5 ms·

A truth stated passionately doesn’t become false. A falsehood stated calmly doesn’t become true. This is at the heart of why emotion is always a logical fallacy

A truth stated passionately doesn’t become false. A falsehood stated calmly doesn’t become true. This is at the heart of why emotion is always a logical fallacy. Everyone would be better served by using and hearing it less. Focus on the actual argument.

zamalek 4y ago
I am neurodivergent, so I may be missing something here. The argument seems pretty passionless. Excluding the assumption that C is unsafe, it contains purely facts. Your reply doesn't point out the passionate component of it either, and doesn't answer my question.
- ulfbert_inc 4y ago
  Analogy is not an argument.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    That still doesn't point out the emotion in the comment. Your reply here would work as a reply to the root comment, but doesn't address what I am asking at all. Where is the passion?
    - ulfbert_inc 4y ago
      Fine, but that leaves us with passionless non-argument. How is it helpful?
    - Jtsummers 4y ago
      Asbestos is an emotionally charged topic for many people, especially the many who have (primarily) older relatives who have died or are dying from cancers caused by it. The analogy is resting primarily on the appeal to that kind of emotion without actually establishing a strong logical similarity between C and asbestos.
      - zamalek 4y ago
        That makes sense, thank you.
      - macintux 4y ago
        > Asbestos is an emotionally charged topic for many people, especially the many who have (primarily) older relatives who have died or are dying from cancers caused by it. I’ve not personally been impacted by this, but this seems reasonable. > The analogy is resting primarily on the appeal to that kind of emotion This seems like projection. It struck me as a perfectly legitimate analogy without any emotional correlation.
        Jtsummers 4y ago
        I don't know, C isn't out there causing cancer and killing people left and right. It's hyperbolic to draw that comparison. Critical systems (especially post Therac-25) that are using C are already using a subset of C, static analysis tools, and comprehensive testing that raise the quality level of actual life-and-health-impacting C programs. EDIT: Because someone will probably make a note of it: Therac-25 wasn't written in C, but the flaws in that system and others helped lead to a massive change in the way critical systems are developed and treated. I referenced it because it's one of the most notable failures in safety-critical software systems.
        macintux 4y ago
        It’s fine to argue that the analogy is flawed (all of them are) or that it’s irrelevant, or simply wrong. What this entire thread is about, however, is this highly charged response to what seemed like a straightforward analogy. > Frankly getting your knickers in a knot is emotional - the people using C are doing so for pragmatic reasons, not emotion. > I do see comments like yours a lot - there's an emotional attachment and/or ego attached to the comment, so the argument against is very vociferous and, honestly, ugly[1].
        zamalek 4y ago
  - nvrspyx 4y ago
    Sure it is, depending on the analogy and the purpose of the analogy. An analogy also isn't always fallacious. It needs to have a faulty extrapolated assumption from the comparison. In this particular case, the argument is that C should be replaced with something safer for similar reasons that asbestos is replaced with something safer. However, one can certainly challenge the validity of this comparison and whether there's something faulty in it. I don't feel one way or the other because I don't work with C or other low-level languages, but it's a bit absurd to say that an analogy isn't an argument. It absolutely can be if the argument within is clear, even if fallacious.
    - ulfbert_inc 4y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. I meant valid, non-fallacious argument. More often than not I see analogies (ab)used as a tool to construct a straw man. This particular case demonstrates how analogy takes discussion away from merits and downsides of C to an emotionally charged subject of cancerogenic substances, as other commenters highlighted in this thread.
      - nvrspyx 4y ago
        Personally, I don't think it's the commenter's fault that some others have such strong emotions to the analogy that they're distracted from the point. There's no indication that the commenter was appealing to emotion and, as others have also pointed out, making a comparison to an "emotionally charged" subject does not nullify the validity of the comparison. In fact, it's fallacious to falsely invalidate the argument based on some cherry-picked, subjective, peripheral perspective like that. In my opinion, the appeal to emotion and the derailment of the discussion is from those doing so, not the original commenter. It seemed like just a simple, general, easily-mappable analogy that most people would get, even non-programmer laymen, that emphasizes that unsafe should be replaced with safe. Any analogy of something unsafe can be seen as "emotionally charged" if someone was personally impacted by it.
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    Unsafe C is a fact, there’s no need for an argument in their comment.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Analogy is not an argument. Just for sake of clarity, formal analogy is a valid, non-fallacious argument because it's based on parity of reasoning. The original comment made a pretty good, arguably formal analogy between asbestos and C. The only way to dismiss the conclusion is if there were no alternative to asbestos, then you're kinda forced to use asbestos. This is the case for C in some contexts, like some microcontrollers that only come with C compilers. It's not generally true that we need C for much else though.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      There is seldom a microcontroller that also doesn't have a Basic or Pascal compiler from https://www.mikroe.com https://www.mikroe.com, but naturally that is an additional cost that many would rather not care about.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > Analogy is not an argument. "An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists." [1] [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I am neurodivergent, so I may be missing something here. Yes, you're missing the logic. > Excluding the assumption that C is unsafe, it contains purely facts. You think C is carcinogenic and mere exposure to it kills? From a "purely facts" PoV, leaving all emotion aside, C runs, and has done so for a number of decades, life-critical systems, including munitions, weapons, life-support, industrial machinery and aviation. It's only because you are married to your argument that you think comparing C to a fatal poison is "pure facts".
  - lukeck 4y ago
    I interpreted the original comment as saying that C is detrimental to the long term health of a piece of software in a similar way to how asbestos is detrimental to the long term health of humans. I don’t think there was any suggestion made that C is detrimental to human health.

zamalek 4y ago

I am neurodivergent, so I may be missing something here. The argument seems pretty passionless. Excluding the assumption that C is unsafe, it contains purely facts. Your reply doesn't point out the passionate component of it either, and doesn't answer my question.

ulfbert_inc 4y ago
Analogy is not an argument.
- zamalek 4y ago
  That still doesn't point out the emotion in the comment. Your reply here would work as a reply to the root comment, but doesn't address what I am asking at all. Where is the passion?
  - ulfbert_inc 4y ago
    Fine, but that leaves us with passionless non-argument. How is it helpful?
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    Asbestos is an emotionally charged topic for many people, especially the many who have (primarily) older relatives who have died or are dying from cancers caused by it. The analogy is resting primarily on the appeal to that kind of emotion without actually establishing a strong logical similarity between C and asbestos.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      That makes sense, thank you.
    - macintux 4y ago
      > Asbestos is an emotionally charged topic for many people, especially the many who have (primarily) older relatives who have died or are dying from cancers caused by it. I’ve not personally been impacted by this, but this seems reasonable. > The analogy is resting primarily on the appeal to that kind of emotion This seems like projection. It struck me as a perfectly legitimate analogy without any emotional correlation.
      - Jtsummers 4y ago
        I don't know, C isn't out there causing cancer and killing people left and right. It's hyperbolic to draw that comparison. Critical systems (especially post Therac-25) that are using C are already using a subset of C, static analysis tools, and comprehensive testing that raise the quality level of actual life-and-health-impacting C programs. EDIT: Because someone will probably make a note of it: Therac-25 wasn't written in C, but the flaws in that system and others helped lead to a massive change in the way critical systems are developed and treated. I referenced it because it's one of the most notable failures in safety-critical software systems.
        macintux 4y ago
        It’s fine to argue that the analogy is flawed (all of them are) or that it’s irrelevant, or simply wrong. What this entire thread is about, however, is this highly charged response to what seemed like a straightforward analogy. > Frankly getting your knickers in a knot is emotional - the people using C are doing so for pragmatic reasons, not emotion. > I do see comments like yours a lot - there's an emotional attachment and/or ego attached to the comment, so the argument against is very vociferous and, honestly, ugly[1].
        zamalek 4y ago
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  Sure it is, depending on the analogy and the purpose of the analogy. An analogy also isn't always fallacious. It needs to have a faulty extrapolated assumption from the comparison. In this particular case, the argument is that C should be replaced with something safer for similar reasons that asbestos is replaced with something safer. However, one can certainly challenge the validity of this comparison and whether there's something faulty in it. I don't feel one way or the other because I don't work with C or other low-level languages, but it's a bit absurd to say that an analogy isn't an argument. It absolutely can be if the argument within is clear, even if fallacious.
  - ulfbert_inc 4y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I meant valid, non-fallacious argument. More often than not I see analogies (ab)used as a tool to construct a straw man. This particular case demonstrates how analogy takes discussion away from merits and downsides of C to an emotionally charged subject of cancerogenic substances, as other commenters highlighted in this thread.
    - nvrspyx 4y ago
      Personally, I don't think it's the commenter's fault that some others have such strong emotions to the analogy that they're distracted from the point. There's no indication that the commenter was appealing to emotion and, as others have also pointed out, making a comparison to an "emotionally charged" subject does not nullify the validity of the comparison. In fact, it's fallacious to falsely invalidate the argument based on some cherry-picked, subjective, peripheral perspective like that. In my opinion, the appeal to emotion and the derailment of the discussion is from those doing so, not the original commenter. It seemed like just a simple, general, easily-mappable analogy that most people would get, even non-programmer laymen, that emphasizes that unsafe should be replaced with safe. Any analogy of something unsafe can be seen as "emotionally charged" if someone was personally impacted by it.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  Unsafe C is a fact, there’s no need for an argument in their comment.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Analogy is not an argument. Just for sake of clarity, formal analogy is a valid, non-fallacious argument because it's based on parity of reasoning. The original comment made a pretty good, arguably formal analogy between asbestos and C. The only way to dismiss the conclusion is if there were no alternative to asbestos, then you're kinda forced to use asbestos. This is the case for C in some contexts, like some microcontrollers that only come with C compilers. It's not generally true that we need C for much else though.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    There is seldom a microcontroller that also doesn't have a Basic or Pascal compiler from https://www.mikroe.com https://www.mikroe.com, but naturally that is an additional cost that many would rather not care about.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > Analogy is not an argument. "An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists." [1] [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
lelanthran 4y ago
> I am neurodivergent, so I may be missing something here. Yes, you're missing the logic. > Excluding the assumption that C is unsafe, it contains purely facts. You think C is carcinogenic and mere exposure to it kills? From a "purely facts" PoV, leaving all emotion aside, C runs, and has done so for a number of decades, life-critical systems, including munitions, weapons, life-support, industrial machinery and aviation. It's only because you are married to your argument that you think comparing C to a fatal poison is "pure facts".
- lukeck 4y ago
  I interpreted the original comment as saying that C is detrimental to the long term health of a piece of software in a similar way to how asbestos is detrimental to the long term health of humans. I don’t think there was any suggestion made that C is detrimental to human health.