Your Logical Fallacy Is(yourlogicalfallacyis.com)
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Your Logical Fallacy Is
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
17 comments
So he should read the section on the "fallacy fallacy."
When you have to resort to pointing out the name of your opponent's logical fallacy, you have already lost the debate.
If a position is so poorly conceived that the simplest thing to do is to point out that it is logically invalid, then, no, you've done your job.
Yes, logical fallacies can be misused and abused. But the power is in the name: committing one of these tactics, legitimately, is logically false and invalid. It invalidates an argument.
Pointing out that your opponnent is lying dying and bleeding out on the ground doesn't lose you a fight.
Yes, logical fallacies can be misused and abused. But the power is in the name: committing one of these tactics, legitimately, is logically false and invalid. It invalidates an argument.
Pointing out that your opponnent is lying dying and bleeding out on the ground doesn't lose you a fight.
If only more people understood this.
Pointing out a fallacy might as well be a fallacy itself.
Pointing out a fallacy might as well be a fallacy itself.
You might enjoy this,
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
but more to the point, conversation is more constructive when folks engage in the practice of principle of charity [1] where you will interpret the other's argument in the strongest possible light. This helps create more light, less smoke and avoid the gotcha-ism associated with fallacy fallacy.
[1] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
but more to the point, conversation is more constructive when folks engage in the practice of principle of charity [1] where you will interpret the other's argument in the strongest possible light. This helps create more light, less smoke and avoid the gotcha-ism associated with fallacy fallacy.
[1] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
To expand on this, if someone says "you just used a slippery slope [1] argument and therefore your claim is false," don't respond by citing the fallacy fallacy [2]. Instead, make an analogy (preferably one unrelated to the topic at hand and a second one more germane) to illustrate the unfounded leap.
Partly because fallacies go by many names and are not well understood. Partly since many cultures associate "your argument is illogical" with "you are stupid".
[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Partly because fallacies go by many names and are not well understood. Partly since many cultures associate "your argument is illogical" with "you are stupid".
[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
I think pointing out some fallacies aren't that bad. For example, pointing out a "strawman" is a good way to signal to the other party that they're attacking stances that aren't even yours.
[deleted]
I guess they didn't like Schopenhauer's eristic dialectic. "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Another underappreciated classic. Thanks for posting.
Various groundings in truth, logic, deduction, inference, scientific method, and mathematical proof, are useful.
I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
And between valid and sound arguments.
The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Protip: apply coherence, consistency, or pragmatic principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though.
The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others.
I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...
I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
And between valid and sound arguments.
The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Protip: apply coherence, consistency, or pragmatic principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though.
The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others.
I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...
Is there some newsletter or blog I could follow with more thoughts of yours like these? I find myself spending more and more time on this topic and a comment like this is a wonderful jumping-off point for me on my 'down whatever rabbit-hole' study days :-).
EDIT: just realized we have profile pages and you have links on yours. Silly me.
EDIT: just realized we have profile pages and you have links on yours. Silly me.
Principally https://dredmorbius.reddit.com
I cooked up a lot of these ideas posting to G+ as well, see especially my Epistemology collection:
https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg
My definition of "Tech and Media" is expansive, but there's some coverage there:
https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY
I cooked up a lot of these ideas posting to G+ as well, see especially my Epistemology collection:
https://plus.google.com/collection/8lUNg
My definition of "Tech and Media" is expansive, but there's some coverage there:
https://plus.google.com/collection/MVQzY
Cool, thanks. And right in time for my weekend reading adventures too!
This list is helpful as a guide to spot errors in reasoning. It is not helpful as a tool to facilitate discussion.
If you use this reference, do us all a favor and discuss how the fallacy applies in the current discussion, and treat the person with some respect at least.