17 ms·

The Harry Potter fallacy

169 points by rzk 4y ago

test1235 4y ago
https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf
yamrzou 4y ago
https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf
PotatoPancakes 4y ago
> The “discursive hygiene” picture of fallacy theory sees fallacies as mistakes that a good arguer will avoid. Indeed, armed with a new toolbox of Latin names for fallacies, eager students all too often delight in spotting fallacies in the wild, shouting out their Latin names (ad hominem!; secundum quid!) as if they were magic spells. This is what Scott Aikin and John Casey, in their delightful book Straw Man Arguments, call the Harry Potter fallacy: the “troublesome practice of invoking fallacy names in place of substantive discussion”. However, they note another, less wholesome reason why some may be interested in fallacy theory. If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely, leaving the impression that it has been won. TL;DR: the Harry Potter fallacy is thinking that shouting out a named fallacy (e.g. "That's an ad hominem!") makes you instantly win a debate, as though you were casting a magic spell.
havan_agrawal 4y ago
> armed with a new toolbox of Latin names for fallacies, eager students all too often delight in spotting fallacies in the wild, shouting out their Latin names (ad hominem!; secundum quid!) as if they were magic spells. This is what Scott Aikin and John Casey, in their delightful book Straw Man Arguments, call the Harry Potter fallacy: the “troublesome practice of invoking fallacy names in place of substantive discussion”.
- 867-5309 4y ago
  indeed the reference is weak
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    Yeah it's much better to call this the "fallacy fallacy"
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I've long wondered about doing online debates (which usually end up in shit throwing) where an independent moderator or bot detects and mentions fallacies. But I think in practice it would mean no arguments would hold weight anymore. Anyway, the main problem I think is not logical fallacies, but people not debating in good faith, and / or having a fixed opinion already. I did read about a trick, starting a debate by asking "What will it take to convince you?"; depending on the answer, you won't even have to bother. I mean there's no debating with the anti-science movement(s) because they put facts into question, for example. I mean being skeptic is not a bad thing, but what will it take to get past the skepticism? Or to put yourself in their shoes, what will it take to convince you that, for example, the earth is flat? (I mean it's OBVIOUSLY more like a dinosaur, but let's not go into that).
  - ess3 4y ago
    Isn’t a debate by definition two sides trying to convince a 3rd party which side is correct. The sides involved in the debate will never back down. A discussion on the other hand is when both sides just try to reach the “best” conclusion. Unfortunately all too many things are debates and not discussions…
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    A bot that detects logical fallacies would be amazing for journaling. Would be really interesting to stream of consciousness into a text document and have the computer put red underlines under questionable premises or conclusions.
eveningsteps 4y ago
Also known as a fallacy fallacy. Related: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
- throwaway892238 4y ago
  If a fallacy is wrong, wouldn't a fallacy fallacy be right
  - blowski 4y ago
    Something is probably whooshing over my head here. The fallacy fallacy is when you argue a conclusion must be false because of a fallacy in how it was reached.
  - lovemenot 4y ago
    Not at all. You are commiting the fallacy fallacy fallacy: incorrect reasoning about fallacies above first order.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - thfuran 4y ago
    If a blind person told you that they believed that the sky is blue because someone told them it is, would you respond that that's argumentum ad verecundiam and therefore the sky is not blue?
- __s 4y ago
  Or, to be ironic with this post's name, argumentum ad logicam Or, as most people would understand it, that you can be right for the wrong reasons
- wrp 4y ago
  No. They distinguish the Harry Potter fallacy from the fallacy fallacy. Students, once they learn the fallacies, just love to spot them and charge others with committing them, and so expect that dropping some Latin name for an opponent’s argumentative move will be a kind of magic that fixes the critical discussion (often in their favor). Call it the Harry Potter problem, thinking that learning a little Latin phrase will paralyze an opponent with its expression. So entirely new kinds of wild and woolly behavior are encouraged with this vocabulary. Without fallacy theory teaching the fallacies, there would be no burden of specious allegations of fallacy. Further, new fallacies are made possible--take for example, the fallacy fallacy, inferring that an opponent’s position is false because it is supported by fallacious arguments.
thenoblesunfish 4y ago
An important lesson in second-order ethics. If your opponent is willing to operate outside of the rules of the game (as you see them) aka acts in bad faith, they can achieve their ends by taking advantage of your adherence to the rules. Recognizing when someone is doing this and refusing to play along is a difficult, but sometimes essential, skill. (Though one we all learned to some extent on the playground)
- nerdawson 4y ago
  Refusing to play along will be seen as a loss, which is precisely the intention.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Depends on the refusal. Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule. There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange. The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those. So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
    - nerdawson 4y ago
      If you're trying to win over an audience based on fact, you've already lost. Emotion wins every single time. This is where you see a lot of really smart people trip up. They think that being right matters. It doesn't. > The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. 100%
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Sure, but most such losses are easily sustained, costing almost nothing. Certainly, some are not. When running for office, it's dangerous. When talking to family, it's dangerous. But I sustain losses with a simple "fair enough" and walk away quite often having lost nothing. To people with slightly more good faith, a quick "I'm not quite convinced, but I can't nail down my disagreement" is sufficient to gracefully take the L. AFAIK I'm quite well-respected in my peer group so it isn't causing me any harm.
bobmichael 4y ago
Reminds me of Daniel Schmachtenberger's excellent article, The Endgames of Bad Faith Communication: https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication/ https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication.... Under his framework, this would be a specific example of bad faith communication, and he agrees that the breakdown in our ability to communicate in good faith is a threat to true democracy.
happyopossum 4y ago
> If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely Good HappyOpossum: “I totally need to make sure I avoid doing that” Real HappyOpossum: “That’s totally how I can win arguments on HN, gotta make sure I study fallacy theory”
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  There’s no way to win arguments on social media
  - sien 4y ago
    It's like Wargames. The only way to win is not to play. Actually, that said, perhaps some readers who are not in the argument might learn something. Or if you're in it then you do as well.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      > The only way to win is not to play You can also just troll. Generally, you can’t lose from such a position. Arguably though, that would still count as “not playing”.
      - logifail 4y ago
        > Arguably though, that would still count as “not playing” ...or playing, but not playing at the same game. Cue the saying about wrestling with a pig.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I find it's a helpful way to challenge oneself. Get into an argument and very quickly you'll find things you hadn't considered, and a wonderfully easy way to bring one's own tribalism to the surface, where it can be killed more easily.
    - 4y ago
brobdingnagians 4y ago
I agree that pointing out fallacies can get excessive, but is mainly based on the intention for so doing. The difficulty is that there is an entire class of people who don't even care about being logically correct or in finding truth. They desire or "feel" something and will barge their way through to get it, even if it is antithetical to their stated goals and eventually results in their misery. Reasoning with such people is somewhat futile, even pointing out their fallacies in good faith will do nothing. They may even reject logic entirely, as is becoming more common in our society. In that case, pointing out that someone is committing a fallacy can be something of a canary test of their desire to reason. You could offer to help them with their argument, point out ways around the fallacy, engage with them in good faith, but if they are obsessively attached to their fallacy and their flawed position, then there isn't much you can do. There is no mathematical or logical solution to that problem, that is a "people problem". When dealing with such a person or class of people, using humour to make them look foolish can be more effective, since then the main goal should be to reveal to others how childish their position is or pressure them into abandoning their purely emotional position; or resorting to even better emotional fallacies. The name of the game is to get emotions on your side.
- kragen 4y ago
  There are cases where it's rational to reject logic entirely, for example, when you lack the necessary background knowledge in a field to apply it reliably. Classical logic fails very badly when one of its premises fails to be completely true, as numerous famous paradoxes illustrate, and we all know some people who have been convinced of false things through logical argument. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn... And, although Bayesian reasoning can deal with degrees of uncertainty other than "impossible" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it can still collapse under an onslaught of evidence chosen to favor one position: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chin... But the problem with taking the debate out of the logical realm and into the emotional realm is that, while you may win the debate, you will only win it if you are better at emotional manipulation than the other side is. In particular you will always lose if the other side is, for example, a Hollywood studio. And this is true whether you are right or wrong. Gandhi's greatest claimed advantage for satyagraha over coercion by armed struggle was not that it was more likely to win; it was that it was incapable of effectively promoting evil goals. Predictably, there's a Slate Star Codex post ascribing the same virtue to rational argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...
paganel 4y ago
At first I thought this was an article about the fallacy of associating many things one (mainly politically) doesn’t like to pop-culture characters/franchises, like Harry Potter or Star Wars (maybe the article also mention that at some point, I wouldn’t know because it’s partly behind a paywall). That Harry Potter/Star Wars fallacy was (and still is, even though it has partially subsided) especially prevalent when discussing the current war in Ukraine.
- joecool1029 4y ago
  I hit the partial paywall too, it seems like it kicks in at random. Here's full article if anyone else hits it: https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf
- Varqu 4y ago
  To the HN mods: Shouldn't there be a policy that articles behind Paywalls are automatically removed from the main page?
SilverBirch 4y ago
> One can label one’s opponent a “racist”, a “bigot” or a “fascist”, and suggest that an audience is safest by ignoring the arguments altogether, for fear of being duped into bigotry itself. I think that this is often making a mistake about what is going on. There is an idealized form of argument that arrives at a conclusion from first principles and which we can then debate, dispute and resolve. But since this article does actually bring in twitter, let's talk about the what is actually going on. There are a series of arguments that are proposed that whilst having atleast a veneer of respectability, aren't held for reasons of principle. There was a term related to this that turned up during the Trump years - Trump would take an outrageous unjustifiable position, and then Intellectual Zambonis would come in and try to smooth it out to be a heroic stand for the principles of the right. I'm not saying Trump is the only example of this, but in the real world, you do actually have to engage with the idea that the only reason someone is taking a position in an argument is not because they believe it, but because it's the most persuasive way of getting what they want. Whether that's originalism at the Supreme Court, or States rights. You do have to ask the question "If I prove this argument to be wrong, will it actually change the outcome that the opponent is advocating, or will they just move to another argument".
- prox 4y ago
  What’s interesting on the “Trump” right is that they won’t admit to being racist, bigot and so on, but that’s it’s all done underhanded. They know they can’t outright call out anything, so it’s all done under the veneer of different arguments that still promote racism, bigotry and fascism. Sometimes it’s being a Christian (say against abortion) or to give off a fascist signal (the jan 6 insurrection) It’s a great intellectual dishonesty. Now many politicians are like that, as they love to cling to power, they make up stuff to keep their constituents happy, but in the case of the Trump right it seems to have evolved in such a manner they can remain judicially scot-free while still going by their plans.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Whether that's originalism at the Supreme Court, or States rights. You do have to ask the question "If I prove this argument to be wrong, will it actually change the outcome that the opponent is advocating, or will they just move to another argument". You make it seem like originalism is not a deeply held and staunchly argued principle, as if judges capriciously move into it and out of it depending on the wind or current political thinking. Is that the impression you got from Scalia[1]? If you did I'd say that's weird, he seemed pretty steadfast on it for a good long time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
eikenberry 4y ago
> The idea behind the so-called Socratic method is that by offering arguments and counter-arguments, we can collectively converge on something like the truth. That is not what the Socratic method is... it is a teaching method. One person teaching another through leading answers to encourage their asking more questions that will teach them something though it will feel to the person like they arrived at the solution themselves (which they did, with help).
- brigandish 4y ago
  > through leading answers to encourage their asking more questions The answerer is the one usually presumed to have a flaw in their argument, hence them being asked questions that slowly illuminate all their reasoning until it is either shown to be sound, or more likely, a flaw to emerge quite obviously. It appears you're saying it's the other way round.
- mypastself 4y ago
  Agreed, but now I’m wondering what exactly the author had in mind instead. Dialectic?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    If I had to guess it would be dialectics. Though the texture dialectics has is substantially different from that of online discussion. Dialectic dialogue tends to have open-minded participants whereas on the internet, well, things tend to be the opposite.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Indeed, that is not the Socratic Method. Even though it's just an introductory aside, seeing such an inaccuracy straight in the second sentence about something which (I thought) is common knowledge put me off from reading the rest of the article.
  - rendall 4y ago
    It's a more accurate description of the Socratic Method than is asking leading questions until the student comes to the correct conclusion. In the Socratic Dialogues, Socrates repeats constantly that he does not know the answer, but that he and his interlocutor are together discovering the truth. That isn't trickery nor sophistry, so to speak. It's really the approach.
braingenious 4y ago
“The Harry Potter Fallacy “ could also be a descriptor meaning “People will remember or care about your idea if you invoke this particular piece of old pop culture.” I hope they learn about the “I Beg You To Please Read Another Book Corrollary”
- corobo 4y ago
  "Please read another book" is more overused than Harry Potter references these days. Super popular media is referenced because people will probably get the reference. If I start busting out War and Peace plot points I'm going to look like an uppity dickhead and nobody will get what I'm on about. "Read another book" is just another way to shut down a conversation, usually when someone's ran out of real arguments but still wants to feel superior. You either get the reference and we're good to continue talking or you don't, you tell me, I'll state it in a different way. I read 2-6 books a month, I'd reference some of them but the people following the thread probably have not read the book and then how do I get upvotes out of that?
  - braingenious 4y ago
    There are more books than the HP series and War and Peace. I do not have advice about how to optimize your reading for upvotes on HN though aside from maybe books about topics that are regularly discussed here?
    - corobo 4y ago
      Just an example, I think I'd have reached the character limit if I listed every book in existence Upvotes was a bit of a joke. It didn't land well, it is what it is. I was being too silly.
  - dmix 4y ago
    No one is saying we should instead all be walking around referencing literary texts in every day conversations (speaking of straw mans, trying to use an extreme counterexample to dismiss criticism...). It's possible to communicate without relating everything back to pop culture.
vgel 4y ago
> In Straw Man Arguments Aikin and Casey introduce a wealth of concepts for getting to grips with the dark art of the straw man. Indeed, they propose a further notion: a fascinating inversion called the “iron man”, where one responds to a maximally strengthened form of one’s opponent’s argument and explains how even this move – which is sometimes seen as dialectical best practice – can sometimes be fallacious. I wish they expanded on why the "iron man" (which I usually see called the steelman) can be fallacious. The only thing I can imagine is an "armored strawman" where you claim you're steelmanning but your changes to the argument actually make it weaker? Guess I'll have to buy the book...
- dataduck 4y ago
  The most common form I've seen is often not malicious: "thing you actually said is a weak form of this argument, the strongest form is in fact mostly agreeing with me"
- amalcon 4y ago
  The problem is that the strength or weakness of an argument is not objective. Usually steelmanning is fallacious when you don't first seek agreement with the counterparty that the new version of the argument is stronger. This comes up a lot when your counterparty is operating from different premises than you are. E.g. attacking a utilitarian version of your conterparty's argument when the counterparty is not a utilitarian is fallacious, even if the utilitarian version of the argument seems stronger to you. They will see the argument as obviously flawed from the start, because they do not believe the utilitarian premise.
iLoveOncall 4y ago
Just in case someone would want to read only because of Harry Potter: there's literally not a single relationship with Harry Potter in what is discussed here.
- vxNsr 4y ago
  The relationship was calling out fallacies like spells to attack your opponent.
  - vanilla_nut 4y ago
    I should have just read this comment instead of the article!
tpoacher 4y ago
Since people are sharing frustrations around the topic of fallacies, my biggest beef with fallacies is that around every month or so someone comes up with an entirely new name for an already existing fallacy, which then trends on twitter and you now have to add to your list of synonyms. E.g. I'd never heard of the term "Hollow man fallacy" to describe Bulverism before, but I'm like 90% sure it's already the more popular term now.
- samizdis 4y ago
  I'd not heard of the term Bulverism, so thank you. Nice account of its being coined, by C.S. Lewis, too, for anyone else unfamiiar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    I guess the fact that it was C.S. Lewis that coined this is not at all surprising! I imagine arguing about something so obviously wrong with someone so smart would be amazingly frustrating.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I think I'm quite forgiving of those. I think a lot of more modern named fallacies are easily reachable by a teenager who happens to have read epistemology. i.e. someone who has been informed of the "straw man" could reasonably "worsen" the fallacy. They might then name it an "invisible man" or a "hollow man" or whatever simply so that their peer group can discuss the term.
renewiltord 4y ago
There are a few classics of middle-brow discourse: - Fallacy Name Summoning: described in article - Edge-Case Generalization: "Humans have two legs". "You haven't accounted for this man born with one leg". - Single Paper Refutations: Search Google Scholar to find a single paper that does X. Means nothing. Lots of research is non-repeatable. Lots of it is faked. - Single Paper Confirmations: The same as above but weasel-worded into "there is some evidence that" with rest of discussion operating under the frame of last-paper-submitted wins. - Gish Gallops of the former: Single Paper Xs, n times. If you scan the space of papers with appropriate keywords, effectively sampling only the ones that will power your argument Overall, each of these are mostly performed by (mu-eps, mu+sigma) people. You need some intelligence to get here. But it's really tiresome reasoning. For my part, I try to engage at best capacity, but sometimes I get really frustrated. It's a variant of the Blub Paradox. All the people below me on the Epistemology ladder are morons incapable of understanding things. All the people above me have failed to account for some nuance. In any case, I now have certain heuristics. To be honest, it's quite nice to have these because, while these mid-brow participants are frustrating, they also lead to me taking a break from this website.
shantnutiwari 4y ago
The book looks good, but they are charging $82.80 for the ebook(on Amazon[0] and on publisher Bloomsbury)-- I have to ask, are they serious? Is the book really worth that much? Most non-fiction books sell around 15-20$ (or cheaper), why the high price? Either the publisher wants to gouge students who will be forced to buy it, or they want to force the book to flop by artificially setting a very high price 0. https://www.amazon.com/Straw-Man-Arguments-Fallacy-Theory-ebook-dp-B09MLPN5T2/dp/B09MLPN5T2/ https://www.amazon.com/Straw-Man-Arguments-Fallacy-Theory-eb...
- wrp 4y ago
  For many years, academic publishers have followed the model of high prices and small print runs. I think they just assume that only university libraries will actually buy a copy.
- bananamerica 4y ago
  So I oppened this in the Amazon Brazil. The Kindle book is R$569,00. That is more than a brand new Kindle Paperwhite, and more than twice the Brazilian minimum wage. I won't provide the link, but it took me 5 seconds to find this for free :P
  - bananamerica 4y ago
    I meant to say: it is more than half the Brazilian minimum wage.
throw_m239339 4y ago
There is already a name for that, it's called fallacy fallacy. Calling it "the harry potter fallacy" is unnecessary and click baity.
- wrp 4y ago
  In the text, they distinguish the Harry Potter fallacy from the fallacy fallacy and a few others.
dandare 4y ago
I for one disagree with the article. Naming fallacies is shortcuts, useful in keeping the discussion focused on topic. If we had to explain why attacking the proponent instead of the argument is not disproving the argument every time someone uses ad-hominem any discussion would have to be so much longer. In my experience, it is mostly the people who fall for logical fallacies that complain when the opponent is calling them out.
- naasking 4y ago
  Naming the fallacy shouldn't be the end of your response though, because you both still disagree. Clearly your interlocutor is trying to point something out, perhaps an observation for which he has only a fallacious explanation, and merely pointing out the fallacy does not dismiss their position or suffice as a response. That's the article's point that calling out fallacies is not substantive discussion.
  - elmer007 4y ago
    Related to the previous post and to this one (and agreeing with parts of both), I think it's worth mentioning an important aspect a little more explicitly: the conclusion of an argument that contains a fallacy is not necessarily false. The conclusion isn't proven true, but the fallacious reasoning doesn't render it false either. Naming the fallacy can help refute, but it's likely that one needs to go further with their explanation of a differing conclusion (or a more sound reasoning of why the other's conclusion is, in fact, false).
    - dandare 4y ago
      You just described the fallacy fallacy :)
california2077 4y ago
> If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely, leaving the impression that it has been won. If you aim is to discover "the truth", maybe you shoud stay out of debates altogether and not lecture others on what to say. If you train a bunch of kids to go into brain shutdown mode when they hear some latin keywords, why exactly shouldn't I exploit that? I will exploit that, because others will exploit it for sure. You can whine about it all you want, but if my strategy works I will win the debates and contol opinions, while you will fuss over correcness in complete irrelevance.
jkingsbery 4y ago
Whether or not individuals are excessive, I'd rather live in a world in which people are more aware of when they've made a logical fallacy and work to argue for their point better, rather than the situation now in which people who are basically paid to think and write for a living routinely make rhetorical and logical errors in their reasoning.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
1MachineElf 4y ago
I was expecting this article to cover how in political debate the argument is sometimes framed in terms of Harry Potter characters.
r3trohack3r 4y ago
At the risk of proving the author's point, they reference another fallacy: equating winning an argument with being right. Watching the format of many cable news programs in the 2000s+, they seemed to have fallen deep into this fallacy (perhaps intentionally?) I've noticed that the format of these news programs (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et. al.) is to line up a set of guests for a debate. It doesn't seem to be for hashing out ideas in front of an audience, but instead it seems to be debate training for the audience. The "correct" view (the one most in-line with the host's views) almost always leads, followed by a rapid fire of dissenting opinions and rebuttals. They're introducing the audience to a new idea, showing the common objections you'll encounter when you share it, and showing you how to defeat those arguments. This seems to be in an effort to prime you for going out into your social circles and sharing their ideas. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it sure is a good way to increase the reach/influence of their news program by sending their viewers out into the world to spread the good news. Anecdotally, at the beginning of COVID (right after I made the call to self-isolate) I stopped consuming all news and focused on work. I noticed that subsets of my social circles (many of whom were completely isolated from one another - no interaction) were all using almost _identical_ talking points. They'd spontaneously throw them out into a conversation with no prompt. Week over week, the talking points would change but these subsets of my social circles would stay consistent - the same people saying the same things. Once they brought up a talking point, you could nearly chart the conversation as a decision tree and I could fairly well predict what someone was going to say ahead of time based on previous conversations! Turns out - what these subsets had in common was the news network they preferred. They had watched someone ramble off a talking point on the news, memorized how the debate evolved, and were trying out the debates themselves in the real world. I think the world was on fire and it was really important to them that they _figure it out_. What should be done, what should they do, what is safe and what is not. Intentionally or not, the debate format of these news networks was being used by the folks in my social circles to get to "truth" by winning arguments. The only problem? Winning an argument doesn't mean you are right! It just means you're better at arguing.
SeanLuke 4y ago
Ugh. Without Javascript, this is a blank page. Yet there's no apparent need for JS on the entire site.
Geonode 4y ago
Any cookie notification that has an accept button should also have a reject button.

169 points by rzk 4y ago

test1235 4y ago

https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf

yamrzou 4y ago

https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf

PotatoPancakes 4y ago

> The “discursive hygiene” picture of fallacy theory sees fallacies as mistakes that a good arguer will avoid. Indeed, armed with a new toolbox of Latin names for fallacies, eager students all too often delight in spotting fallacies in the wild, shouting out their Latin names (ad hominem!; secundum quid!) as if they were magic spells. This is what Scott Aikin and John Casey, in their delightful book Straw Man Arguments, call the Harry Potter fallacy: the “troublesome practice of invoking fallacy names in place of substantive discussion”. However, they note another, less wholesome reason why some may be interested in fallacy theory. If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely, leaving the impression that it has been won. TL;DR: the Harry Potter fallacy is thinking that shouting out a named fallacy (e.g. "That's an ad hominem!") makes you instantly win a debate, as though you were casting a magic spell.

havan_agrawal 4y ago

> armed with a new toolbox of Latin names for fallacies, eager students all too often delight in spotting fallacies in the wild, shouting out their Latin names (ad hominem!; secundum quid!) as if they were magic spells. This is what Scott Aikin and John Casey, in their delightful book Straw Man Arguments, call the Harry Potter fallacy: the “troublesome practice of invoking fallacy names in place of substantive discussion”.

867-5309 4y ago
indeed the reference is weak
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  Yeah it's much better to call this the "fallacy fallacy"
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I've long wondered about doing online debates (which usually end up in shit throwing) where an independent moderator or bot detects and mentions fallacies. But I think in practice it would mean no arguments would hold weight anymore. Anyway, the main problem I think is not logical fallacies, but people not debating in good faith, and / or having a fixed opinion already. I did read about a trick, starting a debate by asking "What will it take to convince you?"; depending on the answer, you won't even have to bother. I mean there's no debating with the anti-science movement(s) because they put facts into question, for example. I mean being skeptic is not a bad thing, but what will it take to get past the skepticism? Or to put yourself in their shoes, what will it take to convince you that, for example, the earth is flat? (I mean it's OBVIOUSLY more like a dinosaur, but let's not go into that).
- ess3 4y ago
  Isn’t a debate by definition two sides trying to convince a 3rd party which side is correct. The sides involved in the debate will never back down. A discussion on the other hand is when both sides just try to reach the “best” conclusion. Unfortunately all too many things are debates and not discussions…
- cwkoss 4y ago
  A bot that detects logical fallacies would be amazing for journaling. Would be really interesting to stream of consciousness into a text document and have the computer put red underlines under questionable premises or conclusions.

eveningsteps 4y ago

Also known as a fallacy fallacy. Related: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

throwaway892238 4y ago
If a fallacy is wrong, wouldn't a fallacy fallacy be right
- blowski 4y ago
  Something is probably whooshing over my head here. The fallacy fallacy is when you argue a conclusion must be false because of a fallacy in how it was reached.
- lovemenot 4y ago
  Not at all. You are commiting the fallacy fallacy fallacy: incorrect reasoning about fallacies above first order.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- thfuran 4y ago
  If a blind person told you that they believed that the sky is blue because someone told them it is, would you respond that that's argumentum ad verecundiam and therefore the sky is not blue?
__s 4y ago
Or, to be ironic with this post's name, argumentum ad logicam Or, as most people would understand it, that you can be right for the wrong reasons
wrp 4y ago
No. They distinguish the Harry Potter fallacy from the fallacy fallacy. Students, once they learn the fallacies, just love to spot them and charge others with committing them, and so expect that dropping some Latin name for an opponent’s argumentative move will be a kind of magic that fixes the critical discussion (often in their favor). Call it the Harry Potter problem, thinking that learning a little Latin phrase will paralyze an opponent with its expression. So entirely new kinds of wild and woolly behavior are encouraged with this vocabulary. Without fallacy theory teaching the fallacies, there would be no burden of specious allegations of fallacy. Further, new fallacies are made possible--take for example, the fallacy fallacy, inferring that an opponent’s position is false because it is supported by fallacious arguments.

thenoblesunfish 4y ago

An important lesson in second-order ethics. If your opponent is willing to operate outside of the rules of the game (as you see them) aka acts in bad faith, they can achieve their ends by taking advantage of your adherence to the rules. Recognizing when someone is doing this and refusing to play along is a difficult, but sometimes essential, skill. (Though one we all learned to some extent on the playground)

nerdawson 4y ago
Refusing to play along will be seen as a loss, which is precisely the intention.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Depends on the refusal. Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule. There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange. The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those. So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
  - nerdawson 4y ago
    If you're trying to win over an audience based on fact, you've already lost. Emotion wins every single time. This is where you see a lot of really smart people trip up. They think that being right matters. It doesn't. > The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. 100%
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Sure, but most such losses are easily sustained, costing almost nothing. Certainly, some are not. When running for office, it's dangerous. When talking to family, it's dangerous. But I sustain losses with a simple "fair enough" and walk away quite often having lost nothing. To people with slightly more good faith, a quick "I'm not quite convinced, but I can't nail down my disagreement" is sufficient to gracefully take the L. AFAIK I'm quite well-respected in my peer group so it isn't causing me any harm.

bobmichael 4y ago

Reminds me of Daniel Schmachtenberger's excellent article, The Endgames of Bad Faith Communication: https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication/ https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication.... Under his framework, this would be a specific example of bad faith communication, and he agrees that the breakdown in our ability to communicate in good faith is a threat to true democracy.

happyopossum 4y ago

> If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely Good HappyOpossum: “I totally need to make sure I avoid doing that” Real HappyOpossum: “That’s totally how I can win arguments on HN, gotta make sure I study fallacy theory”

unsupp0rted 4y ago
There’s no way to win arguments on social media
- sien 4y ago
  It's like Wargames. The only way to win is not to play. Actually, that said, perhaps some readers who are not in the argument might learn something. Or if you're in it then you do as well.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    > The only way to win is not to play You can also just troll. Generally, you can’t lose from such a position. Arguably though, that would still count as “not playing”.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > Arguably though, that would still count as “not playing” ...or playing, but not playing at the same game. Cue the saying about wrestling with a pig.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I find it's a helpful way to challenge oneself. Get into an argument and very quickly you'll find things you hadn't considered, and a wonderfully easy way to bring one's own tribalism to the surface, where it can be killed more easily.
  - 4y ago

brobdingnagians 4y ago

I agree that pointing out fallacies can get excessive, but is mainly based on the intention for so doing. The difficulty is that there is an entire class of people who don't even care about being logically correct or in finding truth. They desire or "feel" something and will barge their way through to get it, even if it is antithetical to their stated goals and eventually results in their misery. Reasoning with such people is somewhat futile, even pointing out their fallacies in good faith will do nothing. They may even reject logic entirely, as is becoming more common in our society. In that case, pointing out that someone is committing a fallacy can be something of a canary test of their desire to reason. You could offer to help them with their argument, point out ways around the fallacy, engage with them in good faith, but if they are obsessively attached to their fallacy and their flawed position, then there isn't much you can do. There is no mathematical or logical solution to that problem, that is a "people problem". When dealing with such a person or class of people, using humour to make them look foolish can be more effective, since then the main goal should be to reveal to others how childish their position is or pressure them into abandoning their purely emotional position; or resorting to even better emotional fallacies. The name of the game is to get emotions on your side.

kragen 4y ago
There are cases where it's rational to reject logic entirely, for example, when you lack the necessary background knowledge in a field to apply it reliably. Classical logic fails very badly when one of its premises fails to be completely true, as numerous famous paradoxes illustrate, and we all know some people who have been convinced of false things through logical argument. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn... And, although Bayesian reasoning can deal with degrees of uncertainty other than "impossible" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it can still collapse under an onslaught of evidence chosen to favor one position: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chin... But the problem with taking the debate out of the logical realm and into the emotional realm is that, while you may win the debate, you will only win it if you are better at emotional manipulation than the other side is. In particular you will always lose if the other side is, for example, a Hollywood studio. And this is true whether you are right or wrong. Gandhi's greatest claimed advantage for satyagraha over coercion by armed struggle was not that it was more likely to win; it was that it was incapable of effectively promoting evil goals. Predictably, there's a Slate Star Codex post ascribing the same virtue to rational argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...

paganel 4y ago

At first I thought this was an article about the fallacy of associating many things one (mainly politically) doesn’t like to pop-culture characters/franchises, like Harry Potter or Star Wars (maybe the article also mention that at some point, I wouldn’t know because it’s partly behind a paywall). That Harry Potter/Star Wars fallacy was (and still is, even though it has partially subsided) especially prevalent when discussing the current war in Ukraine.

joecool1029 4y ago
I hit the partial paywall too, it seems like it kicks in at random. Here's full article if anyone else hits it: https://archive.ph/6aOXf https://archive.ph/6aOXf
Varqu 4y ago
To the HN mods: Shouldn't there be a policy that articles behind Paywalls are automatically removed from the main page?

SilverBirch 4y ago

> One can label one’s opponent a “racist”, a “bigot” or a “fascist”, and suggest that an audience is safest by ignoring the arguments altogether, for fear of being duped into bigotry itself. I think that this is often making a mistake about what is going on. There is an idealized form of argument that arrives at a conclusion from first principles and which we can then debate, dispute and resolve. But since this article does actually bring in twitter, let's talk about the what is actually going on. There are a series of arguments that are proposed that whilst having atleast a veneer of respectability, aren't held for reasons of principle. There was a term related to this that turned up during the Trump years - Trump would take an outrageous unjustifiable position, and then Intellectual Zambonis would come in and try to smooth it out to be a heroic stand for the principles of the right. I'm not saying Trump is the only example of this, but in the real world, you do actually have to engage with the idea that the only reason someone is taking a position in an argument is not because they believe it, but because it's the most persuasive way of getting what they want. Whether that's originalism at the Supreme Court, or States rights. You do have to ask the question "If I prove this argument to be wrong, will it actually change the outcome that the opponent is advocating, or will they just move to another argument".

prox 4y ago
What’s interesting on the “Trump” right is that they won’t admit to being racist, bigot and so on, but that’s it’s all done underhanded. They know they can’t outright call out anything, so it’s all done under the veneer of different arguments that still promote racism, bigotry and fascism. Sometimes it’s being a Christian (say against abortion) or to give off a fascist signal (the jan 6 insurrection) It’s a great intellectual dishonesty. Now many politicians are like that, as they love to cling to power, they make up stuff to keep their constituents happy, but in the case of the Trump right it seems to have evolved in such a manner they can remain judicially scot-free while still going by their plans.
brigandish 4y ago
> Whether that's originalism at the Supreme Court, or States rights. You do have to ask the question "If I prove this argument to be wrong, will it actually change the outcome that the opponent is advocating, or will they just move to another argument". You make it seem like originalism is not a deeply held and staunchly argued principle, as if judges capriciously move into it and out of it depending on the wind or current political thinking. Is that the impression you got from Scalia[1]? If you did I'd say that's weird, he seemed pretty steadfast on it for a good long time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

eikenberry 4y ago

> The idea behind the so-called Socratic method is that by offering arguments and counter-arguments, we can collectively converge on something like the truth. That is not what the Socratic method is... it is a teaching method. One person teaching another through leading answers to encourage their asking more questions that will teach them something though it will feel to the person like they arrived at the solution themselves (which they did, with help).

brigandish 4y ago
> through leading answers to encourage their asking more questions The answerer is the one usually presumed to have a flaw in their argument, hence them being asked questions that slowly illuminate all their reasoning until it is either shown to be sound, or more likely, a flaw to emerge quite obviously. It appears you're saying it's the other way round.
mypastself 4y ago
Agreed, but now I’m wondering what exactly the author had in mind instead. Dialectic?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  If I had to guess it would be dialectics. Though the texture dialectics has is substantially different from that of online discussion. Dialectic dialogue tends to have open-minded participants whereas on the internet, well, things tend to be the opposite.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Indeed, that is not the Socratic Method. Even though it's just an introductory aside, seeing such an inaccuracy straight in the second sentence about something which (I thought) is common knowledge put me off from reading the rest of the article.
- rendall 4y ago
  It's a more accurate description of the Socratic Method than is asking leading questions until the student comes to the correct conclusion. In the Socratic Dialogues, Socrates repeats constantly that he does not know the answer, but that he and his interlocutor are together discovering the truth. That isn't trickery nor sophistry, so to speak. It's really the approach.

braingenious 4y ago

“The Harry Potter Fallacy “ could also be a descriptor meaning “People will remember or care about your idea if you invoke this particular piece of old pop culture.” I hope they learn about the “I Beg You To Please Read Another Book Corrollary”

corobo 4y ago
"Please read another book" is more overused than Harry Potter references these days. Super popular media is referenced because people will probably get the reference. If I start busting out War and Peace plot points I'm going to look like an uppity dickhead and nobody will get what I'm on about. "Read another book" is just another way to shut down a conversation, usually when someone's ran out of real arguments but still wants to feel superior. You either get the reference and we're good to continue talking or you don't, you tell me, I'll state it in a different way. I read 2-6 books a month, I'd reference some of them but the people following the thread probably have not read the book and then how do I get upvotes out of that?
- braingenious 4y ago
  There are more books than the HP series and War and Peace. I do not have advice about how to optimize your reading for upvotes on HN though aside from maybe books about topics that are regularly discussed here?
  - corobo 4y ago
    Just an example, I think I'd have reached the character limit if I listed every book in existence Upvotes was a bit of a joke. It didn't land well, it is what it is. I was being too silly.
- dmix 4y ago
  No one is saying we should instead all be walking around referencing literary texts in every day conversations (speaking of straw mans, trying to use an extreme counterexample to dismiss criticism...). It's possible to communicate without relating everything back to pop culture.

vgel 4y ago

> In Straw Man Arguments Aikin and Casey introduce a wealth of concepts for getting to grips with the dark art of the straw man. Indeed, they propose a further notion: a fascinating inversion called the “iron man”, where one responds to a maximally strengthened form of one’s opponent’s argument and explains how even this move – which is sometimes seen as dialectical best practice – can sometimes be fallacious. I wish they expanded on why the "iron man" (which I usually see called the steelman) can be fallacious. The only thing I can imagine is an "armored strawman" where you claim you're steelmanning but your changes to the argument actually make it weaker? Guess I'll have to buy the book...

dataduck 4y ago
The most common form I've seen is often not malicious: "thing you actually said is a weak form of this argument, the strongest form is in fact mostly agreeing with me"
amalcon 4y ago
The problem is that the strength or weakness of an argument is not objective. Usually steelmanning is fallacious when you don't first seek agreement with the counterparty that the new version of the argument is stronger. This comes up a lot when your counterparty is operating from different premises than you are. E.g. attacking a utilitarian version of your conterparty's argument when the counterparty is not a utilitarian is fallacious, even if the utilitarian version of the argument seems stronger to you. They will see the argument as obviously flawed from the start, because they do not believe the utilitarian premise.

iLoveOncall 4y ago

Just in case someone would want to read only because of Harry Potter: there's literally not a single relationship with Harry Potter in what is discussed here.

vxNsr 4y ago
The relationship was calling out fallacies like spells to attack your opponent.
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  I should have just read this comment instead of the article!

tpoacher 4y ago

Since people are sharing frustrations around the topic of fallacies, my biggest beef with fallacies is that around every month or so someone comes up with an entirely new name for an already existing fallacy, which then trends on twitter and you now have to add to your list of synonyms. E.g. I'd never heard of the term "Hollow man fallacy" to describe Bulverism before, but I'm like 90% sure it's already the more popular term now.

samizdis 4y ago
I'd not heard of the term Bulverism, so thank you. Nice account of its being coined, by C.S. Lewis, too, for anyone else unfamiiar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
- IshKebab 4y ago
  I guess the fact that it was C.S. Lewis that coined this is not at all surprising! I imagine arguing about something so obviously wrong with someone so smart would be amazingly frustrating.
renewiltord 4y ago
I think I'm quite forgiving of those. I think a lot of more modern named fallacies are easily reachable by a teenager who happens to have read epistemology. i.e. someone who has been informed of the "straw man" could reasonably "worsen" the fallacy. They might then name it an "invisible man" or a "hollow man" or whatever simply so that their peer group can discuss the term.

renewiltord 4y ago

There are a few classics of middle-brow discourse: - Fallacy Name Summoning: described in article - Edge-Case Generalization: "Humans have two legs". "You haven't accounted for this man born with one leg". - Single Paper Refutations: Search Google Scholar to find a single paper that does X. Means nothing. Lots of research is non-repeatable. Lots of it is faked. - Single Paper Confirmations: The same as above but weasel-worded into "there is some evidence that" with rest of discussion operating under the frame of last-paper-submitted wins. - Gish Gallops of the former: Single Paper Xs, n times. If you scan the space of papers with appropriate keywords, effectively sampling only the ones that will power your argument Overall, each of these are mostly performed by (mu-eps, mu+sigma) people. You need some intelligence to get here. But it's really tiresome reasoning. For my part, I try to engage at best capacity, but sometimes I get really frustrated. It's a variant of the Blub Paradox. All the people below me on the Epistemology ladder are morons incapable of understanding things. All the people above me have failed to account for some nuance. In any case, I now have certain heuristics. To be honest, it's quite nice to have these because, while these mid-brow participants are frustrating, they also lead to me taking a break from this website.

shantnutiwari 4y ago

The book looks good, but they are charging $82.80 for the ebook(on Amazon[0] and on publisher Bloomsbury)-- I have to ask, are they serious? Is the book really worth that much? Most non-fiction books sell around 15-20$ (or cheaper), why the high price? Either the publisher wants to gouge students who will be forced to buy it, or they want to force the book to flop by artificially setting a very high price 0. https://www.amazon.com/Straw-Man-Arguments-Fallacy-Theory-ebook-dp-B09MLPN5T2/dp/B09MLPN5T2/ https://www.amazon.com/Straw-Man-Arguments-Fallacy-Theory-eb...

wrp 4y ago
For many years, academic publishers have followed the model of high prices and small print runs. I think they just assume that only university libraries will actually buy a copy.
bananamerica 4y ago
So I oppened this in the Amazon Brazil. The Kindle book is R$569,00. That is more than a brand new Kindle Paperwhite, and more than twice the Brazilian minimum wage. I won't provide the link, but it took me 5 seconds to find this for free :P
- bananamerica 4y ago
  I meant to say: it is more than half the Brazilian minimum wage.

throw_m239339 4y ago

There is already a name for that, it's called fallacy fallacy. Calling it "the harry potter fallacy" is unnecessary and click baity.

wrp 4y ago
In the text, they distinguish the Harry Potter fallacy from the fallacy fallacy and a few others.

dandare 4y ago

I for one disagree with the article. Naming fallacies is shortcuts, useful in keeping the discussion focused on topic. If we had to explain why attacking the proponent instead of the argument is not disproving the argument every time someone uses ad-hominem any discussion would have to be so much longer. In my experience, it is mostly the people who fall for logical fallacies that complain when the opponent is calling them out.

naasking 4y ago
Naming the fallacy shouldn't be the end of your response though, because you both still disagree. Clearly your interlocutor is trying to point something out, perhaps an observation for which he has only a fallacious explanation, and merely pointing out the fallacy does not dismiss their position or suffice as a response. That's the article's point that calling out fallacies is not substantive discussion.
- elmer007 4y ago
  Related to the previous post and to this one (and agreeing with parts of both), I think it's worth mentioning an important aspect a little more explicitly: the conclusion of an argument that contains a fallacy is not necessarily false. The conclusion isn't proven true, but the fallacious reasoning doesn't render it false either. Naming the fallacy can help refute, but it's likely that one needs to go further with their explanation of a differing conclusion (or a more sound reasoning of why the other's conclusion is, in fact, false).
  - dandare 4y ago
    You just described the fallacy fallacy :)

california2077 4y ago

> If one’s aim is not so much discovering the truth as winning an argument at all costs, fallacy theory can provide a training in the dark arts of closing down a discussion prematurely, leaving the impression that it has been won. If you aim is to discover "the truth", maybe you shoud stay out of debates altogether and not lecture others on what to say. If you train a bunch of kids to go into brain shutdown mode when they hear some latin keywords, why exactly shouldn't I exploit that? I will exploit that, because others will exploit it for sure. You can whine about it all you want, but if my strategy works I will win the debates and contol opinions, while you will fuss over correcness in complete irrelevance.

jkingsbery 4y ago

Whether or not individuals are excessive, I'd rather live in a world in which people are more aware of when they've made a logical fallacy and work to argue for their point better, rather than the situation now in which people who are basically paid to think and write for a living routinely make rhetorical and logical errors in their reasoning.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

1MachineElf 4y ago

I was expecting this article to cover how in political debate the argument is sometimes framed in terms of Harry Potter characters.

r3trohack3r 4y ago

At the risk of proving the author's point, they reference another fallacy: equating winning an argument with being right. Watching the format of many cable news programs in the 2000s+, they seemed to have fallen deep into this fallacy (perhaps intentionally?) I've noticed that the format of these news programs (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et. al.) is to line up a set of guests for a debate. It doesn't seem to be for hashing out ideas in front of an audience, but instead it seems to be debate training for the audience. The "correct" view (the one most in-line with the host's views) almost always leads, followed by a rapid fire of dissenting opinions and rebuttals. They're introducing the audience to a new idea, showing the common objections you'll encounter when you share it, and showing you how to defeat those arguments. This seems to be in an effort to prime you for going out into your social circles and sharing their ideas. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it sure is a good way to increase the reach/influence of their news program by sending their viewers out into the world to spread the good news. Anecdotally, at the beginning of COVID (right after I made the call to self-isolate) I stopped consuming all news and focused on work. I noticed that subsets of my social circles (many of whom were completely isolated from one another - no interaction) were all using almost _identical_ talking points. They'd spontaneously throw them out into a conversation with no prompt. Week over week, the talking points would change but these subsets of my social circles would stay consistent - the same people saying the same things. Once they brought up a talking point, you could nearly chart the conversation as a decision tree and I could fairly well predict what someone was going to say ahead of time based on previous conversations! Turns out - what these subsets had in common was the news network they preferred. They had watched someone ramble off a talking point on the news, memorized how the debate evolved, and were trying out the debates themselves in the real world. I think the world was on fire and it was really important to them that they _figure it out_. What should be done, what should they do, what is safe and what is not. Intentionally or not, the debate format of these news networks was being used by the folks in my social circles to get to "truth" by winning arguments. The only problem? Winning an argument doesn't mean you are right! It just means you're better at arguing.

SeanLuke 4y ago

Ugh. Without Javascript, this is a blank page. Yet there's no apparent need for JS on the entire site.

Geonode 4y ago

Any cookie notification that has an accept button should also have a reject button.