How can the Backroom be better for you?

[Rodion Romanovich]

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.

[Mongoose]

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.

I see your point. But surely it would be easy to see obvious fallacies? 'ur onle sain that cuz ur teh commie', and statements like 'Everything should be free. What a world that would be' on the Healthcare subject aren't that difficult to identify as useless fallacies that add nothing to the subject.

Likewise, I see alot of 'Redherrings' on this forum, they're not that difficult to spot either.


1:'Chavez did A!'

2: 'Oh yeah? Bush did B!'

1: 'But Clinton did C!'

[Rodion Romanovich]

I see your point. But surely it would be easy to see obvious fallacies? 'ur onle sain that cuz ur teh commie', and statements like 'Everything should be free. What a world that would be' on the Healthcare subject aren't that difficult to identify as useless fallacies that add nothing to the subject.

Likewise, I see alot of 'Redherrings' on this forum, they're not that difficult to spot either.


1:'Chavez did A!'

2: 'Oh yeah? Bush did B!'

1: 'But Clinton did C!'

Yes, all I'm saying is that the fallacy list is a two-edged sword. So far, I've seen many examples of abusing (by ignorance or deliberately) the fallacy list in a way such that a fallacy mentioned in the fallacy list was committed by the one using the fallacy list:

1. Appeal to authority fallacy - you misinterpret the fallacy list and say that because your misinterpreted version of the fallacy list says the other side committed a fallacy, the thesis of the other side is false
2. Burden of Proof fallacy - you claim that someones reasoning is wrong, therefore his/her conclusion is false. In reality, an incorrect reasoning can yield a conclusion which is true. All we know about an incorrect deduction is that it doesn't mean the conclusion MUST be true. A correct deduction is one which makes it a necessity that the conclusion is correct. But an incorrect deduction, which show several of the fallacies, can therefore in fact be true, even though we can't formulate the correct deduction at that time. In short: something that can't be proven to be true isn't false, it's just not 100% guaranteed to be true.
3. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy - because someone (correctly or incorrectly) showed that someone committed a fallacy on the fallacy list, all they say after that is claimed to be incorrect.
4. Red Herring - when the actual subject is discussed references (correct or incorrect) to the fallacy list are made to change subject
5. Strawman - interpret the statement the other one made incorrectly, thus being able to see a fallacy in it. In fact the original statement might have been correct.

If I would generalize, the most common fallacy I see is lack of acceptance of the existence of uncertainty, the fact that we usually don't know everything, and that it's very difficult (perhaps/probably impossible) to know everything. Very few things can be said for sure, and it's important to see the difference between "is", "might be", "it's therefore likely that" and "it doesn't necessarily have to be", "it isn't" and so on. A statement is either true or false in the reality we are trying to describe, but usually we can't know which truth values our statements have. Because all logic is based on making assumptions about things we can't prove. If those assumptions are correct, our conclusions will be correct. They may be correct otherwise, but don't have to be. That's why synthesis is the best friend of logic. Whenever a statement is made, it's important to see what consequences that statement would get in all possible applied situations you could think of. If you can find a single situation where the actual conclusion A is contradicted, you know that the either the premises of A, or the actual deductions that led to A, are incorrect, known as a contrapositive proof.

If you show that the deduction is incorrect, you can help the other side to correct it. If you can show that the deduction is incorrect, you know that one or more of your premises aren't necessarily true (note: that doesn't mean they're false, only that you can't prove they're true by the deduction you presented, but possibly by another deduction. You can also always find a set of premises which proves any point you might want proven, so it's important that the asumptions/premises aren't too unrealistical). If all sides in a discussion use correct logic, they WILL obtain the same conclusions unless their premises differ. That's why in a debate with correct logic, the debate will end up discussing the correctness of the premises on a very low-level detailed level. Usually this, quite interestingly, shows that most opinions/theories only differ on the detail level in a theoretical form of reasoning. This however still allows for magnifications of the differences in opinions/theories in practical applied situations.

Another important thing is that most discussions, as I mentioned above, omit some of the premises to make it's simpler. Usually however such arguments aren't as convincing. If a situation occurs when one of the parts is unclear and the other asks for a clarification, if your logic is correct you should be able to present those implicitly made assumptions (although in some cases it might take several days to remember them if you made the deduction chain a long time ago).

[Adrian II]

So far, I've seen many examples of abusing (by ignorance or deliberately) the fallacy list in a way such that a fallacy mentioned in the fallacy list was committed by the one using the fallacy list.

What a bunch of jerks we are. Thanks for your instructive lecture. I think like Kukrikhan I will scrap the Red Herrings for breakfast, but I agree with some other posters that the word 'Strawman' should be punishable by a three-day ban.

@Kukrikhan, you're hilarious man. Good to see you in such an excellent mood. Oh, and what I remember best from that movie (it has been some time ago) are these 'biblical' thorny bushes being blown through the streets at night (don't know what they are called in English, in Dutch we literally call them 'blackberry-bushes').

[Husar]

What a bunch of jerks we are. Thanks for your instructive lecture. I think like Kukrikhan I will scrap the Red Herrings for breakfast, but I agree with some other posters that the word 'Strawman' should be punishable by a three-day ban.

Great idea, somezimes I wish to add to that list "hypocrisy", I don´t know why, but I´ve come to hate that word by reading the backroom.

[Adrian II]

Great idea, somezimes I wish to add to that list "hypocrisy", I don´t know why, but I´ve come to hate that word by reading the backroom.

Are you calling me a strawman? That's a phallusie, you hippercrate!

[GoreBag]

Are you calling me a strawman? That's a phallusie, you hippercrate!

I tried looking for an 'exploding head' emoticon, but there's naught to be found.

[Redleg]

opps nothing to contribute -