Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

Well said. And it's a lack of awareness of this point that often frustrates me about discussions here on HN. I understand that most of us try to be mostly rational, most of the time, and that we want a high level of discourse here. But too often, you see people acting like every discussion is high-school debate-club practice, and they start slinging "ad hominem" and "fallacy of the excluded middle" around like a high-school kid with a brand new super-soaker, eager to spray anyone in range.

But not everything that is said here needs to be treated like it was uttered as part of a debate. Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.

    Far too often, logical fallacies are invoked in order to run away from an argument.

I really liked how it was put in the book Logical Self-Defense: To be valid, an argument has to be relevant, sufficient, and acceptable. All of the fallacies (that I know of) fail on at least one of those properties. Recognizing the fallacy tells you how to go about attacking or shoring-up the argument (depending on which side of it you're on).

It basically says that, if your objective is to discover truth rather than to win a debate, you ought to grant the best possible interpretation of the speaker's statement instead of focusing on narrow and literal interpretations which contain obvious logical fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

The only way to convict your opponent is on their ground, not your own.

Taking an argument seriously, as if it were the best representation of itself, is the only way to defeat it.

In order to truly disagree, you must discover how much you already agree.

=

I know these sound a little fatuous. Can I just lampshade by saying they're all very true? :/

Yet when people invoke "logical fallacies" they are almost always fallacies in deductive logic. Hey Internet--how about catching up to the 19th century and employing some inductive reasoning in your arguments?

The problem with that, though, is that the starting point is facts. The arguer actually needs to possess domain knowledge/experience. It's so much more convenient to mock an inferred deductive structure...no real facts required!

Secondly, although I believe logic is the only way to have a real argument, we're all human beings and thus my judgement will be influenced by the colour of your argument. If you have a perfectly logical argument, yet call me a slur, unconsciously you're going to have a way harder time convincing me.

I've always felt that a better set of rules for internet arguments would be the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are explicitly rooted in the mechanics of persuasion.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_peo...

Once upon a time I tried to tell my mother about the problem of expert calibration, saying: "So when an expert says they're 99% confident, it only happens about 70% of the time." Then there was a pause as, suddenly, I realized I was talking to my mother, and I hastily added: "Of course, you've got to make sure to apply that skepticism evenhandedly, including to yourself, rather than just using it to argue against anything you disagree with—"

And my mother said: "Are you kidding? This is great! I'm going to use it all the time!"

And later:

> This woman has confided her experiences and concerns; in these responses, you are insultingly and condescendingly attempting to diminish them, by portraying her experiences as irrelevant and her concerns as illogical.

There are better ways to confide experiences and concerns, and assuming intellectual immunity after calling an entire movement sexist isn't one of them. Both "sides" should be held to the same standards.

And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.

Receiving insults from men that identify as skeptics does not mean that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.

Telling her she just committed a fallacy doesn't seem so wrong to me.

In law, there is a well developed body of precedent and rule on evaluating the credibility of witnesses. To show evidence that a witness has reason to lie (not just that the witness is directly contradicted by someone else's testimony) is highly relevant in most trials. If you are a lawyer who has ever read a case transcript, you will have no trouble believing that some witnesses testify in court under oath and penalty of perjury, with cross-examination by the other side, and yet still lie. This happens every day. To put some balance into a system in which any witness might have an incentive to lie, the rules of evidence at trial allow introduction of evidence that the witness is, for example, someone who has been convicted of "crimes involving dishonesty," or has a financial interest in a factual issue under dispute, or so on. Some statements about a witness are plainly irrelevant, even under that principle. It will not do to say "The witness was convicted of jaywalking," because jaywalking is not regarded as a crime that shows a tendency to be untruthful.

Another aspect of the law of evidence that has heavily influenced my thinking about what people know and how they know it, and thus influenced my behavior in online discussion, is "basis of knowledge" considerations. (I sometimes explicitly mention my basis of knowledge when commenting in some threads. Here my basis of knowledge is having studied the law of evidence with a professor who literally wrote the book on the subject

http://www.evidencecasebook.com/author2.asp

when I was in law school.) If a witness testifies, "I saw him shoot the victim," and you can show that it was dark on that occasion, and the witness has bad myopia and wasn't wearing his eyeglasses, you are a long way toward undermining the witness's testimony on completely legitimate grounds. I am often puzzled why many Hacker News readers are so credulous about stories when it is plain that the person writing the story has no basis of knowledge adequate for making the extraordinary claims submitted with the story. (University press office hype about the future implications of preliminary research findings frequently has this weakness,

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

as is well known in the scientific community but still too little known here on HN, much less Reddit.)

When a Hacker News commenter suggests that someone has either bias (perhaps as an investor in a company) or insufficient basis of knowledge (perhaps as a rookie investigator before peer review and replication has happened), altogether too many HN replies will accuse the commenter of an "ad hominem" argument. They don't notice that arguments about bias and about lack of sufficient knowledge are even completely legitimate aids to truth-finding on controversial issues. Yes, don't rely on a list of fallacies (at least, not on the list alone) to guide your thinking, but also on deep thinking about the structure of the argument and adequacy and impartiality of the data.

(All of the above said, I like the late Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit on the whole, and think applying it to more Hacker News threads would raise the level of discussion here. See also Paul Graham's essay "How to Disagree"

http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

for more suggestions about how to disagree thoughtfully and productively.)

That said, his angst seems to be misplaced.

When younger, he seized upon Sagan's rules as though they were The Way(tm)... and now he's disillusioned that they haven't made him invincible. Then he tries to use mostly logical argumentation to explain how the Baloney Detector Kit is flawed. That's ironic.

Looking at his other blog posts, you can see similar angst at a lack of comfort being completely absorbed in a specific ideology: http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#jump

I guess he has a brain that wants really badly to see everything in black and white - but at least he's smart enough to reason past that.

I would argue that the baloney detector kit, his skepticism, and similar logical mechanisms are all that has kept this individual from going over the ideological cliff into unshakable belief syndrome.

Those are the two that drive me nuts. They're statistical arguments, not ones you can just toss out. All causal relationships are also correlated relationships - if you're asserting a correlation isn't the result of causation, it would behoove you to at least have some notion of what might be confounding it.

The same thing with sample size. "Well, their sample size is small..." gets trotted out. How do you know that? If you want to bring statistical power into an argument, come prepared to show your work.

What we've got here is...failure to communicate.

Complaining about the standard of dialogue seems likely to be unproductive. Sceptics have been doing that with regard to Christians for years and it doesn't really seem to have gotten them anywhere - there's little incentive.

So, that in mind, it seems that you'd do better working the argument in the author's piece in reverse: Someone tries to appeal to emotion, gets a logical fallacy claim back in return. If you assume that there are many different types of speech, and that you're not really in a logical argument, then what does that tell you about them?

Well, the first thing it tells you is that that person cares very strongly about a consistency principle - or at least the outward appearance of one - that they probably want to appear reasonable. What can you think of that's likely to be in their personal life that they're going to feel the same way as you do that a consistency principle is going to work in favour of?

What's the obvious pickup with a lot of sexism? 'Would you want someone talking like that to your mother or sister?'

Of course, that sort of pattern - consistency response to an emotional appeal - is going to come up in areas where people just don't care about very much other than appearing reasonable fairly frequently. I seem to recall one description of debating with Christians that went something along the line of 'Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy-cows with high-powered sniper rifles.'

We all get a cheap laugh from it, probably, but is hunting dairy cows really a productive activity for a smart person? IME people with stuff to do don't spend a lot of time on such things - it seems unlikely that scepticism would be a large part of their identity.

#

However, If you're getting that response a lot wherever you go, maybe the problem's you.

#

A good example of this is, in fact, that piece above. What's the actual prevalence of people being unreasonably called out on logical fallacies? I've not seen it a lot. That may just be because I'm one of the people who does it and most of us seem to tend to appear reasonable from the inside. But equally it may be because the prevalence is actually low. So, the basic premise on which the author is attempting to appeal, the supposed shared experience? I'm not going to find that convincing on an emotional level or a consistency based one.

http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2012/11/slippery-slope...

<blockquote>Why did people who deployed these [critical thinking] terms always look so rigid, so predictable, so feeble? Why did people who avoided them look so confident in comparison, so much more in command of their resources, so much more mature? Their arguments seemed to possess an inner strength; the baloney detectors, by contrast, only had strength in numbers.</blockquote>

Translation: Some people never shut up after they have been proven wrong, <em>and the author values this assertiveness over whether their arguments are logically sound</em>. He concludes that the most assertive arguer is automatically <em>correct</em>. He calls for the total abandonment of logic and reason and to respect force and effect in their stead.

His justification is the presumption that any person would quit an argument after being proved wrong; this is a false premise, as evidenced by the existence of liars, fanatics, and human choice. He applies this false premise to the whole of reason in order to condemn it; this is a strawman argument, a form of false premise, as reason has never presumed that its methods would lead to this result, but holds that its methods enable a witness to more accurately judge whose arguments are more likely to be correct. From there he reaches the conclusion that critical analysis is worthless. In an irony, he is himself attempting to use critical analysis to debunk critical analysis itself, but his foundation is so rotten that his argument is easily shown to be unjustified.

Next the author tries to declare certain forms of arguments as being off-limits to critical analysis, like emotional appeals. An emotional appeal is irrelevant to whether the stated facts are likely to be true or false. The dismissal of an argument for its emotional appeal is shorthand for saying that the argument has not justified its claims, but is trying to trick witnesses into believing its claims by appealing to their emotions instead of reason. If an argument truly has nothing behind it other than its appeal to emotion, then its dismissal as an appeal to the emotions is fully justified. He also applies the same protection to the Rush Limbaugh defense of people saying their lies, initially presented as serious factual claims, were meant to be taken as "comedy" when disproven, or as "irony, hyperbole, understatement, whimsy, counterfactual conjecture, or any other of the wonders of figurative language that defy semantic nit-picking". Contrary to having "nothing to contribute", "semantic nit-picking" tears these turns of phrase apart and exposes the argument being made.

Next he says that the correct identification of a logical error does not imply incorrectness of the argument. No comment is needed.

Finally, we get to the root cause. The author has constructed this framework of deliberate mental incompetence to justify supporting Rebecca Watson's claim that <strong>all Atheist men are sexist</strong>, with the implication being that Atheist men are sexist to such a degree that all of them are rapists-in-waiting. A supporting argument is laid out in a similar manner to the classic form, simplified as such:

Thesis: All Atheist men are sexist. 1. Z is an atheist man. 2. Z is not sexist. (Points 1 and 2 are repeated for a dozen more Zs)

It takes the complete abandonment of logic to conclude, as the author does, that the thesis is upheld and indeed strengthened by these arguments. As we have seen, the complete abandonment of logic is the author's goal. He wants you to believe that you should stop thinking logically because he writes so strongly and forcefully for it.