5 ms·

It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor th

It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)

isomorph 16y ago
it's browbeating, a cornerstone of academia
telemachos 16y ago
On the one hand, I don't want to feed the pedantry. On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. In this case, it's not being used (so far as I can see) in the course of a direct argument. Here's the whole sentence: > Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. It's not part of a syllogism. It's the author's statement of core values (as he sees them) of Cambridge. It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something, not an attempt to prove that he shouldn't.
- elblanco 16y ago
  > On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. ... > It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something ergo it's an appeal to authority or at the very least an appeal to tradition/precedent (or I suppose even lesser a non sequitur) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition either way, it's a fascinatingly shoddy, and unnecessary, argument that severely detracts from the otherwise fine argument. A simple, "this paper represents basic security research. We believe censoring basic research is wrong and harmful. Therefore we will not censor this research." would have done.
  - telemachos 16y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Not all discourse is argument. And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. Here's the full paragraph which includes the mention of Erasmus and company: >> Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student's thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest finds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar's, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent.... I would say that nothing in the paragraph is anything like a formal argument. The author is not moving from premise to premise towards a conclusion. That whole paragraph is a piece of rhetoric, intended to display to the reader (the person the letter is addressed to and the rest of the world) the values of Cambridge University. When I mentioned syllogisms above, I wasn't being glib or flip. That part of the letter doesn't belong in the category of argument[1]; it's epideictic[2]. Judging it by some list of logical fallacies is a category mistake. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic
    - elblanco 16y ago
      I disagree that the original response was not an argument. I'd ask that you review Anderson's letter again. I'm also unsure why you are attempting to connect epideictic rhetoric (used in several places in the letter) to the logical flaw in question since the rhetoric you are raising occurs after the flaw in paragraph. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/ukca.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/ukca.pdf It's presented as an argument, it lists flaws in the UK Card Association's reasoning asking for censorship of the research. It presents a clear conclusion ~"we will not censor the thesis" supported by clearly labeled premises, specifically: 1) The Card Association incorrectly addressed the complaint so they are asking the wrong people to censor the thesis 2) Because powerful groups are against a research area is not reason to censor the work. I can see how one might find this premise confusing since he only dwells on it for the first sentence of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is composed of the logical flaw in question, and then epideictic rhetoric about the noble business of Universities followed by an FU statement that they are also going to ensure the thesis spreads far and wide in direct opposition to the complaint. In other words, the second paragraph is a mess. The argument of the premise is simple and is in fact an admonition against the logical flaw the complainant is using "we are strong so you must do as we say", but Anderson blends and conflates it with rhetoric and the flaw, concluding "thus we have no choice but to back him, that would hold even if we did not agree with the material!" 3) The thesis is not new information anyways, so to ask for its censor makes no sense. 4) The source was not made available, so to the consumer of the thesis, they only have knowledge that the vulnerability exists, ergo they are asking to censor something that does not harm 5) The test of the thesis was not fraud, as the complainants claim, therefore asking for censorship under that claim makes no sense. 6) That the thesis exposes a vulnerability that undermines public confidence in the security of the system, but since the flaw has been apparently fixed, there is no reason to censor the thesis. Conclusion) We will not censor the thesis because the logic of the premises hold true that the thesis should not be censored. I do agree with you that the original response is not a formal logical argument in the strictest sense, and has elements of rhetoric (particularly in the 2nd premise), but it's clearly framed as at the very least a rational argument. The letter in it's entirety are certainly not epideictic by any of my understandings of the term nor by your link. However, both the second and sixth premises contain elements of epideictic rhetoric. (btw, the presence of the logical flaw doesn't necessarily invalidate the 2nd premise since the passage is non-sequitur to the premise anyways!) I think that's what you are trying to say here And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. And I would agree with that sentiment. However, in this case, the sentence in question is clearly part of a logical argument and is a classic usage of a logical flaw. I fully understand how Anderson would have written such a thing, impassioned as he must be over the issue. I actually found his argument persuasive and much milder in tone than I would have managed.
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    > either way, it's a fascinatingly shoddy, and unnecessary, argument that severely detracts from the otherwise fine argument Not at all. It's an example of good rhetoric.
bobz 16y ago
If appeal to precedent is a fallacy, we (the western world) really need to rethink our legal system.
- elblanco 16y ago
  In my experience with several lawyers, many of them argue almost entirely from a position of logical fallacies -- better to win via confusion of the argument than win via logical argument. Actually, appeal to tradition and appeal to precedent are subtly different things. "We must continue doing a thing because we have always done it" vs "In the past, the reasoning was sound to do a thing, perhaps it is still sound to continue doing that thing". One absolutely fascinating debate I read online between a non-lawyer and a top-15 US law school dean more or less ended up with the non-lawyer demolishing the lawyer's arguments by assigning every argument to a list of logical fallacies. It was quite poetic. However, the dean kept arguing that the non-lawyer wasn't making legal arguments. Which gives me serious doubts that the legal system is based on logical or even just rational thought. (if you are interested the debate is here between somebody called "Red County Bound" and "sandersmj", during the recent legal challenges over same-sex marriage, I found it to be one of the most illuminating arguments I could find online http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16509&st=0 http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1650... )
vl 16y ago
I don't see the reason for downvoting parent. Full quote is "Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values", and first part struck me as completely irrelevant to the second part, somewhat unworthy of this otherwise well-convened letter. In addition to that I don't see it as an "elegant way of giving finger", how mentioning of historic figures conveys the "finger message"?
- yesbabyyes 16y ago
  Erasmus, Newton and Darwin all published writings which offended the powerful. Cambridge didn't censor that, and they seem to see that as a winning strategy.
- elblanco 16y ago
  >I don't see the reason for downvoting parent. Who knows...people tend to get offended when their reasoning is held to measure against rational thought for some reason. Given that his argument is supposed to be "we are Cambridge, we have a tradition of logical and rational thinking we are proud of, this research is representative of that tradition, we think that it should not be censored" I found this errant line to really jump out at me.
aphyr 16y ago
As telemachos points out, this is not an appeal to authority. The article does not claim that Darwin et al would support this research; it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. Furthermore, this sentence reminds us that in prior cases where authority has sought to suppress the university's research, the release was justified by history. It's not a purely deductive argument, but it's impossible to make a statement about the world without relying on inductive examples.
- elblanco 16y ago
  > it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. that is not an appeal to authority. The statement alone is sufficient for the argument, bringing in notable and revered historical figures does not improve the merit of his premise. He's saying, "it's in our character because of these notable authority figures". By definition it's an appeal to authority. Why is this so hard to understand? (meta-comment, seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? I don't care if I burn karma for being wrong, but I'm not so what's the deal? If you downvoted and actually typed a response, please disregard my bitching (and yes I know the guidelines say I shouldn't say this kind of thing, but pg's going to have to establish some up/down mod guidelines one of these days, because clearly getting downvoted for making factual statements doesn't make any sense and it appears that this site is slipping again down the HN->reddit->digg->4chan slope again as recent posts about non-hackerish things are demonstrating))
  - argv_empty 16y ago
    seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? It's because you're being very persistent about reading something into the statement that really isn't there. Dropping well-respected names is not sufficient to make an appeal to authority. The speaker must also claim that the people named would support his position. Anderson does not do this. His use of those names is to point out Cambridge's prior history of supporting dissemination of information someone with power wishes to suppress. There is no appeal to authority, just a claim that this is how they roll. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)

isomorph 16y ago

it's browbeating, a cornerstone of academia

telemachos 16y ago

On the one hand, I don't want to feed the pedantry. On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. In this case, it's not being used (so far as I can see) in the course of a direct argument. Here's the whole sentence: > Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. It's not part of a syllogism. It's the author's statement of core values (as he sees them) of Cambridge. It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something, not an attempt to prove that he shouldn't.

elblanco 16y ago
> On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. ... > It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something ergo it's an appeal to authority or at the very least an appeal to tradition/precedent (or I suppose even lesser a non sequitur) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition either way, it's a fascinatingly shoddy, and unnecessary, argument that severely detracts from the otherwise fine argument. A simple, "this paper represents basic security research. We believe censoring basic research is wrong and harmful. Therefore we will not censor this research." would have done.
- telemachos 16y ago
  I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Not all discourse is argument. And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. Here's the full paragraph which includes the mention of Erasmus and company: >> Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student's thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest finds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar's, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent.... I would say that nothing in the paragraph is anything like a formal argument. The author is not moving from premise to premise towards a conclusion. That whole paragraph is a piece of rhetoric, intended to display to the reader (the person the letter is addressed to and the rest of the world) the values of Cambridge University. When I mentioned syllogisms above, I wasn't being glib or flip. That part of the letter doesn't belong in the category of argument[1]; it's epideictic[2]. Judging it by some list of logical fallacies is a category mistake. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic
  - elblanco 16y ago
    I disagree that the original response was not an argument. I'd ask that you review Anderson's letter again. I'm also unsure why you are attempting to connect epideictic rhetoric (used in several places in the letter) to the logical flaw in question since the rhetoric you are raising occurs after the flaw in paragraph. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/ukca.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/ukca.pdf It's presented as an argument, it lists flaws in the UK Card Association's reasoning asking for censorship of the research. It presents a clear conclusion ~"we will not censor the thesis" supported by clearly labeled premises, specifically: 1) The Card Association incorrectly addressed the complaint so they are asking the wrong people to censor the thesis 2) Because powerful groups are against a research area is not reason to censor the work. I can see how one might find this premise confusing since he only dwells on it for the first sentence of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is composed of the logical flaw in question, and then epideictic rhetoric about the noble business of Universities followed by an FU statement that they are also going to ensure the thesis spreads far and wide in direct opposition to the complaint. In other words, the second paragraph is a mess. The argument of the premise is simple and is in fact an admonition against the logical flaw the complainant is using "we are strong so you must do as we say", but Anderson blends and conflates it with rhetoric and the flaw, concluding "thus we have no choice but to back him, that would hold even if we did not agree with the material!" 3) The thesis is not new information anyways, so to ask for its censor makes no sense. 4) The source was not made available, so to the consumer of the thesis, they only have knowledge that the vulnerability exists, ergo they are asking to censor something that does not harm 5) The test of the thesis was not fraud, as the complainants claim, therefore asking for censorship under that claim makes no sense. 6) That the thesis exposes a vulnerability that undermines public confidence in the security of the system, but since the flaw has been apparently fixed, there is no reason to censor the thesis. Conclusion) We will not censor the thesis because the logic of the premises hold true that the thesis should not be censored. I do agree with you that the original response is not a formal logical argument in the strictest sense, and has elements of rhetoric (particularly in the 2nd premise), but it's clearly framed as at the very least a rational argument. The letter in it's entirety are certainly not epideictic by any of my understandings of the term nor by your link. However, both the second and sixth premises contain elements of epideictic rhetoric. (btw, the presence of the logical flaw doesn't necessarily invalidate the 2nd premise since the passage is non-sequitur to the premise anyways!) I think that's what you are trying to say here And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. And I would agree with that sentiment. However, in this case, the sentence in question is clearly part of a logical argument and is a classic usage of a logical flaw. I fully understand how Anderson would have written such a thing, impassioned as he must be over the issue. I actually found his argument persuasive and much milder in tone than I would have managed.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  > either way, it's a fascinatingly shoddy, and unnecessary, argument that severely detracts from the otherwise fine argument Not at all. It's an example of good rhetoric.

bobz 16y ago

If appeal to precedent is a fallacy, we (the western world) really need to rethink our legal system.

elblanco 16y ago
In my experience with several lawyers, many of them argue almost entirely from a position of logical fallacies -- better to win via confusion of the argument than win via logical argument. Actually, appeal to tradition and appeal to precedent are subtly different things. "We must continue doing a thing because we have always done it" vs "In the past, the reasoning was sound to do a thing, perhaps it is still sound to continue doing that thing". One absolutely fascinating debate I read online between a non-lawyer and a top-15 US law school dean more or less ended up with the non-lawyer demolishing the lawyer's arguments by assigning every argument to a list of logical fallacies. It was quite poetic. However, the dean kept arguing that the non-lawyer wasn't making legal arguments. Which gives me serious doubts that the legal system is based on logical or even just rational thought. (if you are interested the debate is here between somebody called "Red County Bound" and "sandersmj", during the recent legal challenges over same-sex marriage, I found it to be one of the most illuminating arguments I could find online http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16509&st=0 http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1650... )

vl 16y ago

I don't see the reason for downvoting parent. Full quote is "Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values", and first part struck me as completely irrelevant to the second part, somewhat unworthy of this otherwise well-convened letter. In addition to that I don't see it as an "elegant way of giving finger", how mentioning of historic figures conveys the "finger message"?

yesbabyyes 16y ago
Erasmus, Newton and Darwin all published writings which offended the powerful. Cambridge didn't censor that, and they seem to see that as a winning strategy.
elblanco 16y ago
>I don't see the reason for downvoting parent. Who knows...people tend to get offended when their reasoning is held to measure against rational thought for some reason. Given that his argument is supposed to be "we are Cambridge, we have a tradition of logical and rational thinking we are proud of, this research is representative of that tradition, we think that it should not be censored" I found this errant line to really jump out at me.

aphyr 16y ago

As telemachos points out, this is not an appeal to authority. The article does not claim that Darwin et al would support this research; it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. Furthermore, this sentence reminds us that in prior cases where authority has sought to suppress the university's research, the release was justified by history. It's not a purely deductive argument, but it's impossible to make a statement about the world without relying on inductive examples.

elblanco 16y ago
> it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. that is not an appeal to authority. The statement alone is sufficient for the argument, bringing in notable and revered historical figures does not improve the merit of his premise. He's saying, "it's in our character because of these notable authority figures". By definition it's an appeal to authority. Why is this so hard to understand? (meta-comment, seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? I don't care if I burn karma for being wrong, but I'm not so what's the deal? If you downvoted and actually typed a response, please disregard my bitching (and yes I know the guidelines say I shouldn't say this kind of thing, but pg's going to have to establish some up/down mod guidelines one of these days, because clearly getting downvoted for making factual statements doesn't make any sense and it appears that this site is slipping again down the HN->reddit->digg->4chan slope again as recent posts about non-hackerish things are demonstrating))
- argv_empty 16y ago
  seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? It's because you're being very persistent about reading something into the statement that really isn't there. Dropping well-respected names is not sufficient to make an appeal to authority. The speaker must also claim that the people named would support his position. Anderson does not do this. His use of those names is to point out Cambridge's prior history of supporting dissemination of information someone with power wishes to suppress. There is no appeal to authority, just a claim that this is how they roll. Why is this so hard to understand?