The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Applications of fallacious reasoning
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
One of the things I've found consistently interesting since I became more aware of the various fallacies of debate and argument is the way in which they're applied or misapplied, sometimes by people here but frequently from else where on the internets.
One of my favorites has been one which consistently appeared has been a funny form of ad hom. Most of you should know that I tend to have a very aggressive posting style, sometimes it's a result of my mood sometimes just a product of how wrong people are. This doesn't go over well with uni students who have yet to realize how they're not beautiful unique snowflakes. However, it has consistently resulted in an argument which goes something like this: "you shouldn't be so rude" "I fail to see how that rebuts my argument" "Well it doesn't, but you're not always going to be right."
What's going on there is subtle, to my mind, but subversive - the goal of course is that people just don't want to be questioned, and hence they try to instill doubt in my arguments so I won't so vigorously attack others in the future. It doesn't work, and it never results in them addressing my points, but it's cute that it's come up so much.
So, my question is, what are some other examples of applications of fallacious reasoning that you've encountered either commonly or as stand out cases?
One of my favorites has been one which consistently appeared has been a funny form of ad hom. Most of you should know that I tend to have a very aggressive posting style, sometimes it's a result of my mood sometimes just a product of how wrong people are. This doesn't go over well with uni students who have yet to realize how they're not beautiful unique snowflakes. However, it has consistently resulted in an argument which goes something like this: "you shouldn't be so rude" "I fail to see how that rebuts my argument" "Well it doesn't, but you're not always going to be right."
What's going on there is subtle, to my mind, but subversive - the goal of course is that people just don't want to be questioned, and hence they try to instill doubt in my arguments so I won't so vigorously attack others in the future. It doesn't work, and it never results in them addressing my points, but it's cute that it's come up so much.
So, my question is, what are some other examples of applications of fallacious reasoning that you've encountered either commonly or as stand out cases?
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
It's always amazing to see how truly unaware we are of ourselves. You're talking about how every who's wrong uses incorrect logic? Have you ever stopped to consider that your own logic may be flawed, and you are unable to view it that way because of your own established bias?
My point is that no one's ever always right. That's just the way life is.
Or I could be wrong about that, because I'm using my own fucked-up logic that I think is immaculate. Or did I just blow your mind?
Wow.
A thread about mental masturbation.
Try not too spooge all over the place, gentleman.
Wow, that's a unique take on things, I bet no one ever before has ever made that pithy obersation before. A pithy observation, which, by the way, completely fails to address the point. Is there something wrong with you?
Edit: Or is this just a completely different issue? Perhaps slightly more straightforward wording would help?
No, that's not what he was saying at all.
He was talking about how people misdirect the thrust of the argument by saying "yeah, stop being man, you aren't always going to be right/aren't always right" which is for lack of a better definition a wonky ad hominem. Which is also exactly what you just tried to pull (though not to misdirect an argument against you, just because apparently you don't like electricitylikesme's attitude towards logic and people he disagrees with).
ELM pointed out a specific and uncontroversial case of fallacious reasoning, he wants to discuss whether it's unusual and other sources of fallacy as well. It's pretty straightforward.
He's saying he's so smart it's almost pointless to discuss anything with him.
What's the specific case? I don't see it in the OP. Is he talking about that thread about individuality? I saw that snowflakes thing and thought he was saying that was a behavior that all people who use these fallacious arguments represent.
"You're acting the cock" is not fallacious reasoning, it's not an underhanded trick to win an argument - it's a helpful indication that, whatever the merits of your argument, your interlocutor finds your manner unpleasant. This is not particularly complicated or shocking.
Except you made the one and only argument which this technique that you were criticizing could successfully refute.
I would love to let that stand on its own, but you'd call me an idiot. So instead I'll add that when people say that to you, it's probably not a criticism of your argument so much as a criticism of your argumentative technique, and as such is not an invalid criticism of your argument.
In other words, an agressive argumentative technique can force people to just not want to argue with you. Some people would rather not pick through insulting vitrol to discover whatever nugget of truth went out shrouded in negativity and hostility.
The point is that they have elected to walk away from the argument rather than deal with someone they find unpleasant. So yeah, "you win", but you can achieve much the same result by severing their internet connection, poisoning their drink, or running them down with a bus.
That's not quite what I meant, but still a valid point.
Most of human society is pretty much based around some form of LYING, for crying out loud.
That doesn't make the arguments-from-real-world-stupid -valid-, it just means that popularity will always get more votes than rationality.
Hence the concept of Rhetoric, which basically runs the whole fricking world.
If your goal is to prove to someone else that you have logic on your side, then all that matters is staying on topic.
If, on the other hand, you want to educate someone, change someone's mind, help someone discover the truth, or in any way use your superior grasp of logic for the benefit of anyone other than yourself, then "not being a cock" matters quite a bit.
I teach an undergrad philosophy class at UC, and get to watch a new batch of freshmen get their first dose of formal logic every year. My preferred euphemism for their disconcerting lack of tact is "sudden genius syndrome".
Yeah, generally speaking, the Socratic method is a much better teaching tool than just browbeating someone who knows less about argumentation than you do. If you want to educate, that is.
In the abortion thread, it didn't really take long for the Cat to come in and brand me as a mysoginist for being pro-life, even when my argument had nothing to do with gender relations at all. It makes it easier to dismiss someone's argument to just say "that guy just thinks that because he's a dick".
Now, is this the kind of response you're going for?
That's a good point. If that's the case, perhaps if you didn't argue in such an aggressive way you would get less criticism of your argument style, and more of your actual argument. Though you seem entirely polite and reasonable to me.
The difference is that some people will pretend to not disdain you, and will use soothing, cooing words.
Others will just say you're a fricking moron.
Everyone loves being lied to.
Still waiting to see if this is gunna get me into trouble.
Or maybe they're grown-ups who have other reasons to get up in the morning besides being right all the time.
EDIT: and I want to say, again, that I certainly understand the frustration ELM sometimes feels, or LiveWire's example above, and I am hardly a candidate for internets sainthood but I do think that, even with a preponderance of evidence, it helps to try and engage people on multiple levels besides pure logic.
Can't argue with you there. The burden of tact is on both sides. No freshman makes me happier than the one who gets beat in a debate and says, "Wow - I hadn't thought of it like that. I'll have to mull that over for a while." Copping out with "That hurt my feelings" or "you shouldn't talk like that" doesn't really impress me much.
So yeah, being able to admit defeat gracefully is just as important to intellectual health as being able to be tactful.
Well see, if you had just gone in and smashed apart her idea with the hammer of logic, that would've gotten something accomplished on your terms. She would either begin to doubt her viewpoints or simply react with whatever catchphrases Sunday school taught her, then you could shut those down, and then she would have to rethink her argument. It's an easy debate to win, after all.
But if you just typed something like "lol you're a fucking idiot how did you get into this school" then you're just a dick and you're only devaluing your side of the argument.
There's so many jokes to make here.
But it really is the difference between emotional people and logical people (and emotional people who try to be logical people).
Some people consider being factually correct as important as others consider being morally correct.
We don't allow ourselves logically invalid notions and they don't set children on fire or something.
Why? I meet morons who disagree with my well-reasoned views all the time. I don't disdain them for it. If I can't educate them, oh well. As long as they aren't religious nuts who want to bomb abortion clinics or some obviously evil crap, let them believe what they want.
One would be pretty tempted to accuse you of a false dichotomy there, Mr. Logical person.
There's softer forms of contempt, but I can't really argue with you about your personal feelings.
(Unless you want to accuse me of a TRICHOTOMY)
And I never said I was logical. I'm just able to use logic when it suits my purposes.
Thanks for that.
What gets me a slight irate is when I think, mistakenly, that I'm talking to someone who - like me - cares only about digging for the truth, only to find out that they don't actually care about the truth after all, and just want to protect their egos or their viewpoints from criticism.
That does kind of sour my mood a bit. So I think I can hear what you're saying.
It's way beyond my ability to dissuade someone from their religious fanaticism in a single posting. I was also disinclined to give a biology lesson in an English subforum where we are supposed to reviewing and discussing a technical writing sample. She also offered no immediate argument for me to counter, just a general "I don't buy it".
The only thing I might possibly regret is to the degree I betrayed my intense loathing for her.