5 ms·

Well checking if your opponent argument commits logical fallacies is just the first part. The second part is, of course, providing your own logical counter.

by anta40 5y ago

skissane 5y ago
I think it is often better if you explain why and how the argument is fallacious without actually bringing any named fallacies into it. If you’ve done a good job of explaining the why and the how, you don’t need the name. But sometimes people think if they use the name they can skip the explaining why and how
- mejutoco 5y ago
  Because it does not scale. If they did, they would spend a lot of time explaining easy-to-produce fallacious statements, in a similar dynamic to that of people „feeding the trolls“ on the internet. P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Because it does not scale Arguing on the Internet doesn't scale. And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response. > P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;) I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another? Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph: > Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact. And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]: > ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side... [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305 [1] Keith Lehrer, Why Not Scepticism?, Philosophical Forum 2 (3):283 (1971)
    - mejutoco 5y ago
      I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the fallacy :) I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting. > ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side... If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is: 1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true). 2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?) > It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application. Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here). EDIT: s/OP/you/ As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.
      - skissane 5y ago
        Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc. In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity. Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.

Well checking if your opponent argument commits logical fallacies is just the first part. The second part is, of course, providing your own logical counter.

by anta40 5y ago

Well checking if your opponent argument commits logical fallacies is just the first part. The second part is, of course, providing your own logical counter.

skissane 5y ago

I think it is often better if you explain why and how the argument is fallacious without actually bringing any named fallacies into it. If you’ve done a good job of explaining the why and the how, you don’t need the name. But sometimes people think if they use the name they can skip the explaining why and how

mejutoco 5y ago
Because it does not scale. If they did, they would spend a lot of time explaining easy-to-produce fallacious statements, in a similar dynamic to that of people „feeding the trolls“ on the internet. P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
- skissane 5y ago
  > Because it does not scale Arguing on the Internet doesn't scale. And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response. > P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;) I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another? Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph: > Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact. And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]: > ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side... [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305 [1] Keith Lehrer, Why Not Scepticism?, Philosophical Forum 2 (3):283 (1971)
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the fallacy :) I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting. > ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side... If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is: 1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true). 2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?) > It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application. Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here). EDIT: s/OP/you/ As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.
    - skissane 5y ago
      Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc. In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity. Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.