4 ms·

>That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. This is trivially true by the [material implication, modus ponens, modus tollens, othe

>That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. This is trivially true by the [material implication, modus ponens, modus tollens, other name, etc] truth table. However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic. While the conclusion may be "correct", it is correct despite all of the other text you read (so, go find a logical argument [instead of relying on known bad information]). The text you read can tell you nothing about whether the conclusion is true. Fallacious reasoning needs to be identified, targeted, and destroyed. Edit: I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up).

KirinDave 11y ago
Indeed. So if someone doesn't actually make a claim, but then another party begins to rebut said claim as if it were part of a formal argument, that's called a Straw Man Argument or "Burning a straw man" colloquially. That's what you're doing. We should identify it, target it, and destroy it. Actually I don't really think that it should be destroyed. It's human nature. We find any post-facto justifications for our gut reactions all the time. If we can't find one, we tend to distort what we saw to create one. It's part of human cognition.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  It should be logically destroyed; the full path of destruction should be visible to all though. You have claimed a Straw Man, but in my 20 second analysis, I do not believe you have identified it. (as in, quote the actual text containing the Straw Man)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Downmods. No quotes. No specifics. As usual.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I can do this until I'm rate limited.
      - KirinDave 11y ago
        I am terribly sorry I missed your request. I've been busy tending to my daughter and hastily dashing out some code I need for a teaching opportunity next week. I can see it caused you enough distress to post twice. Let me be straightforward with you, since you seem to be the sort that will not appreciate the standard cultural niceties. So perhaps maybe you just did a poor job to express your specific point as you tripped over yourself to demonstrate to everyone you have read a bit of philosophy and logic. But it certainly would be reasonable that you entered a conversation without invitation responding to > That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. With: > However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic. Implying that if you could construe any single statement in my post as lacking in robustness from a logical perspective, then you should simply ignore the entire thing. This is regardless of the author's intent that this actually be a real point, or perhaps just a literary device or joke. One might actually read the whole post first, notice there is some technical substance, and come to a different conclusion before posting. This impression is further reinforced by your frustration over rate limiting as you implied that my response, specifically saying that I didn't actually present my tautology as anything but a cute literary device to open what I considered to be a rather dry if somewhat acidic post. You said, > I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up). Which from my perspective certainly looks like you were ready to fire off a post explaining to me with as many latin words as possible aimed at trying to prove exactly that. Perhaps, in the future, you may want to consider efficacy first and strict correctness secondly when discussing things in a casual forum with the (entirely barbaric, I agree) feature of "downvoting." Or perhaps just not entering conversations you don't have anything substantial to add to. You might feel some irritation at this, because it can seem like an anti-intellectual stance. Sadly, you're existing in a community that has to deal with many people perpetually misusing terms like "ad hominem" and "genetic fallacy" and "truth table" in the worst way, to the point where it's a cognitive shortcut to simply pass it by or perhaps even express this cultural signal via downvotes. I don't like it very much either, but cultural norms are not something we rationally argue with but instead can only hope to influence gradually.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487585 and marked it off-topic.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Care to elucidate the topic and how this subthread was not on it? Edit: I know it's a lot to ask for. Heh. Downmods.
  - dang 11y ago
    For HN purposes, an egotistical spat is not on any topic. If you want to keep commenting here, you need to err on the side of following the HN guidelines rather than breaking them. Your account has a long pattern of breaking them, and of straddling them when not breaking them outright. That's not the discourse we want here.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      If you can show me the ego, I will concede to being off-topic. I reject any notion that I have ever intentionally broken a guideline. I also reject any notion that I have a pattern of repeatedly breaking any actual guideline. My claims are easy to falsify.

KirinDave 11y ago

Indeed. So if someone doesn't actually make a claim, but then another party begins to rebut said claim as if it were part of a formal argument, that's called a Straw Man Argument or "Burning a straw man" colloquially. That's what you're doing. We should identify it, target it, and destroy it. Actually I don't really think that it should be destroyed. It's human nature. We find any post-facto justifications for our gut reactions all the time. If we can't find one, we tend to distort what we saw to create one. It's part of human cognition.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
It should be logically destroyed; the full path of destruction should be visible to all though. You have claimed a Straw Man, but in my 20 second analysis, I do not believe you have identified it. (as in, quote the actual text containing the Straw Man)
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Downmods. No quotes. No specifics. As usual.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I can do this until I'm rate limited.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      I am terribly sorry I missed your request. I've been busy tending to my daughter and hastily dashing out some code I need for a teaching opportunity next week. I can see it caused you enough distress to post twice. Let me be straightforward with you, since you seem to be the sort that will not appreciate the standard cultural niceties. So perhaps maybe you just did a poor job to express your specific point as you tripped over yourself to demonstrate to everyone you have read a bit of philosophy and logic. But it certainly would be reasonable that you entered a conversation without invitation responding to > That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. With: > However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic. Implying that if you could construe any single statement in my post as lacking in robustness from a logical perspective, then you should simply ignore the entire thing. This is regardless of the author's intent that this actually be a real point, or perhaps just a literary device or joke. One might actually read the whole post first, notice there is some technical substance, and come to a different conclusion before posting. This impression is further reinforced by your frustration over rate limiting as you implied that my response, specifically saying that I didn't actually present my tautology as anything but a cute literary device to open what I considered to be a rather dry if somewhat acidic post. You said, > I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up). Which from my perspective certainly looks like you were ready to fire off a post explaining to me with as many latin words as possible aimed at trying to prove exactly that. Perhaps, in the future, you may want to consider efficacy first and strict correctness secondly when discussing things in a casual forum with the (entirely barbaric, I agree) feature of "downvoting." Or perhaps just not entering conversations you don't have anything substantial to add to. You might feel some irritation at this, because it can seem like an anti-intellectual stance. Sadly, you're existing in a community that has to deal with many people perpetually misusing terms like "ad hominem" and "genetic fallacy" and "truth table" in the worst way, to the point where it's a cognitive shortcut to simply pass it by or perhaps even express this cultural signal via downvotes. I don't like it very much either, but cultural norms are not something we rationally argue with but instead can only hope to influence gradually.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487585 and marked it off-topic.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Care to elucidate the topic and how this subthread was not on it? Edit: I know it's a lot to ask for. Heh. Downmods.
- dang 11y ago
  For HN purposes, an egotistical spat is not on any topic. If you want to keep commenting here, you need to err on the side of following the HN guidelines rather than breaking them. Your account has a long pattern of breaking them, and of straddling them when not breaking them outright. That's not the discourse we want here.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    If you can show me the ego, I will concede to being off-topic. I reject any notion that I have ever intentionally broken a guideline. I also reject any notion that I have a pattern of repeatedly breaking any actual guideline. My claims are easy to falsify.