4 ms·

I don't understand the appeal of lists like this. Attacking the structure of someone's argument only works in high school debate club, not real discussions with

I don't understand the appeal of lists like this. Attacking the structure of someone's argument only works in high school debate club, not real discussions with real people, where you need to actually engage with the substance of their argument. This feels like the conversational equivalent of tattling to the teacher and a slim step above criticizing someone's grammar to look smart.

Veen 6y ago
Learning about informal fallacies is useful for a couple of good reasons and one bad reason: - They help people to understand why a superficially appealing argument might not be a good argument. It's a useful innoculation against bullshit. Someone who has internalized informal fallacies can use them to spot bad arguments in the media or from politicians, for example. - They help people to avoid using falacious arguments in their own conversations. If a person wants to make a strong case for a position, at work for example, they're more likely to be taken seriously if they avoid bad reasoning. The harmful motivation for someone to be interested in a list like this is that they're effective rhetorical strategies when used with the right audience. If you're interested in persuading people and you aren't very moral, fallacies can be your friend.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Attacking the structure of someone's argument only works in high school debate club That's very much not true. For one thing, academic debate in high school has pretty much the same criteria as it does in a high school. But more importantly: > where you need to actually engage with the substance of their argument Fallacies are, without exceptions, weaknesses in the substance of an argument, or places where it fails to engage with the substance of the argument it is offered against. Identifying them is very useful if you are in a context (like, say, high school or collegiate debate, or, say, a court room) where that arguments engage with each other's substance is critical. Now, in most cases you will leverage the weakness revealed by having identified the fallacy rather than just pointing it out by name, but especially when the audience is familiar with them and the argument is in writing, naming them makes a convenient counterargument macro, as each fallacy is a compact name for a defect in the argument in serving it's purpose.

Veen 6y ago

Learning about informal fallacies is useful for a couple of good reasons and one bad reason: - They help people to understand why a superficially appealing argument might not be a good argument. It's a useful innoculation against bullshit. Someone who has internalized informal fallacies can use them to spot bad arguments in the media or from politicians, for example. - They help people to avoid using falacious arguments in their own conversations. If a person wants to make a strong case for a position, at work for example, they're more likely to be taken seriously if they avoid bad reasoning. The harmful motivation for someone to be interested in a list like this is that they're effective rhetorical strategies when used with the right audience. If you're interested in persuading people and you aren't very moral, fallacies can be your friend.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Attacking the structure of someone's argument only works in high school debate club That's very much not true. For one thing, academic debate in high school has pretty much the same criteria as it does in a high school. But more importantly: > where you need to actually engage with the substance of their argument Fallacies are, without exceptions, weaknesses in the substance of an argument, or places where it fails to engage with the substance of the argument it is offered against. Identifying them is very useful if you are in a context (like, say, high school or collegiate debate, or, say, a court room) where that arguments engage with each other's substance is critical. Now, in most cases you will leverage the weakness revealed by having identified the fallacy rather than just pointing it out by name, but especially when the audience is familiar with them and the argument is in writing, naming them makes a convenient counterargument macro, as each fallacy is a compact name for a defect in the argument in serving it's purpose.