5 ms·

Thanks coldtea, I think you're onto something important. I'll try to expand on it, tho it's hard to do this briefly. People reason (and discuss) in several mod

by ds9 13y ago

Thanks coldtea, I think you're onto something important. I'll try to expand on it, tho it's hard to do this briefly. People reason (and discuss) in several modes, which are ordinarily mixed freely. Deductive, a.k.a. logical (in the proper sense) reasoning is one, and the fallacy-or-not analysis is strictly applicable. Another mode is that of empirical science, which is basically inductive. You can't prove logically that, for example, substance X causes condition C, but you can establish a good probability by isolating the case, ruling out other factors, showing that the relation is reliably reproducible, etc.. A third mode is humanistic or intuitive. It is an error to suppose that this is unreliable or categorically invalid. Say you have thefts at a workplace, and question employees, and most answer straightforwardly, but one is evasive, furtive, avoids eye contact, can't explain simple events - despite the inapplicability of the logical or scientific modes, this is a rational basis for directing suspicion. Errors of a meta variety enter when one mode is evaluated by the standards for another. E.g., this writer depicts "slippery slope" as a fallacy of logic by inserting "inevitably" in his interpretation of claims - attributing to the argument-maker the claim that A inevitably leads to B. But in fact "slippery slope" belongs to the third mode, and as such it can be valid - censors do tend to expand their categories, and the actual claim may be, not that the progression is inevitable, but instead that it's unacceptable to go further in that direction - and on this kind of interpretataion there may be no fallacy at all. It's a good list of logic fallacies, but we just have ot make sure we don't try to apply the refutations in the context of other modes of reasoning.

humanrebar 13y ago
> ...but we just have ot make sure we don't try to apply the refutations in the context of other modes of reasoning. Why not? I'm not sold that it is an error to disagree with another's (often unconscious) criteria for making a conclusion.
- ds9 13y ago
  It is absolutely correct to question the underlying premises. All the modes have them. It's just that the evaluations are not amenable to the same standards. E.g., you can cast doubt on a scientific hypothesis of "A causes B" by pointing out a previously overlooked possible common cause. Or e.g., the polygraph is fairly bogus, not because of the mere logical possibility of false positives and false negatives, but rather because of their relative magnitudes and the poor support of the premises (about physiological correlates of lying or truth-telling). The flaws are strictly defined in one mode, approximate or probabilistic in another.
  - platz 13y ago
    I thought Stephen Toulmin had the most useful formulation of argumentation. "Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin
Spellman 13y ago
Exactly. These are fallacies that are constrained to arguments that are logical in nature. That is, the agreed upon rules of argument and discussion is to use logic. And most arguments even of your second or third category use elements of logic to help strengthen the argument. However, not all arguments are meant to be or can be solved with pure logic. Otherwise we'd all be Kantians. People will intentionally argue using Appeal to Emotion or Slippery Slope and, within certain contexts, this can be perfectly fine. Just throwing around "That's a logical fallacy, therefore your argument is invalid" is the perfect example of Fallacy Fallacy. Even worse, just relying on having a codex of fallacies to throw around into any context reduces most arguments into petty squabbles and making it too easy to dismiss your opposition. But for discussions of the second and third mode you need to engage the person and get to the root of their ideas and argue using the proper rules and context. My personal revelation of all of this came from reading this piece titled "You Baloney Detection Kit Sucks": http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html

by ds9 13y ago

humanrebar 13y ago

> ...but we just have ot make sure we don't try to apply the refutations in the context of other modes of reasoning. Why not? I'm not sold that it is an error to disagree with another's (often unconscious) criteria for making a conclusion.

ds9 13y ago
It is absolutely correct to question the underlying premises. All the modes have them. It's just that the evaluations are not amenable to the same standards. E.g., you can cast doubt on a scientific hypothesis of "A causes B" by pointing out a previously overlooked possible common cause. Or e.g., the polygraph is fairly bogus, not because of the mere logical possibility of false positives and false negatives, but rather because of their relative magnitudes and the poor support of the premises (about physiological correlates of lying or truth-telling). The flaws are strictly defined in one mode, approximate or probabilistic in another.
- platz 13y ago
  I thought Stephen Toulmin had the most useful formulation of argumentation. "Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin

Spellman 13y ago

Exactly. These are fallacies that are constrained to arguments that are logical in nature. That is, the agreed upon rules of argument and discussion is to use logic. And most arguments even of your second or third category use elements of logic to help strengthen the argument. However, not all arguments are meant to be or can be solved with pure logic. Otherwise we'd all be Kantians. People will intentionally argue using Appeal to Emotion or Slippery Slope and, within certain contexts, this can be perfectly fine. Just throwing around "That's a logical fallacy, therefore your argument is invalid" is the perfect example of Fallacy Fallacy. Even worse, just relying on having a codex of fallacies to throw around into any context reduces most arguments into petty squabbles and making it too easy to dismiss your opposition. But for discussions of the second and third mode you need to engage the person and get to the root of their ideas and argue using the proper rules and context. My personal revelation of all of this came from reading this piece titled "You Baloney Detection Kit Sucks": http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html