Adding Logical Fallacies to the Community Guidelines

[MysterionMuffles]

I think there should be a link to this site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ in the community guidelines. It would be important to note how logical fallacies as listed in this site may be unproductive to forum and chatroom debates. This way it can cut down threads to keep them on topic instead of arguing over communication and argument barriers caused by logical fallacies,

[WasatchMan]

Wouldn't that guideline itself be committing the "fallacy fallacy"?

 

Some logical fallacies aren't even bad because everything isn't in the context of a purely logical argument.  Also, a lot of things you can only argue from the position of a logical fallacy, because you have the humility to know that you aren't an expert in everything.  I will make arguments about scientific realms that I am not an expert in and will rely on what is put forward by experts as a good way to try to determine the truth.  Is a perfect ironclad argument? Likely not. However, it is sometimes the best we can do with limited information.  If someone said I could not do this claiming I am making the "appeal to authority fallacy" and am therefore wrong and out of community guidelines, they would be committing the "fallacy fallacy".

 

I also think this would just result in a lot of bickering and accusations on whether someone did or did not create a logical fallacy, since there are huge grey areas in some of the logical fallacies. However, I do agree there are some logical fallacies that should not be tolerated (like strawmanning).

[Mister Mister]

Wouldn't that guideline itself be committing the "fallacy fallacy"?

 

Some logical fallacies aren't even bad because everything isn't in the context of a purely logical argument.  Also, a lot of things you can only argue from the position of a logical fallacy, because you have the humility to know that you aren't an expert in everything.  I will make arguments about scientific realms that I am not an expert in and will rely on what is put forward by experts as a good way to try to determine the truth.  Is a perfect ironclad argument? Likely not. However, it is sometimes the best we can do with limited information.  If someone said I could not do this claiming I am making the "appeal to authority fallacy" and am therefore wrong and out of community guidelines, they would be committing the "fallacy fallacy".

 

I also think this would just result in a lot of bickering and accusations on whether someone did or did not create a logical fallacy, since there are huge grey areas in some of the logical fallacies. However, I do agree there are some logical fallacies that should not be tolerated (like strawmanning).

So you're saying logic is wrong?  Relativists like you are the problem in the world.

[WasatchMan]

So you're saying logic is wrong?  Relativists like you are the problem in the world.

 

ummm.. I am not saying that at all.  Good strawman fallacy though

[Mister Mister]

ummm.. I am not saying that as all.  Good strawman fallacy though

[Jot]

Send this link to GuzzyBone, he has commited more logical fallacies on this forum than all the other members combined.

[shirgall]

So you're saying logic is wrong?

 

Calling something a fallacy, even if it is correct to do so, is usually not enough. It also helps to show why the thinking is fallacious. This is what changes the invocation of a fallacy from name-calling to an argument.

[Pepin]

Having done a lot of research into fallacies in the past, I would conclude that they are only useful for learning logic and argumentation. That is not at all to say that knowledge of them does not come into play during discussion or debate, but it is more to say that you have to look at the argument as a whole rather than pick it apart to find a supposed fallacy.

 

When I was a little younger, I made the mistake a lot of people make of finding fallacies in arguments that weren't actually there. I understood the form of the fallacy, but not why it was a fallacy.

 

Part of why I think this happens to so many people is because of how it is taught. Teaching valid and invalid uses of logic I think is critical. Like when an argument from authority is valid or invalid, what makes an ad hominem argument work or not work, and just being able to identify argument forms in general.

 

The most interesting argument form to me is the slippery slope. If you are to describe historical events, it all feels like a slippery slope, yet it actually happened. If someone were to have lucky foresight and to predict those events, they would rightly be called "wrong because each event  is dependent on the previous which decreases the probability of any of it happening", which is of course true, but out of all the chain of events you can predict, one of those sets is going to be true.

 

I don't think I quite conveying that last point well enough, partly because I am trying to make dull insight shine bright, but it really fascinates me.

[MysterionMuffles]

Hmm would ad hominem attacks be valid against hypocrites, per se?

[shirgall]

Hmm would ad hominem attacks be valid against hypocrites, per se?

 

In order to objectively evaluate statements we must separate arguments from the arguers.

 

PS, Loved your cameo in Inside Out

[MysterionMuffles]

what cameo?

[PatrickC]

Hmm would ad hominem attacks be valid against hypocrites, per se?

 

Ad hominem is an entirely valid way of responding to really poorly constructed arguments. Of course it can be taken too far, which can be seen as unecessary and vindictive. But we should have no problem for showing someone up for their own foolish arguments and or hypocrisy. Within reason (and perhaps civility) of course.

[shirgall]

what cameo?

 

Have you seen the movie? http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rainbow_Unicorn

[MysterionMuffles]

Ad hominem is an entirely valid way of responding to really poorly constructed arguments. Of course it can be taken too far, which can be seen as unecessary and vindictive. But we should have no problem for showing someone up for their own foolish arguments and or hypocrisy. Within reason (and perhaps civility) of course.

 

lol why do I feel like we're implicitly thinking of a certain person collectively? Or is it just me?

 

Have you seen the movie? http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rainbow_Unicorn

 

I have not, but I want to. And lol 

[PatrickC]

lol why do I feel like we're implicitly thinking of a certain person collectively? Or is it just me?

 

Too many to mention recently. It must be the hot weather huh?

 

I mostly prefer the Shirgall method of using humour to highlight stupid arguments. It's a lot less confrontational, since it's often an emotional attachment that people have with bad arguments. But for the audience sakes it's sometimes worthwhile going for the jugular. Metaphorically speaking of course. We're all about the NAP here.

[shirgall]

Too many to mention recently. It must be the hot weather huh?

 

I mostly prefer the Shirgall method of using humour to highlight stupid arguments. It's a lot less confrontational, since it's often an emotional attachment that people have with bad arguments. But for the audience sakes it's sometimes worthwhile going for the jugular. Metaphorically speaking of course. We're all about the NAP here.

 

I honestly don't know how effective it is, but I try to do it to break up what I observe as inevitable bickering, where the participants are talking past one another. It hasn't always caused thread dissolution, but I'm hoping it brings some threads to a close.

 

I always wonder if I should be more selective in what I read and respond to anymore. I hate the "wall of text" postings that don't say anything.

[PatrickC]

I honestly don't know how effective it is, but I try to do it to break up what I observe as inevitable bickering, where the participants are talking past one another. It hasn't always caused thread dissolution, but I'm hoping it brings some threads to a close.

 

I always wonder if I should be more selective in what I read and respond to anymore. I hate the "wall of text" postings that don't say anything.

 

Yeah, it's not an exact science of course, as you're probably experiencing. But I generally ask myself whom does my response profit. The OP, participants, audience or just myself. If I think all of them will either know anyway or wont respond rationally or it's just for myself, then I generally go mute. If that makes sense.

 

The only time I might do it for myself, is to get clarity on the person and their position.

[shirgall]

Yes it's not an exact science of course, as your probably experiencing. But I generally ask myself whom does my response profit. The OP, participants, audience or just myself. If I think any of them will either know anyway or wont respond rationally or it's just for myself, then I generally go mute. If that makes sense.

 

It certainly makes sense, and I've abandoned some threads where no rationality seems probable. And, I admit, the "Qui bono?" approach to evaluation is a tried and true technique I should employ more often.

[PatrickC]

It certainly makes sense, and I've abandoned some threads where no rationality seems probable. And, I admit, the "Qui bono?" approach to evaluation is a tried and true technique I should employ more often.

 

You're a project manager right? Like me. Oh boy do I learn a lot of skills in my job dealing with this kind of thing. Slightly different of course, but certainly parallels exist.

 

I always remember an early podcast where Stefan decided to point out an issue that involved a collegue that had been giving him trouble in a meeting they were in together with their mutual collegues and bosses. Knowing full well that he would blow a gasket and end up getting himself removed from the company he was working for. Whilst seemingly somewhat risky, it works quite well when you defer to rational thinking. I know this because I've done the same myself.

[Kevin Beal]

I've been dismissed many times for committing the "not necessarily" fallacies which don't actually have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, as if the two are the same thing. I find that annoying and people who are new to philosophy and logic are inclined to make this mistake.

 

Like Patrick said about the ad hom; it's not proof of anything, but if we were constrained only to providing proof and dismissing all other forms of argumentation, then that would be an impossible standard and beside the point of philosophy. It's not necessarily true that if you've been divorced 7 times that you can't be a good marriage counselor, but come on! It's not irrelevant, or trivial. The only thing that it isn't, is proof. (That's a real example).

 

If rather, someone points out how something I say doesn't actually follow logically, then that is great! But most "fallacy!"'s I see thrown around don't have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, but rather equate to:

 

"your evidence isn't proof, and even though you never claimed it was proof, I'm going to dismiss it because I've decided what you said belongs to the category 'fallacy', which is bad"

 

Maybe I'm too cynical... lol

[shirgall]

I've been dismissed many times for committing the "not necessarily" fallacies which don't actually have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, as if the two are the same thing. I find that annoying and people who are new to philosophy and logic are inclined to make this mistake.

 

Like Patrick said about the ad hom; it's not proof of anything, but if we were constrained only to providing proof and dismissing all other forms of argumentation, then that would be an impossible standard and beside the point of philosophy. It's not necessarily true that if you've been divorced 7 times that you can't be a good marriage counselor, but come on! It's not irrelevant, or trivial. The only thing that it isn't, is proof. (That's a real example).

 

If rather, someone points out how something I say doesn't actually follow logically, then that is great! But most "fallacy!"'s I see thrown around don't have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, but rather equate to:

 

"your evidence isn't proof, and even though you never claimed it was proof, I'm going to dismiss it because I've decided what you said belongs to the category 'fallacy', which is bad"

 

Maybe I'm too cynical... lol

 

That's not an argument.

You're a project manager right? Like me. Oh boy do I learn a lot of skills in my job dealing with this kind of thing. Slightly different of course, but certainly parallels exist.

 

I always remember an early podcast where Stefan decided to point out an issue that involved a collegue that had been giving him trouble in a meeting they were in together with their mutual collegues and bosses. Knowing full well that he would blow a gasket and end up getting himself removed from the company he was working for. Whilst seemingly somewhat risky, it works quite well when you defer to rational thinking. I know this because I've done the same myself.

 

I admit that project management has lead me down the path of boiling things down to their essence and getting to next steps. Even so, I'm feeling less and less engaged here. Most of the time it's because the cadence of my interaction in a thread is suddenly interrupted by sudden moderation.

[WasatchMan]

Maybe instead of adding logical fallacies to the guidelines, we add removing PUA manipulation strategies being used on a philosophy forum?

[shirgall]

Maybe instead of adding logical fallacies to the guidelines, we add removing PUA manipulation strategies being used on a philosophy forum?

 

That sounds more like a call-in question than a policy.

[Kevin Beal]

That's not an argument.

It is an argument, actually. Specifically, it's a counter argument.

 

The (implicit) proposition being rebutted is that because what I say does not constitute proof of my claims, it is therefore fallacious. I attempt to argue against this claim by pointing out the implicit conclusion, and by referencing a valid argument that openly rejects any requirement for proof. If one does exist, then automatically the standard is demonstrated to be insufficient, at best.

 

That is, if you accept that arguments can be valid yet not constituting syllogistic proof, then the requirement that conclusions be proven true in order to be valid arguments is proven false.

 

 

There are arguments floating around everywhere. Or at least parts of arguments, severed in half via non-sequitur. We just miss them because most of the premises used to support people's conclusions are implicit. If they are simply unstated and not implicit, then yea, probably not an argument. But people love to imply things, sometimes in bad faith; like how sometimes you just want to say to people "what are you getting at?" and they respond with something like "nothing, I'm just stating a fact" when you get that they are implying things in order to have people draw a conclusion from it.

 

I think that people are sometimes a little too quick to pull out the sword of Not an Argument, personally. Something can be a bad argument and still be an argument. An argument is just "if you accept these premises, then you should accept this conclusion".

[shirgall]

It is an argument, actually. Specifically, it's a counter argument.

 

...

 

I think that people are sometimes a little too quick to pull out the sword of Not an Argument, personally. Something can be a bad argument and still be an argument. An argument is just "if you accept these premises, then you should accept this conclusion".

 

I was joking. I had a smiley and everything.

[Kevin Beal]

I was joking. I had a smiley and everything.

Oh, haha. I just got it.

 

Sorry. I can be dense sometimes.