New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[robvalue]

Yes, I'm aware some people don't like "logical fallacies" being pointed out. I have found this to be extremely rare though, and the technique of pointing them out very useful in general. I can't predict exactly what any one person is going to like or dislike.

Mostly when people object, they are just saying my objection is wrong rather than objecting to me naming a fallacy. Anyone can object, it doesn't mean their objection is necessarily correct. It's all part of discussion. If their logic is faulty, their objection is likely to be wrong.

I agree that if it's used simply as a way of appearing superior and not furthering the discussion, it is pointless.

The reason for naming the fallacies and explaining them is that they demonstrate entirely broken ways of thinking that are extremely common. Just argueing the particular point my further a debate, but if you can get the other person to understand why their very thinking is fundamentally wrong, you help them for every other debate they may have and to think things through properly. Especially as the same person may make the same fundamental error over and over again, thinking they are making valid points. It's like the difference between helping them over a particular bridge, and teaching them how bridges work. If they don't want to learn how bridges work, well, that's up to them to say so. I would never hound someone with named fallacies after they told me they don't like it.

I tend to highlight the fallacy by name, and then explain what the actual problem is with what is being said. If someone doesn't like that, well, they can always tell me and I'll not do so in conversation with them.

Imagine a referee who, instead of signalling for "offside", had to explain in full detail every aspect of the rule each time the situation occured. Between people vaguely familiar with logic it is a shorthand; for those unfamiliar it is an introduction to a new way of analysing thinking. "That's the argument from ignorance again, like I explained before."