5 ms·

For me, fallacies are a great tool for recognizing bad reasoning, which then provides pointers about how to expose it as such using a real argument. The fallacy

For me, fallacies are a great tool for recognizing bad reasoning, which then provides pointers about how to expose it as such using a real argument. The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. In a good debate, the fallacies themselves never come up but you can see how they have influenced the flow of argument. I really liked how it was put in the book Logical Self-Defense: To be valid, an argument has to be relevant, sufficient, and acceptable. All of the fallacies (that I know of) fail on at least one of those properties. Recognizing the fallacy tells you how to go about attacking or shoring-up the argument (depending on which side of it you're on).

Alex3917 13y ago
"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument." Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no rational reason to believe x. E.g. even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim that it's impossible that there is a god.
- wtallis 13y ago
  Perhaps its clearer to say that pointing out a fallacy is an argument against their argument, but not an argument against their claim. When you dismantle an argument as fallacious, you're just leveling the playing field; you can't actually refute a claim that way.
- bengillies 13y ago
  > Why not? Because, while it's a perfectly valid argument to make, technically winning an argument is different to actually winning an argument. If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well. The sad fact is that people listen to emotions because they can relate to them and, however invalid such an argument is, it's often the argument that wins.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well. That's important, if your concern is convincing general-audience third parties. In a forum like Hacker News (and, in fact, most internet fora I participate in), I'm usually more interested in connecting to a fairly educated audience and, more than convincing third parties that I am right, eliciting the best possible arguments for a position I don't already agree with, as, even if it doesn't change my mind to the opposing position, that's the best way to grow my understanding of the subject area. As a result, I'm a lot less concerned about what might win accolades of "most people", and a lot more concerned with what will get someone who is interested in and capable of putting forth a strong argument to do so.
    - aethertap 13y ago
      Another simple reason I prefer not to name fallacies is that it leaves an unsupported assertion out there (namely, that whatever it was is in fact a fallacy). I usually engage in a debate mostly for my own benefit, to improve my thinking on something. I find that chasing down and understanding exactly why something does or does not qualify as an instance of a given fallacy is beneficial for that end, and it keeps me from making hasty judgments about what really is a fallacy in a given context.
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    I guess we would really have to drill down to what you consider "winning an argument". I am not sure you and I would agree on what that means. Is winning an argument convincing the person you are arguing with that you are right? Is winning an argument convincing a 3rd party that you are right? Is winning an argument whoever makes the greater number of valid points (debate style)? ... what does it really mean to win an argument to you?
    - sageikosa 13y ago
- yk 13y ago
  Because failure to present a proof does not constitute contradiction. This is the so called fallacy fallacy, as I learned earlier today, on reddit of all places. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. It isn't a reason to believe that the position argued for is false, but it is a reason for rejecting the offered argument as a basis for believing that the positioned argued for is true. I've heard "counter-argument" used both to mean "argument for rejecting the offered argument" (which this satisfies) and "argument for the negation of the position the offered argument supports" (which this does not satisfy.)
SilasX 13y ago
Actually, in a good debate, the fallacies are taken as (Bayesian) evidence, even if obviously imperfect. Appeal to authority/experts: The fact that experts believe something is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Appeal to tradition: The fact that things have historically been done a certain way, in a highly immodular system with complex dependencies, without catastrophic failure is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Appeal/reduction to absurdity: Absurd ideas are usually false, even if the presumption can be overridden. Genetic fallacy: Actually, the reason a conclusion was reached is exactly how you should judge it. (The true fallacy is thinking that you can pick an arbitrary reason a conclusion was reached -- e.g. snake dreams and Benzene -- rather than the best reason -- the later empirical confirmation of the model's predictive power.) And so on. Generally, the "Fallacy fallacy" is to jump from "Hey, this piece of evidence isn't perfect (i.e. an infinite likelihood ratio, which is impossible anyway)" to "So I can ignore it."
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Actually, in a good debate, the fallacies are taken as (Bayesian) evidence, even if obviously imperfect. I don't believe there is any reasonable definition of "good" where this is true. I think this characterization must rest on a misunderstanding of what the fallacies actually are. > Appeal to authority/experts: The fact that experts believe something is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Yes, but where that's true its not the fallacy of appeal to authority; the fallacy of appeal to authority is making an appeal to an authority where: 1. The cited authority is not actually an authority in the appropriate domain, or 2. The cited position is not the consensus of experts in the appropriate domain, or 3. In the context of deductive, rather than inductive, argument. (Similar problems exist with your other arguments about fallacies as evidence). Finally, your description of the "fallacy fallacy" is incorrect; it is not the (non-)fallacy of rejecting an argument because it is fallacious, it is the formal fallacy of affirming the negation of a claim because an argument containing a fallacy is offered in support of the claim.
  - SilasX 13y ago
    >In the context of deductive, rather than inductive, argument. The very context that you should never use, in other words, which was exactly my point! If you're going to require all evidence deductively imply a conclusion (i.e. have an infinite likelihood ratio), then you're excluding all real-world evidence, and making the very fallacy I described (which I didn't realize was claimed for something else). So it seems you essentially agree with using the "appeal to authority" fallacy in exactly the way I warned against. And that you generally endorse (the genuine fallacy of) rejecting evidence simply because it doesn't guarantee a conclusion. Whatever it is, that's not good debate, I'm afraid.

Alex3917 13y ago

"The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument." Why not? It doesn't prove that what the other person believes is false, but it does show that their reasons/evidence for their view are wrong. (Assuming the logical fallacy isn't itself a straw man against some minor point in the other person's argument.) And it's usually it's not necessary (or even possible) to prove that x is false, only that there's no rational reason to believe x. E.g. even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim that it's impossible that there is a god.

wtallis 13y ago
Perhaps its clearer to say that pointing out a fallacy is an argument against their argument, but not an argument against their claim. When you dismantle an argument as fallacious, you're just leveling the playing field; you can't actually refute a claim that way.
bengillies 13y ago
> Why not? Because, while it's a perfectly valid argument to make, technically winning an argument is different to actually winning an argument. If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well. The sad fact is that people listen to emotions because they can relate to them and, however invalid such an argument is, it's often the argument that wins.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > If most people don't know what a logical fallacy is, then you may as well be referring to the argument from magic pixies and fairy dust fallacy: they won't care or understand what you're saying. At worst, they'll assume you have an unwelcome air superiority about you and they'll start to ignore everything else you say as well. That's important, if your concern is convincing general-audience third parties. In a forum like Hacker News (and, in fact, most internet fora I participate in), I'm usually more interested in connecting to a fairly educated audience and, more than convincing third parties that I am right, eliciting the best possible arguments for a position I don't already agree with, as, even if it doesn't change my mind to the opposing position, that's the best way to grow my understanding of the subject area. As a result, I'm a lot less concerned about what might win accolades of "most people", and a lot more concerned with what will get someone who is interested in and capable of putting forth a strong argument to do so.
  - aethertap 13y ago
    Another simple reason I prefer not to name fallacies is that it leaves an unsupported assertion out there (namely, that whatever it was is in fact a fallacy). I usually engage in a debate mostly for my own benefit, to improve my thinking on something. I find that chasing down and understanding exactly why something does or does not qualify as an instance of a given fallacy is beneficial for that end, and it keeps me from making hasty judgments about what really is a fallacy in a given context.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  I guess we would really have to drill down to what you consider "winning an argument". I am not sure you and I would agree on what that means. Is winning an argument convincing the person you are arguing with that you are right? Is winning an argument convincing a 3rd party that you are right? Is winning an argument whoever makes the greater number of valid points (debate style)? ... what does it really mean to win an argument to you?
  - sageikosa 13y ago
yk 13y ago
Because failure to present a proof does not constitute contradiction. This is the so called fallacy fallacy, as I learned earlier today, on reddit of all places. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The fallacy itself doesn't constitute a counter argument. It isn't a reason to believe that the position argued for is false, but it is a reason for rejecting the offered argument as a basis for believing that the positioned argued for is true. I've heard "counter-argument" used both to mean "argument for rejecting the offered argument" (which this satisfies) and "argument for the negation of the position the offered argument supports" (which this does not satisfy.)

SilasX 13y ago

Actually, in a good debate, the fallacies are taken as (Bayesian) evidence, even if obviously imperfect. Appeal to authority/experts: The fact that experts believe something is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Appeal to tradition: The fact that things have historically been done a certain way, in a highly immodular system with complex dependencies, without catastrophic failure is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Appeal/reduction to absurdity: Absurd ideas are usually false, even if the presumption can be overridden. Genetic fallacy: Actually, the reason a conclusion was reached is exactly how you should judge it. (The true fallacy is thinking that you can pick an arbitrary reason a conclusion was reached -- e.g. snake dreams and Benzene -- rather than the best reason -- the later empirical confirmation of the model's predictive power.) And so on. Generally, the "Fallacy fallacy" is to jump from "Hey, this piece of evidence isn't perfect (i.e. an infinite likelihood ratio, which is impossible anyway)" to "So I can ignore it."

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Actually, in a good debate, the fallacies are taken as (Bayesian) evidence, even if obviously imperfect. I don't believe there is any reasonable definition of "good" where this is true. I think this characterization must rest on a misunderstanding of what the fallacies actually are. > Appeal to authority/experts: The fact that experts believe something is evidence in favor of it (albeit imperfect and overridable). Yes, but where that's true its not the fallacy of appeal to authority; the fallacy of appeal to authority is making an appeal to an authority where: 1. The cited authority is not actually an authority in the appropriate domain, or 2. The cited position is not the consensus of experts in the appropriate domain, or 3. In the context of deductive, rather than inductive, argument. (Similar problems exist with your other arguments about fallacies as evidence). Finally, your description of the "fallacy fallacy" is incorrect; it is not the (non-)fallacy of rejecting an argument because it is fallacious, it is the formal fallacy of affirming the negation of a claim because an argument containing a fallacy is offered in support of the claim.
- SilasX 13y ago
  >In the context of deductive, rather than inductive, argument. The very context that you should never use, in other words, which was exactly my point! If you're going to require all evidence deductively imply a conclusion (i.e. have an infinite likelihood ratio), then you're excluding all real-world evidence, and making the very fallacy I described (which I didn't realize was claimed for something else). So it seems you essentially agree with using the "appeal to authority" fallacy in exactly the way I warned against. And that you generally endorse (the genuine fallacy of) rejecting evidence simply because it doesn't guarantee a conclusion. Whatever it is, that's not good debate, I'm afraid.