"Fallacy!"-free Fridays on Enworld RPG threads?

[Umbran]

I stated "has to leave the bar", not "must leave the bar"

You see, this is what I don't get."

There's apparently a difference between "must" and "has to" big enough to matter, but other folks are "anal-retentive" if they note major flaws of logic?

 

[Yesway Jose]

There's apparently a difference between "must" and "has to" big enough to matter, but other folks are "anal-retentive" if they note major flaws of logic?

EDIT: Never mind, but yes, I feel that the current focus of our debate or argument is an anal-retentive one.

 

[Wayside]

If you say "you are being illogical," without explaining what you mean, you are yourself committing a logical fallacy; specifically an ad hominem.

Posts like this are why I'd actually support "Fallacy!"-free Friday. To wit: the vast majority of people who cry "fallacy" don't know what they're talking about. An ad hominem says, essentially, "your argument is wrong because you're the one who made it. Something about you invalidates the argument." Merely attacking someone or painting them in a negative light is not an ad hominem.

That's not what I said. Dare I say that that's a straw man. By "meaningful discussion," I meant a place where any idea could be discussed in a fruitful way, which is the opposite of how you seem to define it.

You can dare, but again, you'd be wrong. Any basic guide to argumentation will advise you to be judicious in your use of the word "fallacy." Assuming, that is, that you're genuinely interested in meaningful discussion. Because when "fallacy" pops up in an argument, particularly on teh intarwebz, it's usually invoked as an "I win" button, and there's nothing fruitful about that.

 

[Umbran]

Merely attacking someone or painting them in a negative light is not an ad hominem.

Correct. "You are being illogical" though, still generally ad hominem, though a weak one - the idea is to suggest that since the person has characteristic X (in this case, an illogical state of mind) then their position can be dismissed.

Because when "fallacy" pops up in an argument, particularly on teh intarwebz, it's usually invoked as an "I win" button, and there's nothing fruitful about that.

Around here, my personal experience has been that it is used slightly more constructively than that. Perhaps not much more constructively in some cases, but most of the time it seems a bit better than you suggest here.

 

[Dice4Hire]

... particularly on teh intarwebz, it's usually invoked as an "I win" button, and there's nothing fruitful about that.

This thread strikes me as and attempt to get an 'I win'

 

[Wayside]

Correct. "You are being illogical" though, still generally ad hominem, though a weak one - the idea is to suggest that since the person has characteristic X (in this case, an illogical state of mind) then their position can be dismissed.

That could be true for "You are illogical" (depending on context) but not "You are being illogical." The progressive aspect of the latter locates its meaning solely in the present.

In other words, if B rejects A's argument on the grounds that A is illogical, that's an ad hominem, and probably, though not always, a fallacy. But if B rejects A's argument on the grounds that A is being illogical (i.e. with the argument), that's something else altogether.

You can see this more easily with "reasonable" than "illogical," since people actually say things like "A isn't a reasonable person" and "A isn't being reasonable."

Around here, my personal experience has been that it is used slightly more constructively than that. Perhaps not much more constructively in some cases, but most of the time it seems a bit better than you suggest here.

Perhaps, slightly. In my experience, the people with a little education are the worst offenders. They know enough to lob the big words, but not enough to do so responsibly. Of course there are many excellent posters here, but I'd be willing to bet that if you combed through their histories, you'd find few accusations of fallacious reasoning.

This thread strikes me as and attempt to get an 'I win'

Could be. It never hurts to reiterate the principle of charity, though.

 

[Umbran]

That could be true for "You are illogical" (depending on context) but not "You are being illogical." The progressive aspect of the latter locates its meaning solely in the present.

I think the upthread example of "must leave,", "has to leave," and "chooses to leave," applies. A major way logic is misapplied to message board discussions is by using your own meaning of a phrase, rather than the author's. Most folk just aren't that exacting in their word choice, so it pays to give folks a bit of leeway most of the time. If the *author* didn't really note the difference between "you are illogical" and "you are being illogical", ripping the point apart based on that isn't constructive to the discussion.

And, needless to say, for a goodly bunch of folks on the internet, the fiddly bits of word choice are pointed out when it benefits their side of the argument, but not noticed when it would not help their side.

 

[Wayside]

A major way logic is misapplied to message board discussions is by using your own meaning of a phrase, rather than the author's. Most folk just aren't that exacting in their word choice, so it pays to give folks a bit of leeway most of the time. If the *author* didn't really note the difference between "you are illogical" and "you are being illogical", ripping the point apart based on that isn't constructive to the discussion.

I'm not ripping the post apart, just noting that there's a really important nuance there. If A says "You aren't being logical" in response to B's argument, then what A is really saying is "Your argument isn't logical." That's just idiomatic English (with a dash of synecdoche), not an ad hominem, and it's the kind of thing someone would actually say. But sure, like I said the first time around, "You are illogical" would in most cases be an ad hominem. However, going back to the original claim:

If you say "you are being illogical," without explaining what you mean, you are yourself committing a logical fallacy; specifically an ad hominem.

We can still say that:

1. Simply saying "You are illogical" or "You are being illogical" is never an ad hominem. You have to say "Your argument is wrong because...," "I reject your argument because...," etc., first.

2. Even if you say "Your argument is wrong because you are illogical," explaining what you mean won't stop it from being an ad hominem. Either it is or it isn't -- explaining won't change anything.

3. If you say "Your argument is wrong because you're being illogical" (i.e. in your argument), that too is never an ad hominem., though it does beg the question.

As far as being constructive, in your average discussion this wouldn't be. But that's sort of the point of this particular thread: a) fallacy-mongering gets in the way of "meaningful discussion," and b) most people don't have a firm enough grasp of fallacies to correctly identify them anyway.

And, needless to say, for a goodly bunch of folks on the internet, the fiddly bits of word choice are pointed out when it benefits their side of the argument, but not noticed when it would not help their side.

I don't disagree. The same goes for calling "fallacy!"

 

[Hussar]

Which I think supports my contention on post 30 that, like the Yankees bar, that the status quo has been self-selected to determine what is "meaningful discussion".

Next time I have a discussion with my wife, I have to remember to tell her that she's making a "bad argument" and we're not having a "meaningful discussion" <--- smiley face connotes humorous parameters to exclude fallacy declaration that marriage is not analogous to Enworld

LOL. Let us know when you get out of the hospital.

The problem is that you are trying to connect discussion with argument. It's very, very hard to have a discussion on the Internet because it's such a slow medium. So, we tend to post our thoughts, as (mostly) discrete, complete ideas, and then bang them together with other people's (mostly) discrete, complete ideas.

That's not how discussion works generally. But, again, because of the medium, discussion is virtually impossible. So, we (very loosely) debate. And because of the debate structure, some of the strategies of debate creep into things. And the idea of a "fallacy" is one strategy in debate.

Like it or hate it, you can't really "discuss" on the Internet.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The problem is that you are trying to connect discussion with argument. It's very, very hard to have a discussion on the Internet because it's such a slow medium. So, we tend to post our thoughts, as (mostly) discrete, complete ideas, and then bang them together with other people's (mostly) discrete, complete ideas.

That's not how discussion works generally. But, again, because of the medium, discussion is virtually impossible. So, we (very loosely) debate. And because of the debate structure, some of the strategies of debate creep into things. And the idea of a "fallacy" is one strategy in debate.

Like it or hate it, you can't really "discuss" on the Internet.

I think that some/many Enworld threads begin as discussions (although some OPs instantly initiate a debate). I think you get into debates when anyone perceives and subjectively feels challenged by two or more conflicting opinions existing simultaneously.

I completely agree with you that there are factors in play here like the nature of the medium and strategies for debate. I don't know if this clarification is warranted or not in reference to your post, but I think that fallacy-mongering can quite often change debates into arguments. Wayside elaborated much better than I could that fallacy declarations (used correctly or incorrectly) don't necessarily aid in a meaningful discussion or debate. Not to mention perceiving subjective opinions as statements of objective fact which have caused more than a few threads to be shut down.

Of course, this depends on your definition of a "meaningful" discussion or debate. A logician may enjoy logical arguments for their own sake regardless of the actual content. I feel that since we're generally talking about a game and that I'm subjectively wasting my time on an intellectual but fun leisure activity talking about a game, and I don't think we're accomplishing anything of greater economic, societal or scientific importance, then I feel that should set certain parameters on what is a "meaningful" discussion/debate/argument.

The difference between what I hope would be happening (YMMV) vs what I thought is sometimes happening is what initiated my wishful thinking gimmick of "Fallacy!"-free Friday.