4 ms·

No, they shouldn't. Piling on claims is a well-known bad-faith argument tactic called the Gish gallop[1]. The poster has provided no source, and it would take h

No, they shouldn't. Piling on claims is a well-known bad-faith argument tactic called the Gish gallop[1]. The poster has provided no source, and it would take hours just to verify all the claims, before even getting to whether or not they were material. It works precisely because it's much easier to make claims than refute them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

nwienert 6y ago
It’s not a gish gallop, it’d have to be claims not supporting a single thesis or hard to refute. Each of these is a small claim directly relevant. If you could find even 2-3 to refute that’d do. The problem with fallacies is they are not always clear when and how to apply, which creates a whole new fallacy where people mis-apply fallacies to try and “win” quickly (is there a name for this? The fallacy fallacy?) A good faith argument would at least call out one or two incorrect points here.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bored or run out of time, they use your failure to properly rebut as evidence of their thesis. I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Engaging with an argument validates it? That doesn’t make sense to me. Gish gallop was invented to categorize the specific style of politicians and charlatans that will throw out myriad claims to dismantle and confuse conversations with too many directions, and to have many of the claims be hard to even refute as they are vague. The vagueness and multi-directionality is the usual marker of it. I don’t see how these claims are meant to move in diverse directions, or how any isn't relevant, each is a pretty refutable small piece of evidence connected directly to determining the truth of the case here.

nwienert 6y ago

It’s not a gish gallop, it’d have to be claims not supporting a single thesis or hard to refute. Each of these is a small claim directly relevant. If you could find even 2-3 to refute that’d do. The problem with fallacies is they are not always clear when and how to apply, which creates a whole new fallacy where people mis-apply fallacies to try and “win” quickly (is there a name for this? The fallacy fallacy?) A good faith argument would at least call out one or two incorrect points here.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bored or run out of time, they use your failure to properly rebut as evidence of their thesis. I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Engaging with an argument validates it? That doesn’t make sense to me. Gish gallop was invented to categorize the specific style of politicians and charlatans that will throw out myriad claims to dismantle and confuse conversations with too many directions, and to have many of the claims be hard to even refute as they are vague. The vagueness and multi-directionality is the usual marker of it. I don’t see how these claims are meant to move in diverse directions, or how any isn't relevant, each is a pretty refutable small piece of evidence connected directly to determining the truth of the case here.