5 ms·

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

by 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 grzm 10y ago

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