That's a logical fallasy!

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I have no problem pointing out logical fallacies. Those fallacies may or may not fatally undermine the point I'm addressing, and I try and cut close to the bone when it comes to that sort of thing.

The idea that anyone pointing out fallacies is being lazy, stupid, or hypocritical is in itself sloppy thinking. I'd tell you what fallacy it is, but I don't want you bringing your wrath down upon me.

[robvalue]

For the benefit of puzzled bystanders, I think I have figured out what Cap'n was trying to say with one of his points.

I think he was saying that an argument containing a fallacy may still produce a valid conclusion if the conclusion is not dependent solely on the logical step in question.

It seemed we were talking at cross purposes with regard to this point. I was discussing a series of linear logical steps leading to a conclusion. Then if any one of those steps contains a fallacy, the conclusion to that argument has not been demonstrated to be true. But if several arguments have been put forward to make the point in question, then as long as they don't all contain fallacies, the point can still be made.

However, if done constructively and tactfully, it can still sometimes be beneficial to point out the fallacy if you think it would benefit the person. Critical thinkers usually like to know if they make mistakes. It's down to context, it may not be appropriate and may be just nit picking. Depends. Categorising errors can sometimes be useful as it helps the person see a possible general problem in their thinking which they can address, rather than just the specific example. Particularly if you see that person making the same mistake over and over. Again, contextually. I'm not advocating smearing fallacy labels willy nilly, or to someone who clearly doesn't appreciate thm.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Right for the wrong reason" comes to mind.

[robvalue]

Sure, you can indeed produce what happens to be a true conclusion with faulty logic.

What I was trying to point out earlier is that unless the conclusion is already known to be true or false, for good reasons, you cannot assess whether the conclusion you've drawn is actually true. It still might be true or might not, and you've given no indication which or how likely each possibility is. So the argument is pointless.

As per the example I gave earlier:

My name is rob, therefore God doesn't exist.

I might have produced a true conclusion, but I have not demonstrated that it is actually true. And since we know nothing more after the argument than before, it is worthless.

[Whateverist]

Seems as though logical analysis of arguments happens long after a person has decided where he stands on the issue. It is more an effort to make the choice seem like more of slam dunk than it is. Logic in the service of rhetoric.

So picking apart the poor construction of a person's logical argument never gets at anything on which the person's belief actually depends. You are simply giving them feed back on how to improve their presentation.

[robvalue]

Oh yeah, you're dead right. The argument put forward, in religious cases, is almost always a justification. To make themselves feel it makes sense somehow. It doesn't matter if you rip it up, because it's independent of the belief. They'll just repeat it later, or come up with another ad hoc.

Getting someone to admit the real reason they believe, that is tricky. Thing is, they probably don't know themselves. In the case of indoctrination, it's literally because they have been programmed to believe it and to block out anything which opposes the belief.

My friend made a good analogy today. (Yes I have friends!) She said indoctrination is like a computer virus which infiltrates rational thought, and sets up a firewall all around the religious "truths". Anything making any attempt to poke at them gets thrown out, and any old garbage shoots out the mouth to avoid having to think about it. It's really sad, I feel very sorry for these people. I can't imagine what it's like, as I was lucky enough to escape it. I consider them victims of abuse.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure, you can indeed produce what happens to be a true conclusion with faulty logic.

What I was trying to point out earlier is that unless the conclusion is already known to be true or false, for good reasons, you cannot assess whether the conclusion you've drawn is actually true. It still might be true or might not, and you've given no indication which or how likely each possibility is. So the argument is pointless.

As per the example I gave earlier:

My name is rob, therefore God doesn't exist.

I might have produced a true conclusion, but I have not demonstrated that it is actually true. And since we know nothing more after the argument than before, it is worthless.

Of course, and that's exactly why I posted as I did.

[robvalue]

Cool