3 ms·

I'll admit to being a little confused by your response. I understand you to be arguing that (a) identifying fallacies is good; and (b) pointing out the fallac

by grzm 10y ago

I'll admit to being a little confused by your response. I understand you to be arguing that (a) identifying fallacies is good; and (b) pointing out the fallacy and nothing more is fine. As for (a), we're in agreement, and I believe I was clear in saying so above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13320712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13320712): I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. As for (b), if pointing out the fallacy is limited only to identifying the fallacy by name, I disagree, and also expressed this in the same comment. In short (and I repeat myself), I think it lends itself to point scoring rather than cooperative, constructive discussion. If it includes explaining how the argument is an instance of the fallacy, I think that's better. I appreciate your taking the time to provide the reference to "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks". However, while it's related, I'm don't believe I'm making the arguments you cite (though the second is similar in spirit) and argue against. I'm fine with our possible disagreement on (b). I can understand why some people may think that identifying and naming the logical fallacy is sufficient. I just don't agree, as I want more out of the discussion. If I've misrepresented or misinterpreted what you've written or intended, please forgive me as this is not my intent, and I would appreciate you pointing it out. Otherwise, I thank you for the discussion and take my leave.

Chris2048 10y ago
I think some fallacies are to vague too identify without more detail. Some are easily mis-identified, or mis-applied, esp those such as "Appeal to Authority". However, I think most are not so. I don't think anyone can ask for more engagement. Being made aware of a fallacy is like being made aware of a spelling mistake - it is just a note of something to be fixed, no further engagement is needed from whoever identifies it. There is also another issue: there is a lot to read on the web, all competing for attention. I think there is a greater burden on a writer to produce fallacy-free text than there is on the many potential readers to read any one text despite its flaws. A fallacy is a common falsehood, so common it can be easily identified without further discussion of the topic. The nature of fallacies, to me, seem to be quick, efficient identification of logical flaws i.e. the low hanging fruit. As such, maybe a text with such flaws shouldn't be engaged, if such basic flaws exist? People pointing out these flaws both help you fix them, and hinder by warning off readers until they are fixed.

by grzm 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

I think some fallacies are to vague too identify without more detail. Some are easily mis-identified, or mis-applied, esp those such as "Appeal to Authority". However, I think most are not so. I don't think anyone can ask for more engagement. Being made aware of a fallacy is like being made aware of a spelling mistake - it is just a note of something to be fixed, no further engagement is needed from whoever identifies it. There is also another issue: there is a lot to read on the web, all competing for attention. I think there is a greater burden on a writer to produce fallacy-free text than there is on the many potential readers to read any one text despite its flaws. A fallacy is a common falsehood, so common it can be easily identified without further discussion of the topic. The nature of fallacies, to me, seem to be quick, efficient identification of logical flaws i.e. the low hanging fruit. As such, maybe a text with such flaws shouldn't be engaged, if such basic flaws exist? People pointing out these flaws both help you fix them, and hinder by warning off readers until they are fixed.