4 ms·

You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course

by thurn 5y ago

You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.

gatlin 5y ago
Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...
- topaz0 5y ago
  I think the linked piece makes an important point, but I disagree that that point is relevant here. "Your argument pattern-matches to tu quoque" is probably an unhelpful thing to say, but what GP says is more like: "Your points about other people are not relevant to the discussion we were having out this one person, and therefore are unhelpful. This pattern of bad argument is sometimes known as tu quoque." Seems fine to me. Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.
ithkuil 5y ago
s/to/tu
dekhn 5y ago
In nearly no internet debate does "logical fallacy" invalidate an argument. After all, none of these arguments are truly logical, instead being deeply embedded in empiricism and intuition. While their criticism may not be useful, to imply that arguments on the internet are wrong (or to be ignored becaues they provide no value) seems like an unrealistic expectation. I am unaware of any situation outside of pure mathematics where logic is the sole arbiter. I am curious to hear about such situations, though.

by thurn 5y ago

You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.

gatlin 5y ago

Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...

topaz0 5y ago
I think the linked piece makes an important point, but I disagree that that point is relevant here. "Your argument pattern-matches to tu quoque" is probably an unhelpful thing to say, but what GP says is more like: "Your points about other people are not relevant to the discussion we were having out this one person, and therefore are unhelpful. This pattern of bad argument is sometimes known as tu quoque." Seems fine to me. Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.

ithkuil 5y ago

s/to/tu

dekhn 5y ago

In nearly no internet debate does "logical fallacy" invalidate an argument. After all, none of these arguments are truly logical, instead being deeply embedded in empiricism and intuition. While their criticism may not be useful, to imply that arguments on the internet are wrong (or to be ignored becaues they provide no value) seems like an unrealistic expectation. I am unaware of any situation outside of pure mathematics where logic is the sole arbiter. I am curious to hear about such situations, though.