3 ms·

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 lit

by 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
    'Respond like this, and you couldn't be more offensive if you said "You're too emotional, my dear: let me correct you with the firm hand of reason." In throwing around accusations of logical fallacy in such a sensitive context, you're being an asshole. And furthermore, you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group.' You have just entirely illustrated the truth of this paragraph.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      What sensitive context is there to my comments? This is a conversation about another conversation - the context of the first conversation isn't the same. I disagree with the author, so I don't believe there is any truth to it, illustrated or not. But in any case, the reason I describe it as 'emotive', is the name-calling ("asshole") and and things like "you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group"; why is this an issue if on the basis of merit - Because it's an offended woman, as opposed to an offended man? the context here is: > By way of illustration, suppose you are a guy who identifies as a skeptic. 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 So, talking to a male skeptic that has presumably perpetrated no act of sexism, but is being accused of it in this context, and is as such defending the movement. Is this interpretation wrong? Let me alter the proposition a little: > suppose you are a Muslim. And then suppose you encounter someone who tells you that because of the sexism they have encountered from other Muslims, they have decided that Islam is fundamentally sexist. Would it still be as offensive to say: "These people are not assholes because they are skeptics, they're assholes who happen to be skeptics" And in the case, it's more likely that religious beliefs could lead to sexist ones, compared to skepticism.

by grzm 10y ago

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
  'Respond like this, and you couldn't be more offensive if you said "You're too emotional, my dear: let me correct you with the firm hand of reason." In throwing around accusations of logical fallacy in such a sensitive context, you're being an asshole. And furthermore, you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group.' You have just entirely illustrated the truth of this paragraph.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    What sensitive context is there to my comments? This is a conversation about another conversation - the context of the first conversation isn't the same. I disagree with the author, so I don't believe there is any truth to it, illustrated or not. But in any case, the reason I describe it as 'emotive', is the name-calling ("asshole") and and things like "you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group"; why is this an issue if on the basis of merit - Because it's an offended woman, as opposed to an offended man? the context here is: > By way of illustration, suppose you are a guy who identifies as a skeptic. 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 So, talking to a male skeptic that has presumably perpetrated no act of sexism, but is being accused of it in this context, and is as such defending the movement. Is this interpretation wrong? Let me alter the proposition a little: > suppose you are a Muslim. And then suppose you encounter someone who tells you that because of the sexism they have encountered from other Muslims, they have decided that Islam is fundamentally sexist. Would it still be as offensive to say: "These people are not assholes because they are skeptics, they're assholes who happen to be skeptics" And in the case, it's more likely that religious beliefs could lead to sexist ones, compared to skepticism.