The Old Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies | Hacker News Reader

The Old Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

fallacyfiles.org

33 pointsonuralp15 comments

To be honest, although this is a good resource, if I see another comment on the internet using the phrase "that's a fallacy" or "your argument is false" and other pseudo-logical phrases like that, I'm going to... to... drink some water to calm down.

It's just so annoying in the middle of a conversation people suddendly switching to an analysis of the structure of the debate, especially since nine times out of ten they have no idea what they're talking about and just use "fallacy" and "argument" as stop-words (words to end debate).

Sometimes I get an intense desire to punch someone in the face who says proudly "this is the xxx fallacy". Sometimes it's actually really insightful but most of the time they have no clue.

Correctly identifying fallacies is a useful skill. Doing it incorrectly and thinking you are correct is a detriment to yourself and conversation. (Kinda like how certain people say "fake news" to refer to things they don't agree with, even if it is factual).

https://i.imgur.com/BeD9aCQ_d.jpg?maxwidth=640

They happen so much on the internet there sort of needs to be a shorthand instead of gently hinting at why you cant take their statement seriously. Maybe there should be discussion system with 'fallacy flags' instead of downvote buttons.

https://i.imgur.com/1lYuBIk_d.jpg?maxwidth=640

As a person who might point out a fallacious argument on the internet, what do you see as a more useful alternative?

From my perspective it's not so much about the structure of a debate as it is about excluding that which is not true - which is, of course, not to say that the conclusion itself must be false (though if I cannot formulate a coherent/valid argument, I suppose that doesn't bode well...)

To be fair, I suspect that most of such comments are genuinely interested in pointing out the biases that might potentially (or allegedly) underlie what is perceived to be a fallacy. [0]

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/#Bia

Looks like both the old and the new omit the "fallacy fallacy" which is to assume someone's conclusion is false, simply because their argument on why it's true was fallacious.

It's listed under 'bad reasons fallacy'.

How does one formulate what constitutes a correct response to discovering a fallacy in an argument?

I know the conclusion isn't necessarily false, but I also have no reason for assuming it to be true - since there is no good argument to support it.

You continue holding the same position, having not been convinced to change it.

Though I think it is even better to weigh how much of the argument rests on the fallacious premise (or step) and then evaluate the argument sans fallacy.

Also known colloqually as the "stuck-up-prude fallacy", "bloody-internet-atheists fallacy" and most famously the "you're-not-wrong-walter-you're-just-an-asshole fallacy".

For a ctrl-f friendlier version: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonnew.htm

I'm not sure whether the old vs new is about presentation or actual content.

The entry for the conjunction fallacy mentions Trump and Pence, so it must be new:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/conjunct.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com