(April 2, 2016 at 11:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Just pointing out that someone used a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong.

Ummmm......

The most common fallacy I see is the argument from ignorance. Some people seem to be unable to put together any argument without it. Equivocation and tu quoque are probably next.

There's a big difference between saying someone's conclusion is wrong and saying it is unsupported. A sceptic has no need to declare the former except in blatant cases where a theist accidentally makes a falsifiable claim.

(April 2, 2016 at 11:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The most commonly used one on here and the internet in general is the fallacy fallacy. Just pointing out that someone used a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong.

hehe

Good one.

It is more relevant on this forum that pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't mean one has been committed. Some people learn the names but don't learn what they mean, and seem to randomly throw them around. (I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular.)

(April 2, 2016 at 11:06 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 11:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Just pointing out that someone used a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong.

Ummmm......

ummmm what? Bad logic can be used to support correct things. For example, I could say "The world is round because nobody has proven otherwise to me" which would be an argument from ignorance, however the world would still be round.

Right. I don't see a lot of people doing that though. Pointing out that the method is flawed is still valid even in such cases.

(April 2, 2016 at 11:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The most commonly used one on here and the internet in general is the fallacy fallacy. Just pointing out that someone used a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong.

Yeah I agree with you.

The best thing to do is to explain why they are wrong, or avoid just saying "this is fallacious".

So instead of just saying "Strawman" here's an example of what you can do instead:

"I think the gun control laws should be more relaxed"

"Are you kidding? Do you know what would happen if everyone had guns!? It would be total chaos!"


Answer:

Bad: 
"That's a strawman argument."

Good:
"I agree, it would be total chaos if we gave everyone guns. Now what would happen if we just relaxed the gun control laws like I suggested?"

I agree that just naming a fallacy and not explaining isn't helping.

I find naming them to be worthwhile, as well as explaining. This can help people (and readers) identify general errors in their thinking, not just regarding the specific example. If someone is prone to make the argument from ignorance for example, they tend to repeat it endlessly.

(April 3, 2016 at 12:49 am)robvalue Wrote: It is more relevant on this forum that pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't mean one has been committed. Some people learn the names but don't learn what they mean, and seem to randomly throw them around. (I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular.)

I have been guilty of this a few times, though not on purpose. I have actually taken some logical fallacy online practice quizzes (because I'm a dork) but sometimes the best way to learn is on live subjects, lol. At the expense of making myself look like a fool, of course. [emoji13]

(April 3, 2016 at 12:49 am)robvalue Wrote: It is more relevant on this forum that pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't mean one has been committed. Some people learn the names but don't learn what they mean, and seem to randomly throw them around. (I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular.)

Yeah, I've had people say that what I've said was so and so fallacy and had it not even been close to correct before. It's actually kind of funny.