3 ms·

Origin and meaning of “fisk”, named after Robert Fisk, who died, Oct 30th

3 points by ColinWright 6y ago

brudgers 6y ago
In the 1990's a thought of it as "the internet pick-apart." It's fabulously useful as a trolling technique. Attacking on a broad front finds the points of weakness either intellectually or more typically through shear attrition of typing speed. As the thread progresses, it works hand in hand with quoting from earlier comments as a means of moving further inside the interlocutor's decision loop. And as always it requires uncharitable interpretation and the fabrication of strawmen from whole cloth steeped in a claim of populist outrage...fortunately, I feel I have moved on since the early aughts.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Fisking is reasonably useful in a respectful didactic discussion, where one side isn't acting to disrupt, distract, or derail the other. And in specific cases where the intent is simply to show that an argument or statement is wrong in all particulars, it may be effective. But overall, a poor rhetorical method, no matter how epistemologically accurate. Better to cut to the root of an argument or position, thoroughly discredit that, and note that consequently all else falls as well. Or, in the case of trolls, block entirely. That said, writing out a fisk as an exercise for yourself can be useful in determining just where a counterpart's argument or logic falls apart. Consider this scaffolding or prepwork, not the final product.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
    Your belief that the root of an flawed argument can be thoroughly discredited without referring to the specific points of the argument rings false. How do you know if you have “thoroughly discredited” the position if you haven’t addressed the salient points in the argument? In fact, how do you demonstrate that you have “thoroughly discredited” it at all? Internet points? It seems a rather expansive claim. There’s not a professor or manager on the planet who hasn’t marked up a memo or a thesis. And that marking up is identifying individual points of difference or clarification over the course of an argument or proposal. Rarely a wholesale rejection. But I might have been working at a different level than you. I can count the fingers of two hands the number of times in my professional life that I found a substantive argument that could be “throughly discredited”. Got awards for it too. But those were in the highly constrained world of mathematics. I agree that a proof that even numbers aren’t prime shouldn’t involve enumerating a lot of them and proving they’re composite. But that sort of intellectual masterstroke rarely happens in real life, except in the fantasy life of some. If it happens on the Internet a lot, it probably means that corner of the Internet doesn’t map well into reality. So, unless it’s beautiful or heartwarming, it can just be flushed. Many times differences are based on differing life experiences, or personal values of risk, mortality and the like, or personal agendas for money, fame and the like. Unearthing those differences involves a bit more analysis and nuance, and rarely lead to a simple denouement. Can you give an example of where you “thoroughly discredited” an argument on HN without systematically referring to the specific items of content of the argument? Imagine you are presenting this to an emeritus professor at an Ivy League school. So, no nonsense...
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      The point is to choose your own ground, not be dictated battle conditions, most especially by a determined opponent. Preparing the fisk, as noted in my original comment, addresses confidence in argument, though other factors may dominate. Two recent examples, one taking on a Nobel laureate, the other a question concerning a point of law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894116 Feynman comments on scientific (or technical) argument: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4 If you're interpreting that I feel there's only one valid interpretation in all instances, I am not. There may well be several. But many-sidedness is not any-sidedness, and while all models are wrong, there are many which atre both wronger than others and less useful.
  - brudgers 6y ago
    where the intent is simply to show that an argument or statement is wrong in all particulars That is neither a behavior nor an objective consistent with respectful didactic discussion — even should the initial position be presented as an enumerated list. Without finding common ground good faith is missing. It’s a you and the horse you rode. An exchange of ordinance not ideas. It’s winning not learning.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      The intent of fisking in this context isn't based on the notion of trying to present an argument of arguable validity as wrong. The intent is to expose an utterly fallacious argument for what it is. Impeaching a witness, as it were (though this can also be more concisely achieved generally). Where there is in fact no common ground or intent to establish such by the counterparty, common ground cannot be found. Keep in mind that the extremity of this practice is precisely why I suggest practicing it rarely.
      - brudgers 6y ago
        Rationalizing one’s behavior “because they deserve it” is the basis of bullying and antithetical to respectful dialogue. Finding one’s self in situations where utter fallaciousness is perceived and arguing in its face requires a lot of deliberate choice. The arguing not least among them. To be fallacious, reasoning must draw an incorrect conclusion from undisputed premises. For example x -> y x ergo k Fallacious reasoning doesn’t require point by point rebuttal. It’s all at the truth table. Fallacious reasoning is the application of the wrong truth table. Facts in dispute are orthogonal to fallacy. Incorrect conclusions based upon suspect premises are not fallacious. They are simply normal human fallibility. The pick apart requires deliberate incharitable interpretation and great effort to avoid common ground. The “utterly” in “utterly fallacious” belies the veracity of any claim to respectfulness.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        You're entirely mischaracterising my comments.

3 points by ColinWright 6y ago

In the 1990's a thought of it as "the internet pick-apart." It's fabulously useful as a trolling technique. Attacking on a broad front finds the points of weakness either intellectually or more typically through shear attrition of typing speed. As the thread progresses, it works hand in hand with quoting from earlier comments as a means of moving further inside the interlocutor's decision loop. And as always it requires uncharitable interpretation and the fabrication of strawmen from whole cloth steeped in a claim of populist outrage...fortunately, I feel I have moved on since the early aughts.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Fisking is reasonably useful in a respectful didactic discussion, where one side isn't acting to disrupt, distract, or derail the other. And in specific cases where the intent is simply to show that an argument or statement is wrong in all particulars, it may be effective. But overall, a poor rhetorical method, no matter how epistemologically accurate. Better to cut to the root of an argument or position, thoroughly discredit that, and note that consequently all else falls as well. Or, in the case of trolls, block entirely. That said, writing out a fisk as an exercise for yourself can be useful in determining just where a counterpart's argument or logic falls apart. Consider this scaffolding or prepwork, not the final product.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  Your belief that the root of an flawed argument can be thoroughly discredited without referring to the specific points of the argument rings false. How do you know if you have “thoroughly discredited” the position if you haven’t addressed the salient points in the argument? In fact, how do you demonstrate that you have “thoroughly discredited” it at all? Internet points? It seems a rather expansive claim. There’s not a professor or manager on the planet who hasn’t marked up a memo or a thesis. And that marking up is identifying individual points of difference or clarification over the course of an argument or proposal. Rarely a wholesale rejection. But I might have been working at a different level than you. I can count the fingers of two hands the number of times in my professional life that I found a substantive argument that could be “throughly discredited”. Got awards for it too. But those were in the highly constrained world of mathematics. I agree that a proof that even numbers aren’t prime shouldn’t involve enumerating a lot of them and proving they’re composite. But that sort of intellectual masterstroke rarely happens in real life, except in the fantasy life of some. If it happens on the Internet a lot, it probably means that corner of the Internet doesn’t map well into reality. So, unless it’s beautiful or heartwarming, it can just be flushed. Many times differences are based on differing life experiences, or personal values of risk, mortality and the like, or personal agendas for money, fame and the like. Unearthing those differences involves a bit more analysis and nuance, and rarely lead to a simple denouement. Can you give an example of where you “thoroughly discredited” an argument on HN without systematically referring to the specific items of content of the argument? Imagine you are presenting this to an emeritus professor at an Ivy League school. So, no nonsense...
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    The point is to choose your own ground, not be dictated battle conditions, most especially by a determined opponent. Preparing the fisk, as noted in my original comment, addresses confidence in argument, though other factors may dominate. Two recent examples, one taking on a Nobel laureate, the other a question concerning a point of law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894116 Feynman comments on scientific (or technical) argument: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4 If you're interpreting that I feel there's only one valid interpretation in all instances, I am not. There may well be several. But many-sidedness is not any-sidedness, and while all models are wrong, there are many which atre both wronger than others and less useful.
- brudgers 6y ago
  where the intent is simply to show that an argument or statement is wrong in all particulars That is neither a behavior nor an objective consistent with respectful didactic discussion — even should the initial position be presented as an enumerated list. Without finding common ground good faith is missing. It’s a you and the horse you rode. An exchange of ordinance not ideas. It’s winning not learning.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    The intent of fisking in this context isn't based on the notion of trying to present an argument of arguable validity as wrong. The intent is to expose an utterly fallacious argument for what it is. Impeaching a witness, as it were (though this can also be more concisely achieved generally). Where there is in fact no common ground or intent to establish such by the counterparty, common ground cannot be found. Keep in mind that the extremity of this practice is precisely why I suggest practicing it rarely.
    - brudgers 6y ago
      Rationalizing one’s behavior “because they deserve it” is the basis of bullying and antithetical to respectful dialogue. Finding one’s self in situations where utter fallaciousness is perceived and arguing in its face requires a lot of deliberate choice. The arguing not least among them. To be fallacious, reasoning must draw an incorrect conclusion from undisputed premises. For example x -> y x ergo k Fallacious reasoning doesn’t require point by point rebuttal. It’s all at the truth table. Fallacious reasoning is the application of the wrong truth table. Facts in dispute are orthogonal to fallacy. Incorrect conclusions based upon suspect premises are not fallacious. They are simply normal human fallibility. The pick apart requires deliberate incharitable interpretation and great effort to avoid common ground. The “utterly” in “utterly fallacious” belies the veracity of any claim to respectfulness.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        You're entirely mischaracterising my comments.