3 ms·

Since this is the nth time I've read lists like this on HN, I feel like there should be a standard disclaimer here. The author starts down this road in his int

Since this is the nth time I've read lists like this on HN, I feel like there should be a standard disclaimer here. The author starts down this road in his introduction: the rules of logic are not laws of the natural world nor do they constitute all of human reasoning. Yep, and it's worse than that. Life is not a formal system where the quality of an argument is in any way associated with whether or not it should be heard. That sucks, but that's the way it is. Many terrible arguments are for things you should do. Many seemingly perfect arguments are in support of horrible things. Human conversation is around persuasion. What these tools of rhetoric give you is a good way to identify cheap ways used to persuade folks -- and call them out on it. It doesn't prevent them from being used at all. In fact, every argument that's not about formal systems has some sort of fallacy as part of it. At the end of the day, you're sitting around weighing the imperfections of each side. And, because the quality of the argument doesn't really reflect the quality of the position being argued, putting too much work into this is a fool's game. I love these lists, because they show people how others can manipulate them. For the same reason, I think folks should be exposed to a course or two on how legal arguments are made. I see a lot of lawyers on TV who are ready and willing to take any side of any argument -- and convince 90% of the folks watching that they're right. If we want a functioning democracy, we need to fix this. But for technology folks who tend to think of things in boolean terms, we should remind ourselves that human issues are not geometric proofs for which we are searching for fallacies in an attempt to get the right answer. Instead it's a much tougher situation than that.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
>Many terrible arguments are for things you should do. Many seemingly perfect arguments are in support of horrible things. That mixes up the quality and sophistication of the arguers with general validity. The problem is more that decision-making - especially political and economic decision-making - isn't evidence-based. The fact that economists and politicians use rhetoric instead of reason suggests that you can't have a workable democracy without evidence-based policy. I'd go further and suggest that knowingly lying to or misleading the public should be a serious crime punishable by jail time. Lists like the one in this book aren't enough, because so few people understand there's a problem.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  You have a lot of explaining to do to yourself. I would start with the question "What is the difference between evidence and conclusions?" Eventually you should move on to the Bayesian/Frequentist definition of Science, but I'd start with the problems with empiricism. Maybe go on to the problems with induction after that. Might want to ask yourself why so many of the most brilliant people in history believed wrong things.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    'Epistemology - we've heard of it.' Are you saying that science should never be used to guide policy, because scientific conclusions are always debatable? As it happens they are - for varying values of 'debatable.' When you get a reasonable level of informed consensus - preferably one that has a reasonable chance of being undistorted by commercial interests - the debatability stops being interesting or relevant. The problem isn't that conclusions aren't certain. The problem is that political decision makers believe their personal opinions about policy and outcomes are at least as valid as those of full-time PhD-qualified professional researchers. And voters believe them. Because rhetoric. You don't need to know who Thomas Bayes was to understand how this leads to policy disasters. You don't even need to believe that experts are always right. You just need to understand that they're more likely to be right than an amateur with a sharp suit, a financial sponsor, and a strong opinion.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

>Many terrible arguments are for things you should do. Many seemingly perfect arguments are in support of horrible things. That mixes up the quality and sophistication of the arguers with general validity. The problem is more that decision-making - especially political and economic decision-making - isn't evidence-based. The fact that economists and politicians use rhetoric instead of reason suggests that you can't have a workable democracy without evidence-based policy. I'd go further and suggest that knowingly lying to or misleading the public should be a serious crime punishable by jail time. Lists like the one in this book aren't enough, because so few people understand there's a problem.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
You have a lot of explaining to do to yourself. I would start with the question "What is the difference between evidence and conclusions?" Eventually you should move on to the Bayesian/Frequentist definition of Science, but I'd start with the problems with empiricism. Maybe go on to the problems with induction after that. Might want to ask yourself why so many of the most brilliant people in history believed wrong things.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  'Epistemology - we've heard of it.' Are you saying that science should never be used to guide policy, because scientific conclusions are always debatable? As it happens they are - for varying values of 'debatable.' When you get a reasonable level of informed consensus - preferably one that has a reasonable chance of being undistorted by commercial interests - the debatability stops being interesting or relevant. The problem isn't that conclusions aren't certain. The problem is that political decision makers believe their personal opinions about policy and outcomes are at least as valid as those of full-time PhD-qualified professional researchers. And voters believe them. Because rhetoric. You don't need to know who Thomas Bayes was to understand how this leads to policy disasters. You don't even need to believe that experts are always right. You just need to understand that they're more likely to be right than an amateur with a sharp suit, a financial sponsor, and a strong opinion.