4 ms·

Your Logical Fallacy Is

23 points by simon_acca 9y ago

awptimus 9y ago
I have an acquaintance whose main method of argument is shouting out names of logical fallacies without pointing out to the person he's arguing with where and how it applies. This list is helpful as a guide to spot errors in reasoning. It is not helpful as a tool to facilitate discussion. If you use this reference, do us all a favor and discuss how the fallacy applies in the current discussion, and treat the person with some respect at least.
- davidivadavid 9y ago
  So he should read the section on the "fallacy fallacy."
nicky0 9y ago
When you have to resort to pointing out the name of your opponent's logical fallacy, you have already lost the debate.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  This site started off in the right direction with the reasonable position that awareness of common fallacies can help in spotting when they are being used and in responding to them. Unfortunately, it goes on to say "If you see someone committing a fallacy, link them to it e.g. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman", which is not a useful response, as it fails to state what, specifically, is allegedly fallacious about the disputed argument.
- NTripleOne 9y ago
  If only more people understood this. Pointing out a fallacy might as well be a fallacy itself.
  - striking 9y ago
    It's a fallacy to assume that just because a claim was argued in a fallacious manner, that it's also incorrect. (Which is close to what you said.) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy Pointing out a fallacy by name is usually silly, but knowing how people twist debates and being able to defend against that is not.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    You might enjoy this, http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 but more to the point, conversation is more constructive when folks engage in the practice of principle of charity [1] where you will interpret the other's argument in the strongest possible light. This helps create more light, less smoke and avoid the gotcha-ism associated with fallacy fallacy. [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  To expand on this, if someone says "you just used a slippery slope [1] argument and therefore your claim is false," don't respond by citing the fallacy fallacy [2]. Instead, make an analogy (preferably one unrelated to the topic at hand and a second one more germane) to illustrate the unfounded leap. Partly because fallacies go by many names and are not well understood. Partly since many cultures associate "your argument is illogical" with "you are stupid". [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  I think pointing out some fallacies aren't that bad. For example, pointing out a "strawman" is a good way to signal to the other party that they're attacking stances that aren't even yours.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  If a position is so poorly conceived that the simplest thing to do is to point out that it is logically invalid, then, no, you've done your job. Yes, logical fallacies can be misused and abused. But the power is in the name: committing one of these tactics, legitimately, is logically false and invalid. It invalidates an argument. Pointing out that your opponnent is lying dying and bleeding out on the ground doesn't lose you a fight.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Various groundings in truth, logic, deduction, inference, scientific method, and mathematical proof, are useful. I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism And between valid and sound arguments. The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth Protip: apply coherence, consistency, or pragmatic principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though. The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others. I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...
- mercer 9y ago
  Is there some newsletter or blog I could follow with more thoughts of yours like these? I find myself spending more and more time on this topic and a comment like this is a wonderful jumping-off point for me on my 'down whatever rabbit-hole' study days :-). EDIT: just realized we have profile pages and you have links on yours. Silly me.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Principally https://dredmorbius.reddit.com https://dredmorbius.reddit.com I cooked up a lot of these ideas posting to G+ as well, see especially my Epistemology collection: https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg My definition of "Tech and Media" is expansive, but there's some coverage there: https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY
Xoros 9y ago
I guess they didn't like Schopenhauer's eristic dialectic. "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Another underappreciated classic. Thanks for posting.

23 points by simon_acca 9y ago

I have an acquaintance whose main method of argument is shouting out names of logical fallacies without pointing out to the person he's arguing with where and how it applies. This list is helpful as a guide to spot errors in reasoning. It is not helpful as a tool to facilitate discussion. If you use this reference, do us all a favor and discuss how the fallacy applies in the current discussion, and treat the person with some respect at least.

davidivadavid 9y ago
So he should read the section on the "fallacy fallacy."

nicky0 9y ago

When you have to resort to pointing out the name of your opponent's logical fallacy, you have already lost the debate.

mannykannot 9y ago
This site started off in the right direction with the reasonable position that awareness of common fallacies can help in spotting when they are being used and in responding to them. Unfortunately, it goes on to say "If you see someone committing a fallacy, link them to it e.g. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman", which is not a useful response, as it fails to state what, specifically, is allegedly fallacious about the disputed argument.
NTripleOne 9y ago
If only more people understood this. Pointing out a fallacy might as well be a fallacy itself.
- striking 9y ago
  It's a fallacy to assume that just because a claim was argued in a fallacious manner, that it's also incorrect. (Which is close to what you said.) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy Pointing out a fallacy by name is usually silly, but knowing how people twist debates and being able to defend against that is not.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  You might enjoy this, http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 but more to the point, conversation is more constructive when folks engage in the practice of principle of charity [1] where you will interpret the other's argument in the strongest possible light. This helps create more light, less smoke and avoid the gotcha-ism associated with fallacy fallacy. [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
To expand on this, if someone says "you just used a slippery slope [1] argument and therefore your claim is false," don't respond by citing the fallacy fallacy [2]. Instead, make an analogy (preferably one unrelated to the topic at hand and a second one more germane) to illustrate the unfounded leap. Partly because fallacies go by many names and are not well understood. Partly since many cultures associate "your argument is illogical" with "you are stupid". [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
pyroinferno 9y ago
I think pointing out some fallacies aren't that bad. For example, pointing out a "strawman" is a good way to signal to the other party that they're attacking stances that aren't even yours.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dredmorbius 9y ago
If a position is so poorly conceived that the simplest thing to do is to point out that it is logically invalid, then, no, you've done your job. Yes, logical fallacies can be misused and abused. But the power is in the name: committing one of these tactics, legitimately, is logically false and invalid. It invalidates an argument. Pointing out that your opponnent is lying dying and bleeding out on the ground doesn't lose you a fight.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Various groundings in truth, logic, deduction, inference, scientific method, and mathematical proof, are useful. I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism And between valid and sound arguments. The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth Protip: apply coherence, consistency, or pragmatic principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though. The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others. I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...

mercer 9y ago
Is there some newsletter or blog I could follow with more thoughts of yours like these? I find myself spending more and more time on this topic and a comment like this is a wonderful jumping-off point for me on my 'down whatever rabbit-hole' study days :-). EDIT: just realized we have profile pages and you have links on yours. Silly me.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Principally https://dredmorbius.reddit.com https://dredmorbius.reddit.com I cooked up a lot of these ideas posting to G+ as well, see especially my Epistemology collection: https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg My definition of "Tech and Media" is expansive, but there's some coverage there: https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY

Xoros 9y ago

I guess they didn't like Schopenhauer's eristic dialectic. "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

dredmorbius 9y ago
Another underappreciated classic. Thanks for posting.