That's a logical fallasy!

[CapnAwesome]

Anybody else think this is one of the stupidest things that is commonly said on internet forums? Countless times across countless forums some smug asshole who isn't as smart as he thinks he is will quote someone, highlight some small part of what they said, declare it to be so and so fallacy and declare intellectual victory.

What's the problem? The first problem is that half the time the people are wrong anyway. There are so many people who don't understand the logical fallacies and misuse them. Almost always they fail to offer even an explanation as to why said highlighted line is the fallacy. They just declare it to be so, jerk themselves off at being so clever and move on to scan the next post they disagree with is so and so fallacy that they don't really understand.

Second. It's just lazy. Debate is supposed to have points and counter points. So what they used a logical fallacy? Shouldn't that make it that much easier to intellectually challenge them? You would think so but it's way less difficult to just write a line or two and not actually think about what the person had to say or why they said it.

Third, all of those people are hypocrits. Ever here of the fallacy fallacy dipshits? Something isn't true or untrue just because it's a logical fallacy. You can use fallacious arguments to argue anything. Example: Evolution is true because Richard Dawkins says it is true. I just used an argument from authority. Does that mean that evolution is not true? Of course not. If you run across incorrect or poorly thought out information it should be up to you to counter it in a way thats not so lazy, stupid and hypocritical.

[FatAndFaithless]

Erm..pointing out logical fallacies and delineating the flawed reasoning of an argument is a good way to counter-argue.

[LostLocke]

Depends.
If they walk in and simply declare, "That's a logical fallacy.", and end it there, then yeah I'd agree with you.

If they say, "That's a logical fallacy, here's why and here's what it really means.", then I'd say that's a valid response.

[CapnAwesome]

Erm..pointing out logical fallacies and delineating the flawed reasoning of an argument is a good way to counter-argue.

Except that most of the time there is none of the second bit that you said. When you just point out the logical fallacy and do none of the delineating (as happens most of the time) you are being lazy and stupid. Also it doesn't change that you are using a logical fallacy yourself, the fallacy fallacy.

---

Depends.
If they walk in and simply declare, "That's a logical fallacy.", and end it there, then yeah I'd agree with you.

If they say, "That's a logical fallacy, here's why and here's what it really means.", then I'd say that's a valid response.

I agree, in fact I agreed in my post. Unfortunately example B hardly ever happens and example A is rampant on this forum and most others.

I think a third choice is even a better option, which is to point out why the logic is bad, then to actually address any valid points that are made, and counter them using the best logical at your disposal without ever being a smug douche and bringing up logical fallacies. There really is no need other than to show off that you also have access to a wikipedia page. You can point out that someone isn't reasoning well without whining that "Thats a so and so fallacy"

Also I'd really like someone who loves this tactic to address my third point: using a logical fallacy doesn't have much to do with whether or not something is true. Logical fallacies can be used to argue something that is true. So just because something is a logical fallacy doesn't mean that it's true or untrue.

[FatAndFaithless]

Erm..pointing out logical fallacies and delineating the flawed reasoning of an argument is a good way to counter-argue.

Except that most of the time there is none of the second bit that you said. When you just point out the logical fallacy and do none of the delineating (as happens most of the time) you are being lazy and stupid. Also it doesn't change that you are using a logical fallacy yourself, the fallacy fallacy.

...? Most of the time when someone identifies a fallacy, they already expect the reader or audience to understand what that fallacy is. If one doesn't know what a certain fallacy entails, they can look it up (or, if the opponent denies committing the fallacy, then it can be delineated for them). I don't think it has anything to do with being "Lazy and stupid".

As for the misuse of the fallacy objection, sure, lots of people call out perceived fallacies when there might not be any...which is exactly when opponents can ask for clarification or deny it, which would force the accuser to describe the fallacy.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "fallacy fallacy" thing. I don't think any (reasonable) person here would look at a commentary on an argument and discard it just because someone accuses it of having a fallacy.


The point of identifying a fallacy isn't to automatically pull a trump card to overturn your opponent's argument, it's to show the dubiousness of their reasoning abilities and call into doubt the soundness of their assertions, which leads to further discussion and perhaps, eventually, a non-acceptance of their argument. But I haven't seen too many people, on here at least, just turn off their brains when someone else claims a fallacy.

[Faith No More]

Anybody else think this is one of the stupidest things that is commonly said on internet forums? Countless times across countless forums some smug asshole who isn't as smart as he thinks he is will quote someone, highlight some small part of what they said, declare it to be so and so fallacy and declare intellectual victory.

What's the problem? The first problem is that half the time the people are wrong anyway. There are so many people who don't understand the logical fallacies and misuse them. Almost always they fail to offer even an explanation as to why said highlighted line is the fallacy. They just declare it to be so, jerk themselves off at being so clever and move on to scan the next post they disagree with is so and so fallacy that they don't really understand.

Second. It's just lazy. Debate is supposed to have points and counter points. So what they used a logical fallacy? Shouldn't that make it that much easier to intellectually challenge them? You would think so but it's way less difficult to just write a line or two and not actually think about what the person had to say or why they said it.

Third, all of those people are hypocrits. Ever here of the fallacy fallacy dipshits? Something isn't true or untrue just because it's a logical fallacy. You can use fallacious arguments to argue anything. Example: Evolution is true because Richard Dawkins says it is true. I just used an argument from authority. Does that mean that evolution is not true? Of course not. If you run across incorrect or poorly thought out information it should be up to you to counter it in a way thats not so lazy, stupid and hypocritical.

It's an easy maneuver and it allows someone with no cohesive response to appear as if they have a valid criticism. It's the grown-up version of saying "Nuh-uh" on the playground to the kid that just made you look silly. It's frustrating as hell, but it's also an indicator that the discussion is better off abandoned.

[robvalue]

If an argument contains a logical fallacy, it may produce a correct conclusion and it may not. But there's no way to tell from the argument whether the conclusion is right or not, so it is pointless. You need another argument without fallacies to do its job instead.

A lot of the time a statement is so blatantly wrong that all that's required is to highlight the fallacy. If the poster can be bothered to look up what the fallacy means, they should be able to identify their error. Or ask for clarification if they still can't.

I agree that if a logical fallacy is just declared when it's not clear what the problem is, and not explained, it's not terribly useful. It depends on the example.

On here, I see the same 3 or 4 fallacies repeated endlessly no matter how many times they are identified, spelled out and explained. That means people either aren't taking the time to find out what the problem is and what the fallacy means, or they simply don't care.

Spelling it out every single time, exactly what the fallacy means, to someone who is making no attempt to analyse their logic based on your response gets rather tiresome. It's gotta be a two way process.

[Faith No More]

The point of identifying a fallacy isn't to automatically pull a trump card to overturn your opponent's argument, it's to show the dubiousness of their reasoning abilities and call into doubt the soundness of their assertions, which leads to further discussion and perhaps, eventually, a non-acceptance of their argument. But I haven't seen too many people, on here at least, just turn off their brains when someone else claims a fallacy.

What he's saying is that too many people can identify a fallacy but not understand the implications of it nor have the ability to defend why it's a fallacy, all the while using said fallacy as a counterpoint in a discussion. I've seen it happen here, but I think for the most part, people do use them properly.

Edit: In fact, defending why fallacies actually are fallacies can get quite messy, so I tend to avoid using it as a debate tool lest I have egg on my face.

[LastPoet]

Misspelling fallacy is not a fallacy.

[FatAndFaithless]

The point of identifying a fallacy isn't to automatically pull a trump card to overturn your opponent's argument, it's to show the dubiousness of their reasoning abilities and call into doubt the soundness of their assertions, which leads to further discussion and perhaps, eventually, a non-acceptance of their argument. But I haven't seen too many people, on here at least, just turn off their brains when someone else claims a fallacy.

What he's saying is that too many people can identify a fallacy but not understand the implications of it, all the while using said fallacy as a counterpoint in a discussion. I've seen it happen here, but I think for the most part, people do use them properly.

I can agree with that. Though for the sake of time and convenience, I can see why some people would identify a fallacy, and then immediately move onto the next point while assuming that the other people reading the thread understand the implications.


Perhaps there should be something like a Fallacy 101 thread.