9 ms·

Many people use such flawed logic not because they're clever, but because they arent very good at reasoning and will accept anything that matches their beliefs

Many people use such flawed logic not because they're clever, but because they arent very good at reasoning and will accept anything that matches their beliefs as truth. Discussing anything with such people is a waste of time.

coldtea 12y ago
I find those "logical fallacies" lists more naive and inapplicable in any intelligent conversation compared to regular bad reasoning. "Logical fallacies" are not formal logic, and when we're discussing we are forced to make tons of assumptions that are not "logically" guaranteed. Conversation and assessement of a complex reality has far more nuances than what can be handled with a "fallacy list". The "ad hominen" for example is a very useful guide, because in real life, WHO says something tells us a lot about their motives, interests, possibility of hiding the truth etc, that merely WHAT they say. Same way, "appeal to authority": A is an authority on a particular topic A says something about that topic A is probably correct It might be a "fallacy" as far as absolute logic goes, but with the time constraints we have to make decisions, and not being able to master all fields and be able to check the veracity of facts in physics, medicine etc ourselves, it's a very useful guide. When I'm bleeding to death and enter the ICU, I'll sure trust the doctor as "probably correct"...
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >The "ad hominen" for example is a very useful guide, because in real life, WHO says something tells us a lot about their motives, interests, possibility of hiding the truth etc, that merely WHAT they say. A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. >Same way, "appeal to authority": This book uses "appeal to irrelevant authority" aka "my dad says you're wrong."
  - nmrm 12y ago
    > A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. I agree with your parent here, though. There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      >There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. And if there aren't better arguments for the other things, then those are the things that should be done. If you're telling me that there are almost always equally good arguments for every possible choice in all decisions that are made, I'm disagreeing with that. If that's not what you're saying, I don't know what you're saying. >It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. If it's a good argument, accept that it's a good argument and move on. Just because people have a financial interest in an outcome doesn't mean that their arguments for that outcome are tainted in some undetectable way that can't be revealed by examining the argument itself. The personal stake in the outcome could have been initiated by a belief in the validity of the argument, rather than the opposite. >It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims. You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises.
      - nmrm 12y ago
        I think our fundamental disagreement boils down to a question of tractability. It's not that better arguments don't exist. Rather, it's a matter of whether the argument is even worth our time. > It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. > You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises. But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? I have something more practical and less specific in mind as well. You'll find all manner of conspiracy theorists. The more serious ones can bash you over the head with truth claim after truth claim. At some point, in order to avoid endless rabbit holes, it becomes necessary to disregard certain arguments simply because of their source. I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. There's also an important distinction between attacking the source per se, and attacking the source's credibility/veracity in the argument at hand. We might be talking past each other due to that distinction as well. edit: ambiguous grammar
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. In real life though you don't just have to evaluate the argument, but the whole situation. Who gives the argument, what motive he has for giving it, should you act on his argument now or later, etc. For one, one can find at least one good argument for any side of an issue (and he can even conceal a better argument for the opposite side knowingly, to get you to do something). Second, a good argument can still be used to make you do something that has you taken advantage of. It's not as if anybody making an argument to you is neutral and free of interests and motivations. >This book uses "appeal to irrelevant authority" aka "my dad says you're wrong." Yes, saw it, but sometimes "appeal to authority" is also found in such lists.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  I've seen a couple lists that include argument from fallacy [0] or some derivative thereof, which I love to refer to when folks try and use the presence of logical fallacies alone to discredit or otherwise reject a conclusion that might be otherwise valid (often in ignorance of other, non-fallacious arguments). I remember in high school when we were learning about logical fallacies in an English course and subsequently had a class debate about some subject (don't remember what it was). I was one of the two judges, and the teacher assigned two more students to "watch out for logical fallacies". The entire debate devolved into half-baked accusations of logical fallacy (especially accusations of false analogies for literally every analogy presented, regardless of whether or not the analogy was actually valid). It was at that point I figured out that sitting on one's haunches and whining that every argument is a logical fallacy does not an argument make. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 12y ago

I find those "logical fallacies" lists more naive and inapplicable in any intelligent conversation compared to regular bad reasoning. "Logical fallacies" are not formal logic, and when we're discussing we are forced to make tons of assumptions that are not "logically" guaranteed. Conversation and assessement of a complex reality has far more nuances than what can be handled with a "fallacy list". The "ad hominen" for example is a very useful guide, because in real life, WHO says something tells us a lot about their motives, interests, possibility of hiding the truth etc, that merely WHAT they say. Same way, "appeal to authority": A is an authority on a particular topic A says something about that topic A is probably correct It might be a "fallacy" as far as absolute logic goes, but with the time constraints we have to make decisions, and not being able to master all fields and be able to check the veracity of facts in physics, medicine etc ourselves, it's a very useful guide. When I'm bleeding to death and enter the ICU, I'll sure trust the doctor as "probably correct"...

pessimizer 12y ago
>The "ad hominen" for example is a very useful guide, because in real life, WHO says something tells us a lot about their motives, interests, possibility of hiding the truth etc, that merely WHAT they say. A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. >Same way, "appeal to authority": This book uses "appeal to irrelevant authority" aka "my dad says you're wrong."
- nmrm 12y ago
  > A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. I agree with your parent here, though. There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. And if there aren't better arguments for the other things, then those are the things that should be done. If you're telling me that there are almost always equally good arguments for every possible choice in all decisions that are made, I'm disagreeing with that. If that's not what you're saying, I don't know what you're saying. >It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. If it's a good argument, accept that it's a good argument and move on. Just because people have a financial interest in an outcome doesn't mean that their arguments for that outcome are tainted in some undetectable way that can't be revealed by examining the argument itself. The personal stake in the outcome could have been initiated by a belief in the validity of the argument, rather than the opposite. >It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims. You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      I think our fundamental disagreement boils down to a question of tractability. It's not that better arguments don't exist. Rather, it's a matter of whether the argument is even worth our time. > It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. > You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises. But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? I have something more practical and less specific in mind as well. You'll find all manner of conspiracy theorists. The more serious ones can bash you over the head with truth claim after truth claim. At some point, in order to avoid endless rabbit holes, it becomes necessary to disregard certain arguments simply because of their source. I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. There's also an important distinction between attacking the source per se, and attacking the source's credibility/veracity in the argument at hand. We might be talking past each other due to that distinction as well. edit: ambiguous grammar
- coldtea 12y ago
  >A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. In real life though you don't just have to evaluate the argument, but the whole situation. Who gives the argument, what motive he has for giving it, should you act on his argument now or later, etc. For one, one can find at least one good argument for any side of an issue (and he can even conceal a better argument for the opposite side knowingly, to get you to do something). Second, a good argument can still be used to make you do something that has you taken advantage of. It's not as if anybody making an argument to you is neutral and free of interests and motivations. >This book uses "appeal to irrelevant authority" aka "my dad says you're wrong." Yes, saw it, but sometimes "appeal to authority" is also found in such lists.
yellowapple 12y ago
I've seen a couple lists that include argument from fallacy [0] or some derivative thereof, which I love to refer to when folks try and use the presence of logical fallacies alone to discredit or otherwise reject a conclusion that might be otherwise valid (often in ignorance of other, non-fallacious arguments). I remember in high school when we were learning about logical fallacies in an English course and subsequently had a class debate about some subject (don't remember what it was). I was one of the two judges, and the teacher assigned two more students to "watch out for logical fallacies". The entire debate devolved into half-baked accusations of logical fallacy (especially accusations of false analogies for literally every analogy presented, regardless of whether or not the analogy was actually valid). It was at that point I figured out that sitting on one's haunches and whining that every argument is a logical fallacy does not an argument make. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]