3 ms·

I remember those classes in VCE. Unfortunately a lot of people interpreted it as a class on "how to be persuasive" (as a writer) rather than "how to avoid being

I remember those classes in VCE. Unfortunately a lot of people interpreted it as a class on "how to be persuasive" (as a writer) rather than "how to avoid being persuaded by propagandists" (as a reader). We were taught common logical fallacies, and then tested on how well we could spot instances of them in a news article. But I remember also being asked to write persuasive essays, without being taught how to reason in a way that avoided those fallacies.

Der_Einzige 6y ago
Its impossible to not be fallacious in any meaningful discourse that goes on long enough, and that's okay. Every single invocation of an expert is an argument from authority. Every single invocation of logic like "it is more like nature therefor it is more good" is a naturalistic fallacy. Do we even need to get to other ones like "appeal to emotion"? Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily describe reality (given that there are an infinite number of possible logics based on which axioms you start with), and that being worried about and trying to avoid "logical fallacies" in our reasoning does not help us see reality more closely to how it is.
- MinusGix 6y ago
  There's obviously levels to it, its not "This is a fallacy/incorrect argument" and "This is a good argument". Invocation of expert is not the end of all discussion, as there are non-truthful experts and authorities (such as Government) which are more obviously less trustworthy. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all authority (I've never seen that argued). Naturalistic fallacy really depends on how much you value the natural state of things, but it is usually used to point out that just because it is 'natural' doesn't mean it is good or sensible to do/continue. Appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are often used to incite people without them thinking through. "They killed our people!" sounds a lot more convincing/inciting than, "They had an altercation which unfortunately escalated, leading to the deaths of several people that we knew". Using emotion to obscure or not properly think about how it came to be to that point and what should be done from then on. I think you're conflating logic (ex: mathematical logic, or far less rigorous careful reasoning) with an overly strict definition of a logical fallacy.
- quicklime 6y ago
  All I'm trying to say is that high school students should be taught "how to reach a logical conclusion" rather than "how to be persuasive in an amoral way". > Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily describe reality I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but it sounds a dangerous path to go down. People have already discarded facts - I think discarding logic as well would make things even worse.
- anthony_romeo 6y ago
  I liked the stance in Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach by Douglas Walton, wherein "logical fallacies" are thought of as more the consequence of an argument which inappropriately shifts from one argumentative context to another. For example, if during a formal debate you were to threaten to harm your opponent if they didn't agree with you (an "Appeal to Force" fallacy), this wouldn't be an appropriate argument for this context. But in, say, a contract negotiation between a union and a business, the union could threaten to strike if the business doesn't agree to terms, and it can be part of a valid argument. Thus appeals to force (and, as Walton argued, all "informal fallacies") aren't inherently fallacious in all contexts. Rather, the threat of harm was an inappropriate change in context from a formal debate to a negotiation, and it's the change in context which creates these fallacies.

Der_Einzige 6y ago

Its impossible to not be fallacious in any meaningful discourse that goes on long enough, and that's okay. Every single invocation of an expert is an argument from authority. Every single invocation of logic like "it is more like nature therefor it is more good" is a naturalistic fallacy. Do we even need to get to other ones like "appeal to emotion"? Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily describe reality (given that there are an infinite number of possible logics based on which axioms you start with), and that being worried about and trying to avoid "logical fallacies" in our reasoning does not help us see reality more closely to how it is.

MinusGix 6y ago
There's obviously levels to it, its not "This is a fallacy/incorrect argument" and "This is a good argument". Invocation of expert is not the end of all discussion, as there are non-truthful experts and authorities (such as Government) which are more obviously less trustworthy. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all authority (I've never seen that argued). Naturalistic fallacy really depends on how much you value the natural state of things, but it is usually used to point out that just because it is 'natural' doesn't mean it is good or sensible to do/continue. Appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are often used to incite people without them thinking through. "They killed our people!" sounds a lot more convincing/inciting than, "They had an altercation which unfortunately escalated, leading to the deaths of several people that we knew". Using emotion to obscure or not properly think about how it came to be to that point and what should be done from then on. I think you're conflating logic (ex: mathematical logic, or far less rigorous careful reasoning) with an overly strict definition of a logical fallacy.
quicklime 6y ago
All I'm trying to say is that high school students should be taught "how to reach a logical conclusion" rather than "how to be persuasive in an amoral way". > Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily describe reality I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but it sounds a dangerous path to go down. People have already discarded facts - I think discarding logic as well would make things even worse.
anthony_romeo 6y ago
I liked the stance in Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach by Douglas Walton, wherein "logical fallacies" are thought of as more the consequence of an argument which inappropriately shifts from one argumentative context to another. For example, if during a formal debate you were to threaten to harm your opponent if they didn't agree with you (an "Appeal to Force" fallacy), this wouldn't be an appropriate argument for this context. But in, say, a contract negotiation between a union and a business, the union could threaten to strike if the business doesn't agree to terms, and it can be part of a valid argument. Thus appeals to force (and, as Walton argued, all "informal fallacies") aren't inherently fallacious in all contexts. Rather, the threat of harm was an inappropriate change in context from a formal debate to a negotiation, and it's the change in context which creates these fallacies.