4 ms·

I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using relativ

by mjolk 10y ago

I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using relativistic terms. In any case, based on your mention of learning new fallacy names, you'll probably like this site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

grzm 10y ago
I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)
- mjolk 10y ago
  Oh, sorry, didn't even think of that. Thank you for vouching for it.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies? How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??
  - grzm 10y ago
    I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man", while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man. It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion. I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better explanation, however. For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these lines: citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren't genuinely addressing a given argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076 For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      The context in that first link is: https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net... This adds a little more nuance: 1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY... 2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detector can safely ignore everything else. " I wouldn't say this at all demonstrates the weakness in identifying fallacies. Falsely identifying fallacies is not identifying fallacies (the fallacy fallacy?); and nothing says that one fallacy invalidates an entire text; also, I find there argument there weak, e.g "these people seem to have no other opinions on the text" - so what?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors subjective, emotive opinion.
        grzm 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the thread. Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770 If so, please respond there.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        No, I'm referring to the content of the link above, https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...
        adrienne 10y ago

by mjolk 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

mjolk 10y ago
Oh, sorry, didn't even think of that. Thank you for vouching for it.
Chris2048 10y ago
> encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies? How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??
- grzm 10y ago
  I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man", while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man. It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion. I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better explanation, however. For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these lines: citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren't genuinely addressing a given argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076 For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    The context in that first link is: https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net... This adds a little more nuance: 1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY... 2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detector can safely ignore everything else. " I wouldn't say this at all demonstrates the weakness in identifying fallacies. Falsely identifying fallacies is not identifying fallacies (the fallacy fallacy?); and nothing says that one fallacy invalidates an entire text; also, I find there argument there weak, e.g "these people seem to have no other opinions on the text" - so what?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors subjective, emotive opinion.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the thread. Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770 If so, please respond there.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        No, I'm referring to the content of the link above, https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...
      - adrienne 10y ago