I would like to discuss the concept of logical fallacy in the discussions here on the message boards. Being aware of logical fallacy is important to any argument so that you can get your thoughts in proper order and make a convincing argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
However, my main reason for bringing this topic up is that some people use fallacy as a WEAPON. Sometimes arguments break down into a series of intellectual broadsides where one person or group trades shots with another in a rapid and lively discussion.
Sometimes, someone's argument can break down and they become desperate. In these situations, that person might declare a fallacy to hurt their opponents' point. Never mind that, in reality, the opposing viewpoint actually has validity even in the presence of fallacy - because sometimes life really is like that. The person declaring fallacy is so desperate to be right about SOMETHING that they force their opponent to qualify their remarks with less broad definitions.
This is kind of arrogant behavior in my opinion. I think it's good to point out that there are instances where another person's argument might be invalid, but screaming "FALLACY! FALLACY!" doesn't really make them wrong either. All it does is put the ball in your opponent's court, forcing them to admit that there are instances where their argument might be false and making certain that YOU don't have to admit that THEIR argument might be true in some cases.
What it comes down to is ego. If your only defense is "FALLACY!!!!" then you might want to just admit that the other person has a point with a few caveats. It might be a sign of weakness in the eyes of some, but a truly thoughtful and intelligent person will not see it as such and it will actually add weight to your caveats because you'll be viewed as a reasonable individual.
Which brings me to my second topic...
Why do some people pounce on someone when they admit that either A) they're wrong B) they were partially wrong with caveats or C) someone else was right about something. It shows maturity and humility when someone admits they're wrong. It can strengthen their credibility. Some people will, instead, see it as a sign of weakness and they'll attempt to crush the person further, attempting to rout their opponent.
This is BAD FORM. You should be ashamed of yourself if you do this, in my opinion. I'm not sure what can be discussed about this second point. I more or less just wanted to put it out there to let people know that others are on to them and they aren't acting in obscurity.
I agree that the inability to admit when one is wrong is rampant.
<SNIP> some people use fallacy as a WEAPON. <SNIP>
The identification of fallacy IS a weapon; a weapon against specious reasoning. In my experience, insults are a much better sign of desperation than are accusations of fallacy.
Some people are neverwrongs, and when your debate position is stronger they'll start quoting logic rules as a method of diverting the conversation and the room's attention from their obviously weaker position. I call that "spinning in the corner." I don't let people out of the corner or take their bait, or aim for their moved goalposts. I just keep asking the same question or repeating the line that sent them in there because I've learned that indulging their tangents disallows me from ever returning to my original unanswered question. So I keep focused on getting one thing answered at a time, in order. Quid pro quo.
Which is, in itself, futile as futile can be because it never pans out. And that makes me futile. The conversation futile. And that's when I realize that I can neither teach nor learn from this person. So why am I there? After that, I just avoid them.
Because they're neverwrongs, they'll just keep spinning in that corner, even if you block their egress. The whole affair becomes weird and almost sad as you see how desperate they are to never lose (and that's why they never learn the important lessons that come with losing, or even sometimes just allowing yourself to lose).
That all said, and going the other way with it all, sometimes someone's argument is so terribly riddled with poor logic you have to call it out as such.
Another unintuitive thing I've had to learn is that logic isn't very good at convincing people. Often one can produce the data, clearly and carefully present valid logic, and go on to have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. It took me a long time to realize that one cannot "win" an Internet debate, because the other party is free to ignore anything inconvenient.
In general, the absence of an unbiased debate moderator makes the discussion board a terrible place for serious discussion.
Jade, you explained it FAR better than I did.
True true. But, I've actually conducted my richest serious issue discussions on these very boards.
I can count to you on one hand the (to remain unnamed) neverwrongs who come here to stir the pot with their relentless well poisoning agendas. Even those creeps are pretty dern smart. Most people here astound me. We seem to have a bottomless pool of incredible minds from which to learn, or against which to sharpen our blades.
Pot, well, pool? Am I thirsty or something?
Jade, you explained it FAR better than I did.
Thanks, Loopy. <:)
Mr. Fishy also agrees Loopy, that said Mr. Fishy doesn't want to be wrong and Mr. Fishy will fight tooth and fin if he "thinks" he's right. "Thinks" and "right" are separate and different. If your arguement is a good and logical Mr. Fishy will concede the point. I'm right your wrong is not good or logical. If Mr. Fishy post something and you post to tell him he's wrong you have just validated Mr. Fishy's point by responding. Because if a fish has no leg to stand on then let him swim by.
Mr. Fishy is a fish hole, some times he pokes to see if you'll jump. Some times people support opinions because they never thought about it differently. Mr. Fishy has seen many of his views altered or changed by friends and posters (and enemies) with a different view.
By the way Mr. Fishy is a neverwrong, because he's willing to alter his opinion based on new information. Mr. Fishy tries to avoid the circle dance if Mr. Fishy can't argue a point he'll let it go. Probably won't admitt to being wrong but will stop arguing.
Mr. Fishy is going to take nap now.
In general, the absence of an unbiased debate moderator makes the discussion board a terrible place for serious discussion.
But a great place to bicker with someone.
Even those creeps are pretty dern smart. Most people here astound me. We seem to have a bottomless pool of incredible minds from which to learn, or against which to sharpen our blades.
Agreed. There is nothing more infuriating, engaging, or challenging than a person who combines intelligence and neverwrong-ness.
Mr. Fishy is a fish hole,
LOL
By the way Mr. Fishy is a neverwrong, because he's willing to alter his opinion based on new information.
That is an awesome statement.
I <3 you, Mr.Fishy.
|
Some people also prefer to logic chop on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than consider that possibly their underlying assumptions are wrong (or, perhaps more pertinently, challengable based upon personal preference). Challenging those basic assumptions is then "illogical" and can kick off disputes about how you are not paying sufficient attention to their carefully set out logical arguments. You can, of course, construct some very detailed arguments but if the basic axioms you are using are not shared with your interlocutor then you often get the feeling that people are talking past eachother. Until the basic concepts are understood and clarified (if not necessarily agreed with) then some of these conversatiions can be frustrating. Frankly, the logical bit is only relevant when those basic assumptions are the same with all parties. You often find this problem with people who are used to sharing a distinctive mindset, often from other boards <ahem>, who then post here and are not used to experiencing some of the divergent views that exist here.
So THAT'S why I created all all those pots, wells and pools... as a comfortably breathable arena for the great Mr. Fishy.
Some people also prefer to logic chop on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than consider that possibly their underlying assumptions are wrong (or, perhaps more pertinently, challengable based upon personal preference). Challenging those basic assumptions is then "illogical" and can kick off disputes about how you are not paying sufficient attention to their carefully set out logical arguments. You can, of course, construct some very detailed arguments but if the basic axioms you are using are not shared with your interlocutor then you often get the feeling that people are talking past eachother. Until the basic concepts are understood and clarified (if not necessarily agreed with) then some of these conversatiions can be frustrating. Frankly, the logical bit is only relevant when those basic assumptions are the same with all parties. You often find this problem with people who are used to sharing a distinctive mindset, often from other boards <ahem>, who then post here and are not used to experiencing some of the divergent views that exist here.
Ears....burning...
;-)
|
You are just creating a strawman to cover the fact that you don't understnd the Stormwind Fallacy and invoked Godwin. :) Seriouly though, sometimes the best thing to do when that starts happening is to just walk way. The neverwrongs are never going to be convinced and the more you try the more they drag you into their realm until eventually you look just the same as them to the outside observer.
Mr. Fishy accepts pie.
Fallacies invalidate arguments, but do not make the conclusions wrong. In a non-deductivist type of conversation, which really encompasses 99% of what goes on here, falsifying premises or conclusions is really the more important activity.
YES YES YES. Especially when you include the concept that much of what is argued here has A LOT to do with personal experience and opinion. You CAN have two conclusions and BOTH conclusions can be "right". The problem is getting the other person to see your viewpoint and for some of us crazy people, that is, for some reason, important to us.
You are just creating a strawman to cover the fact that you don't understnd the Stormwind Fallacy and invoked Godwin. :)
AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
So THAT'S why I created all all those pots, wells and pools... as a comfortably breathable arena for the great Mr. Fishy.
Mr. Fishy thanks you for the pools, and agrees that the FISHY IS GREAT.
Mr. Fishy also accepts pie.
|
|
Fallacies invalidate arguments, but do not make the conclusions wrong. In a non-deductivist type of conversation, which really encompasses 99% of what goes on here, falsifying premises or conclusions is really the more important activity.YES YES YES. Especially when you include the concept that much of what is argued here has A LOT to do with personal experience and opinion.
My math and statistics trump your personal experience. :)
|
|
Some people also prefer to logic chop on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than consider that possibly their underlying assumptions are wrong (or, perhaps more pertinently, challengable based upon personal preference). Challenging those basic assumptions is then "illogical" and can kick off disputes about how you are not paying sufficient attention to their carefully set out logical arguments. You can, of course, construct some very detailed arguments but if the basic axioms you are using are not shared with your interlocutor then you often get the feeling that people are talking past eachother. Until the basic concepts are understood and clarified (if not necessarily agreed with) then some of these conversatiions can be frustrating. Frankly, the logical bit is only relevant when those basic assumptions are the same with all parties. You often find this problem with people who are used to sharing a distinctive mindset, often from other boards <ahem>, who then post here and are not used to experiencing some of the divergent views that exist here.Ears....burning...
;-)
No, I don't mean you (this time). I was having a discussion here with a guy who frequents The Den and in the latter part of the exchange (which had been quite civil) he did a line-by-line logical analysis of my previous post. But I had concluded that actually the issue was his basic assumptions, not the logic of his views, and basically ignored his comments and went with that (maybe with a deficit of tact). He got upset and stalked off, basically due to a misunderstanding. This thing just reminded me.
Anyway, peace.
|
|
The other thing I have seen pop up a few times is that someone will call another posters statement a fallacy simply to discredit it. I think if you are going to invoke the "Fallacy Defense" as I like to call it, you should explain why you believe that the statement is in error rather then just saying it's a fallacy nd ignoring the substance of the statement.
Author's Note: The use of the pronoun you in this case refers to the body collectively and is not intended to single out any one individual.
Some people are neverwrongs, and when your debate position is stronger they'll start quoting logic rules as a method of diverting the conversation and the room's attention from their obviously weaker position.
I am reminded of the blind men and an elephant. I wonder which blind man had the strongest position.
People are emotional. Logic, truth and validity are not going to change minds. I think the way to changing minds is to first understand someone else's point of view. And I do not mean simply agreeing they may have a valid point. I mean truly empathizing with their position.
Our perception is clouded by our past experiences. Until you understand how someone got where they are, you can not break down those walls.
"There are three kinds of lie, a lie, a damned lie, and a statistic."
|
|
Some people are neverwrongs, and when your debate position is stronger they'll start quoting logic rules as a method of diverting the conversation and the room's attention from their obviously weaker position.I am reminded of the blind men and an elephant. I wonder which blind man had the strongest position.
People are emotional. Logic, truth and validity are not going to change minds. I think the way to changing minds is to first understand someone else's point of view. And I do not mean simply agreeing they may have a valid point. I mean truly empathizing with their position.
Our perception is clouded by our past experiences. Until you understand how someone got where they are, you can not break down those walls.
Fixed the link for you.
The poodle has a point. <shudder>
P.S. Thanks for the Mark Twain quote, Mr. Fishy. I've always enjoyed reading his non-fiction works more so than his fictions.
Some people are neverwrongs, and when your debate position is stronger they'll start quoting logic rules as a method of diverting the conversation and the room's attention from their obviously weaker position.I am reminded of the [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant]blind men and an elephant[/url]. I wonder which blind man had the strongest position.
People are emotional. Logic, truth and validity are not going to change minds. I think the way to changing minds is to first understand someone else's point of view. And I do not mean simply agreeing they may have a valid point. I mean truly empathizing with their position.
Our perception is clouded by our past experiences. Until you understand how someone got where they are, you can not break down those walls.
I hear you, CF. So true. However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort. They're not really trying to connect. Me, I'm a connector. Just ask the ladies. OH NO I Dih-UNT!
But seriously, breaking down walls does require two people being willing to open up, and that's not the soldier's stance. IMO, if you go into discussion threads thinking it's debate club and you're being scored for the bodies you leave roadside, you're walking in with more aggression and assertiveness than will ultimately serve you or the community.
|
|
My math and statistics trump your personal experience. :)LOL.
Actually, math and statistics DO have a great deal to do with the game, but in a mostly theoretical manner. Not one that relates directly to the players/DM.
I agree. That was one of the failings of most "roll under" systems is that they don't take into acount the statistical difficulty of rolling under a given number. For example BESM 2E established 4 as a baseline stat for the normal person. However, you are statistically most likely to roll a 7 on 2d6. Therefore the odds of a normal person successfully completing any task in BESM 2E were poor becaus you had to roll under 4 on 2d6. I't didn't make the game any less fun othrwise, but it did mean I had to house rule a significant portion ofthe game, a flaw they fixed in 3E by the way.
Maybe we should just number the fallacies so you do not have to write them out. Just reference the number.
Maybe we should just number the fallacies so you do not have to write them out. Just reference the number.Leave it to the poodle to come up with a silly and yet insightful point.
That's actually a funny, yet solid idea. The only board that comes with it's own logical debate quick guide.
However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.
We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.
However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.
lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.
lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.
P1: All RPGs written by Satan are evil.
P2: Hero was written by Steve Long.P3: Steve Long is Satan.
C: Hero is evil.
See? Perfectly valid argument. It's the truth value of those premises...
lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.
The end is nigh!
Can i invoke the 'posted in wrong area' fallicy? ;-)I think your axioms are flawed.
That gives me an idea... Executioner's Axiom. <--coined it first. Right here. You're a part of history, Aubrey. Delight in it.
|
|
lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.
You musy have access to a quantum supercomputer. :)
See? Perfectly valid argument. It's the truth value of those premises...
Actually, not all RPGs written by Satan are evil, so you reasoning falls apart there.
lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.P1: All RPGs written by Satan are evil.
P2: Hero was written by Steve Long.
P3: Steve Long is Satan.
C: Hero is evil.See? Perfectly valid argument. It's the truth value of those premises...
But Steve Long charged across roaring rapids barefoot to breathe life back into my drowned puppy. See how life experience tramples the poo out of your frail argument like a helplessly screaming 15 year old lain prostrate on the floor of a bustling Danzig mosh pit? All praise Steve and all that he does for canine resuscitation.
You musy have access to a quantum supercomputer. :)lol. Well yours was one of the voices that convinced me to pick the HERO system up and give it a go, and I'm truly glad I did.However, the people I'm talking about won't let you know how they got where they are. They'll often even try and make you look foolish for your well meaning effort.We all have insecurities. If I really knew what the hell I was talking about, I would have 'convinced' everyone to play Hero by now.
<G>
Some posters love of the HERO system caused me to keep revisiting it and its latest products. Eventually the hook sunk in good and deep.
So long as a system creates a distinct play, I'm a fan. After decades of only using one system, it's been liberating sleeping around.
Hedonistic gamers FTW!
|
|
Some posters love of the HERO system caused me to keep revisiting it and its latest products. Eventually the hook sunk in good and deep.
So long as a system creates a distinct play, I'm a fan. After decades of only using one system, it's been liberating sleeping around.
I just like to give CF a hard time about Hero. I have a whole bookshelf full of almost every book published for Hero 5th Edition. I mainly use it for reference now, but I used to play Champions a lot when I was younger and have fond memories of those days. I really like the stuff in Star Hero.
SLAG!
Gaming is fun... I admit it. I'm an indiscriminate slag! Bring 'em on! I'll take on all comers! Just remember that slag backwards is gals, and gals backwards is a hell of a lot more fun than gaming.
Egad, it seems to be one of those days when language itself has become far too interesting a playground in which to dabble.
Take the children inside. To the basement. Lock the shutters. This too shall pass.