December 11th, 2007, 09:50 PM
Why are logical fallacies not strictly against the rules? This is supposedly a science forum. That would mean it should enforce rules of proper discussion, and that includes rules of logic.
I would love nothing more than there to be moderator reprimand for either purposeful or ignorant violation. At least then we'd clean up some of the threads so they could be discussed honestly (and without someone reading "how to argue and win").
did i spark this one off ?
in which case, sorry
i do have my moments where i continue to debate just for the sake of it, when common sense should have told me to stop
however, to make this a hanging offense seems rather harsh
No. I've observed unfair debating behavior amongst all our members, and if this forum does not make it punishable then it will soon make us even worse. Sciforums.com might be an example of what happens when logic is not enforced.
since when are you not allowed to be wrong?
Logical fallacies are ok in my opinion. After all, we are directed by an illogical brain.
Not really. Fallacies do not make one wrong. That in itself, ironically, is a fallacy. The fallacies I speak of are of the more malignant kind. Such as strawman arguments and the like. Debating to win, rather than for knowledge.
Ah, yes, I also speak of people ignorant of them. If you are ignorant of these very important guidelines, then this forum should teach them before they start posting. If they ignore them, then they probably should not post.
I think we should be lenient on the obviously ignorant people.
But I do agree that there should be some kind of rule against certain fallacies.
the lofty olympic ideal of taking part rather than winning - unfortunately not everyone subscribes to it
the trouble starts when you try to separate the ones that err from the malicious ones
Not really. If they err, and are useful to the forum, they'll quickly shape up their act. If not, there is no loss to the forum.
Unfortunately I expect the administration to disagree. God forbid they have to ban someone because of stupidity.
i hopei dont fit into that catagory
I've never seen anyone on my life who can consistently apply logic.
Makes me wonder if it is possible.
It depends on how you define logic. Here, I just wish to avoid fallacies. Not constantly apply logic. There is a difference.
oh.
ok.
All right, I don't want to disappoint you - on the first point I disagree. On the second point, rest assured you are still safe. 8)Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
I also started a thread on logical fallacies. What might be a good idea is to make a sticky somewhere containing all the logical fallacies. Then someone can quickly reference it when they are accused of one. Helpful to the ignorant, exasperated, obtuse and to whoever wants to point out an offence. I think this should have been done from the beginning.
1) People aren't perfect robots. Making logical fallacies against the rules would be a ridiculous expectation
2) People even understanding some fallacies make them but don't realize it and don't agree after the fact that they made one. Likewise people accuse others of making one when they may not have. It's not as black and white as formal logic is.
Hence the job of a moderator. Duh.
Yeah and I can just imagine what you'll do the first time they zap you for a fallacy and you disagree with it :P
Only on a science forum.
I can picture a moderator sitting behind his/her PC.... "Argumentum ad populum, eh? Loki's Wager you say!? AND you set up a straw man." *click* "No-one sets up a straw man on my forum!"
Doubtful. I pay strict attention to all of my recent posts. None of which contain fallacies. If they do, it's normally a stretch to prove a point and rarely to "win" an argument.
go on , admit it : it takes a better man than me to realise that you're wrong and openly admit it - the knee-jerk reaction is to dig in and defend your proposition against all comers
that's why schopenhauer's work caused such an outcry : a logician isn't supposed to use his understanding of the debate to his advantage
...what?
just referring to your "None of which contain fallacies"
i'm sure no-one would admit to deliberately sowing fallacies, so where do they come from ?
Burden of proof, my friend. It rests upon you. And what point are you making anyway? I already covered what would happen in accident cases. Hell, I'd love for people to watch out for me in case I screwed up.
*shrug*
everyone screws up once in a while
if you were killed as soon as you did, there wouldn't be many people alive ...
MarnixR, either you don't read or you're doing this on purpose.
Moderator Intervention:
Please refrain from indulging in the scurrilous debating technique you have adopted in the above post - namely nitpicking. While this is not a logical fallacy, it is a deceptive, misleading, irrelevant practice and will not be condoned.Doubtful. I pay strict attention to all of my recent posts. None of which contain fallacies. If they do, it's normally a stretch to prove a point and rarely to "win" an argument.
Prizes will be awarded to any member who can provide an umabigious distinction between doing something 'to prove a point' as opposed to doing something 'to win an argument'.
Jeremy - no one has supported your idea - probably because it is a bad one. Nice try - no banana.
December 13th, 2007, 05:08 AM
Because users would be too intimated to post.
No, logic fallacies are "rules of debate". Not discussion. If I'm having a beer with a friend, when he makes a logic fallacy, I don't send him to the corner for a timeout.That would mean it should enforce rules of proper discussion, and that includes rules of logic.
Heil fuhrer!I would love nothing more than there to be moderator reprimand for either purposeful or ignorant violation.
I moderated on a very large forum for some years. The largest in the country, arguably the largest of its kind in the world. The entire site was shut down two months after a spelling policy was implemented (Users with spelling and grammar problems would get two warnings and then be banned).
Instead of users checking their spelling with spell checkers, or reviewing their posts for grammatical errors, they simply became too intimidated to post. An average of five hundred posts per day dropped to around five.
What you're proposing is substantially more difficult for users than ensuring the word "dictionary" is spelt correctly.
And, if you want moderators to reprimand for ignorant violation: How many people do you actually think know that their logic is flawed?
Instead of teaching them the ways of your infallible logic, you simply have them removed?
I see you correlate "proving" as "winning". This is not my fault, but yours. If a point is proven, that does not mean you win. Merely means you proved a point. To win an argument is much more.
You're being undoubtedly biased Ophiolite. A trend which has increased lately. Perhaps you are growing senile?
Unbelievable. You make a fallacy in your own correcting post? Appealing to the AMOUNT of people rather than judging the ACCURACY of their arguments does not get you brownie points.Jeremy - no one has supported your idea - probably because it is a bad one. Nice try - no banana.
Nice try - no banana.
If you'll read over my suggestion, the point would be to teach them the more common fallacies. As ophiolite so kindly demonstrated, an appeal to numbers fallacy is very common. Numerous warnings could be given before bans, I did not exactly suggest a "three strikes your out" clause.
If people are so intimidated they can't do a bit of light reading, I doubt they would be useful on this forum.
I do. I don't exactly enjoy hearing flawed statements. If you define "discussions" as illogical, then you need some new friends.No, logic fallacies are "rules of debate". Not discussion. If I'm having a beer with a friend, when he makes a logic fallacy, I don't send him to the corner for a timeout.
Thus brings me to "why a three-strike system is bad". It's bad. You just detailed why.Heil fuhrer!
I moderated on a very large forum for some years. The largest in the country, arguably the largest of its kind in the world. The entire site was shut down two months after a spelling policy was implemented (Users with spelling and grammar problems would get two warnings and then be banned).
Your comparison is inappropriate for this forum. This forum is supposed to be a science forum, merely implementing guidelines for scientific discussion is not grammar-nazi.
On the same note, that forum wasn't exactly populated by geniuses if they can't even spell.
NOT intimidated. Lazy is more likely. People are simply too lazy to spell properly most of the time, and since that forum apparently wasn't a gathering of world-class intelligence's I can assume that's the case.Instead of users checking their spelling with spell checkers, or reviewing their posts for grammatical errors, they simply became too intimidated to post. An average of five hundred posts per day dropped to around five.
Fallacies make it very easy. Once you learn them, you can attempt to weed them out of your logic permanently. I know accidents happen, and nobody is perfect, and that's why I didn't suggest anything further than an idea. I do not make the rules.What you're proposing is substantially more difficult for users than ensuring the word "dictionary" is spelt correctly.
And, if you want moderators to reprimand for ignorant violation: How many people do you actually think know that their logic is flawed?
Instead of teaching them the ways of your infallible logic, you simply have them removed?
I congratulate you on your literacy. For any literate person, would read that one of my goals was to teach them and remove those doing it on purpose. But we all know you're literate, so your last paragraph is sarcastic. Right?
Jeremy, you are quite missing the point. Regardless of the logic involved, the members of this forum do not like your idea. I do not give a stuffed aardvark's ass whether or not your idea is logical, as a way of running a forum it stinks. I think so. So does everyone else who has posted in this thread.
Your idea is not popular. (We all love you - it's just your ideas we laugh at.) It is a crap idea. It is not an idea that appeals. Do you get the message yet?
While the forum is not a democracy we wish it to reflect the views of the majority of thoughtful contributors. If there had been a wave of support for your proposal among the members I would have set my own distaste for it aside and advocated it. Such has not been the case. Accept defeat gracefully. Go fight another battle.
And, please learn to speak English if you are going to lecture people on logic. You cannot have an amount of people. You can have a number of people. Numbers are used for discontinuous, discrete entities. Amounts are used for continuous entities. You can have a large amount of snow and a large number of snowmobiles. You cannot have a large number of snow, or a large amount of snowmobiles.
Unbelievable. You make a fallacy in your own correcting post? Appealing to the AMOUNT of people rather than judging the ACCURACY of their arguments does not get you brownie points.
Nice try - no banana.Thanks for proving my point. He said no one supports your idea probably because it's absolutely idiotic. He did NOT say no one supports your idea, therefore it's absolutely idiotic. The former, which was Ophiolite's statement, is not an argumentum ad populum. The latter, which he did NOT say, is. Maybe you should brush up on your fallacies.
Simply pointing out that everyone thinks your idea sucks (and in fact does suck) isn't a fallacy.
No offence Jeremy, but all this smells like perfectionism.
Good catch. Jeremy set up a straw man. Off with his head.
Jeremy's or the straw man's head ?
I've changed my position.
Sorry Jeremy, I'm with the other guys.
Let me end in clarifying.
Kalster, Tveye, etc, are all thanked for their honest attempt to contribute. Kalster makes a very good point here. The basic idea for adding rules against fallacies is to raise the level of debate to more mature levels.
I've been accused of making it a hanging crime, and even been mocked for it, when I have not suggested hanging. What I have suggested amounts to a yearning for higher quality discussion and debate. Preferably one where "winning" is not the objective.
Others object because "nobody's perfect". This seems like a convenient excuse to exemplify the opposite of perfect. We should not continue allowing the quality of debate to sink deeper into mudslinging. In fact, if we allow this to continue we're simply sealing our own fate. Does not sciforums stand as a perfect example of this?
These rules should not be hanging offenses. They would be guidelines similar to what Kalster has suggested. If people continued, for a prolonged period, to persist in making various fallacies and using underhanded debate tactics they should at least receive a temporary ban.
So far, I've yet to hear of complete objections to the idea. Merely concern of how fascist it might be. Rest assured, I too would hate anything like a "three-strikes you're out" rule. I merely want as most of you want: A higher standard of discussion that does not resort to mudslinging or flaming.
I object on the grounds that not everyone here is versed in such things, some don't know what a 'LF' is, so by banning LF's you ban those who are here to be educated.
Having an interest in science does not by definition mean you have an IQ over 100 or ALL the knowledge required to engage conherantly those more educated. You yourself are only an armchair scientist you have no formal qualification/method of study.
There will be a range of intelligence and knowledge levels and why exclude those of a level you find unrewarding to debate against/with? Merely ignore them if their argument displeases you.
This board does not exist for your pleasure alone jeremyfwwt and you are often rude, offensive and abusive and thus in no position to criticise anyone for their contributions.
First prize goes to TOR for completely missing the point!
oh really?
ellitism
vistors prefer to be eductaed in action, else what is the point of a forum.
TOR, perhaps before accusations you should read more of my posts to gather my full intentions. You're making an ass out of yourself. Normally that's my job.
What about them Kalster?
A person should understand your intent from your first post, if they have to read three pages then you have not explained yourself well have you?
You are thus not ideal debate material.
A list to ad to links maybe?
I see, kalster. But the problem is not finding a list of them to study. The problem is getting anyone to go along with it.
You misinterpreted my intentions. That's the problem. Hence my suggestion to read more until it's clear to you.
what did I misinterpret?I see, kalster. But the problem is not finding a list of them to study. The problem is getting anyone to go along with it.
You misinterpreted my intentions. That's the problem. Hence my suggestion to read more until it's clear to you.
The part about banning those who are unfamiliar with LF from posting?
or the part about you not enjoying their contributions in debate because you feel it is all about winning and not about learning?
Your interpretation of their posts being the product of a desire to 'win' is YOUR interpretation. Perhaps you are in error in your assumption.
TOR, I do not have the energy, time, or resolve to explain to you exactly how wrong you are. And I wont mainly because you tend to ignore those explanations in favor of your initial presumptions.
Nevertheless, if that is all you have to say then kindly shut up. This topic did have a point. And you're diluting it.
Maybe the new winner of a unique title for December could be "Logical Fallacy Cop" or something. A special moderator of sorts. Nobody would volunteer though it seems.
I shall assume you cannot back up your claim that I missed the point.
Run and hide
I have now made this a poll. Since everyone SHOULD be versed in the discussion (TOR obviously not), then it deserves a vote.
thanks for the link - i might try and start a discussion thread on the subject in philosophorum
If we add improper debating tactics to the behaviour that is to be censured, you would have a truly hard time of it Jeremy. The above is a blatant ad hominem. You are always quick to attack others, while failing to note the quirks in your own stance.
ToR has made some valid points - she has not missed the point of the discussion, she has merely chosen to explain that your point is not an especially desirable one. You may have initiated this thread, but you do not control its evolution.
Your position was very clearly an elitist one that favoured exclusion of those who failed to live up to your standards. It is my observation that there is practically always a member in any thread who will engage those who are employing falulty logic or cheap debating tactics, and call them on it. This self policing is - in my view - a far better way forward than the structured enforcemnet of a set of rules.
Thankyou Grand master OIf we add improper debating tactics to the behaviour that is to be censured, you would have a truly hard time of it Jeremy. The above is a blatant ad hominem. You are always quick to attack others, while failing to note the quirks in your own stance.
ToR has made some valid points - she has not missed the point of the discussion, she has merely chosen to explain that your point is not an especially desirable one. You may have initiated this thread, but you do not control its evolution.
Your position was very clearly an elitist one that favoured exclusion of those who failed to live up to your standards. It is my observation that there is practically always a member in any thread who will engage those who are employing falulty logic or cheap debating tactics, and call them on it. This self policing is - in my view - a far better way forward than the structured enforcemnet of a set of rules.
Despite Jermey alleging he wants a point of view he merely seeks agreement. In other words he wants to 'win' which is funny considering that is exactly the type of debate he claims to seek to avoid.
Perhaps what he means to say is:
'Anyone who wants to debate me at all should be banned - style irrelevant'.
Given the speed & method at which he disregarded my opinion I would say that is a fair assessment.
since I have been reading this thread since its inception and it is now turned into a poll, I figure i'll add my two cents.
I can understand people's feelings about jeremy's idea being elitist. I know I most certainly am not familiar with logical fallacies, and I probably made a few when I first start participating here. But I can tell that my debating ability has improved during my time here, and I wouldn’t want to deny other people a similar opportunity to improve themselves through active participation. I know jeremy doesn't want his idea to be manifested in a facist way, but just knowing that there are people like him, unafraid to get in your internet face and watching you for mistakes that you may at some point or another face consequences for, will intimidate a lot of potential forum newbies, like I myself once was, and I would hate for that to happen no matter how well intentioned jeremy’s proposal is.
however, I also understand the frustration of being in a prolonged discussion with someone whose style of debate becomes just downright ridiculous after a while. it's kind of insulting, really. myself and other forum (a different one) members were doing our best to post well thought-out and complete responses, while this person just responded to points he felt like responding to, would ask the same questions over and over again, and when backed up in a corner would suddenly change the goalposts on us, as it were. My ignorance prevents me from saying for sure whether or not he used logical fallacies, but I’m sure it’s very likely that he did.
but I have two points to make about that situation:
1 - it happens. there are going to be jerks and a$$holes out there who for one reason or another lack the social graces to be able to have a decent online discussion. if there's one thing i've learned about internet forums, it's that you need to just learn to ignore these people and move on with your life.
2 - it happens, but not very often. I can't think of any particularly prolonged debate on this forum that seemed to be wrought with the problems I experienced above. Topics that obviously involve faulty science or spam get moved to pseudoscience or the trashcan, and that usually seems to be enough to warn people that someone unreasonable is abroad, so go in there at your own risk. and maybe I don't visit the right subforums or maybe I haven't been here long enough, but over all I don't think bad debating is a seriously systemic problem that particularly needs to be addressed.
if an individual poster turns up that's throwing around logical fallacies ad nauseum, then chances are this person will have numerous other issues as well that will warrant their banning.
thank you for reading paralith's novel. I'm sure my posts must drive marnix crazy. :P
There are a few fallacies in your post. What say you, now?
Not always, but I'm looking for ways..if an individual poster turns up that's throwing around logical fallacies ad nauseum, then chances are this person will have numerous other issues as well that will warrant their banning.
I assume that this 'idea' has thus been scrapped, poll results pretty conclusive, only 1 (Jeremy) in favour.
it looks like Jeremy has scrapped himself
| « Scouring the Archives | forensics section... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
