiot", the interesting topics of discussion are: what did I do, and whether what I did was wrong. Debating the logical truth of the literal sentence is completely pointless, because the literal interpretation of the sentence is wrong.
> 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,…
Why not afford to the men and women who respond to her that same privilege?
I don't care if it falls under a logical fallacy or not. If you insult me, the conversation is over.
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 agree completely with what you're saying, but I think you're being far too generous in your interpretation of the author's point. Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance. At the same time, some people employ…