I don't know if you meant the logical fallacies list or not, but, if you did...
Please, please, please no.
Those are like guns: to be used very, very rarely by only the most responsible of individuals (yourself included, probably). Being able to analyze an argument and discover which "then" clauses don't follow from their "if" counterparts and to identify the author's assumptions, among many other things, are much sounder than being able to say "ElChupacabra is making a Slippery Slope" or the like. Honestly, I think all of those fallacies can be reduced to three or four: B does not follow from A, a probability is not a certainty, incorrect facts, and "Strawman!"
Hate to rant like that, but from the first time I was taught the "logical fallacies list" in high school, I thought it had to be one of the educational establishment's dumbest moves in my lifetime. In any case, if people say you need to improve yourself as a debater, learning that list will probably have only the result of making you an infinitely more annoying opponent.
33 comments
You probably wouldn't have people calling you on your logical fallacies so much if you had paid better attention to that high school instruction. Fortunately for you, there is such a thing as adult education. Unfortunately for you, you seem determined to reject it.
Well, uh...
Glazius, I disagree. It's more like a pretentious way of saying, "Shut up because you are being an idiot" -- which is true. (By the way, many of the fallacies usually are referred to by English terms, and all of them certainly can be; use of Latin to show off one's erudition is just a bonus.)
ElChupacabra seems to have a point. It is somewhat pedantic to attempt to refute someone's argument by simply naming the fallacy that they have committed. Worse in Latin.
I dunno. Depends if you're on a debate forum. Then, you know, it might be considered normal to use proper debating skills. If, however, your mother tells you to eat your dinner because there are children starving in Africa, you might be well advised not to just tell her that her argument is a fallacy.
McCulloch, I don't mean that one should not have to explain the cry of "Fallacy!" when he raises it. One can make a mistake; the accused deserves to know the basis for the charges and a chance to defend. But when it is clearly and demonstrably arrant nonsense (an argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, strawman, or other easily revealed bit of sophistry), the person using it should be willing to retract the argument, at least for the moment. If he does not, he has no business complaining for being called a fraud and a liar -- for that is what he is if he insists on calling a clear fallacy a good and proper argument. Judge Jones, in the Dover case, pulled no punches in recognizing this very phenomenon and slapping the liars down.
TDR: When I was young, my parents used to circumvent the whole logic issue when I asked "Why?" with the answer, "Because!" -- which let me know that the issue simply was not open to debate, no matter how I felt about it.
Yep, it is annoying if people just say "wrong" and don't explain why you are wrong. So he might have a point. But on the other hand, not seeing the value of knowing what not to do is moronic.
"But when it is clearly and demonstrably arrant nonsense . . ."
When I was young, my parents used to circumvent the whole logic issue when I asked "Why?" with the answer, "Because!" -- which let me know that the issue simply was not open to debate, no matter how I felt about it.
David D.G.,
Nooo, the guy making the argument has another option besides retracting the fallacy and revising the argument. He can let it stand, exactly as it is, and persuade anybody else listening that when you call "fallacy" it's just because you can't DEAL with his argument. But even if he takes one of the first two options, what he's _said_ can't be _unsaid_, and it still lingers in the minds of anybody listening.
Truth is in the mind of the beholder, hombre.
<< If you don't win the argument, then you haven't spread your truth to anybody else. Simple as that. >>
Here, here, David DG. I'm right with you. Glazius, acheiving that 'feel good' feeling for 'winning' and not getting through seems pointless. The other person should be willing and capable to understand that they aren't 'playing fair' with some attacks. It is more important to open someone up the ideas of what they are doing so they can work on issues on their own. Once they understand what they've been doing (ad-hom, strawmen etc) they will recognize it the next time they say or speak it and it will spread like a good disease. If they are beaten in an argument and they don't know the reasons why their argument is weak, they will only get angrier. Discussion isn't (supposed to be) a streetfight. It's supposed to be the clear communication of ideas and an understanding between BOTH parties. You have to see the exchange as a single unit, not me versus him.
Is s/he saying "please don't use proper debating techniques, because it will confuse me"?
You should learn the list for your own sake, so that your arguments are sound, logic and stable.
Honestly, I think that what he is trying to say is that you should explain why an argument is wrong rather than just saying that it is a fallacy. Otherwise, if someone has never had a particular fallacy explained to them, they might just not believe you when you call them on it.
For example, plenty of people won't take you seriously if you just say that creation is an appeal to ignorance, but they might if you explain that no one can prove that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the world.
Listing all of the logical fallacies in an argument might be fun, but it can make you look like a pretentious dick if the people you're talking (or typing) to don't know the reason why they are fallacies.
This baffles me.
Have any of you ever been to this site? The debate section is riddled with buzzwords like "logical fallacy," and very few of them understand how to use logical fallacies correctly in debate. It's maddening.
This quite is 100% correct and not fundie at all.
@TDR
It doesn't matter who tells someone a statement. "Because I said so" is a fallacy. Obviously, there should be some reason to "say so." If there is not, why bother arguing for it in the first place? Similarly, "there are children starving in Africa" is a complete non sequitur. In fact, it justifies the opposing argument.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
