I wonder how many of us here have met that person in real life. There was a tiny period of time, I am ashamed to admit, in college, right about when I chose to double major in CS and philosophy,...
I wonder how many of us here have met that person in real life.
There was a tiny period of time, I am ashamed to admit, in college, right about when I chose to double major in CS and philosophy, when I might have been that person in a couple of arguments...
That's really cool. I'd love to hear about your experience majoring in these two fields. We don't have a ~philosophy, but the philosophy tag is reasonably active under ~humanities. Tildes needs...
when I chose to double major in CS and philosophy,
That's really cool. I'd love to hear about your experience majoring in these two fields.
We don't have a ~philosophy, but the philosophy tag is reasonably active under ~humanities.
Tildes needs more humanities minded people, so I'm really glad to learn of your background :D
And I also cringe at the memory of the occasions in which I name dropped falacies!
I guess I majored CS/phil because I was having a crisis of belief. I had become an atheist at 12, and afterwards became a skeptic about nationalism, tradition, culture, money, academics. None of...
I guess I majored CS/phil because I was having a crisis of belief. I had become an atheist at 12, and afterwards became a skeptic about nationalism, tradition, culture, money, academics. None of these things excited the emotions in me that others seemed to feel. Then 9/11 happened when I was 15, and I watched as America's great big mass of fear and anger solidified into bloodlust, racism, and a weird, dogmatic unity. I didn't understand it. Thousands of people die every day unmourned; why should we follow these 3,000 graves with 100,000 more? Yet we were dead-set on transforming ourselves into the exciting sequel of Monkeys Swinging on Trees where the main characters get nukes, infosec, security checkpoints, and drone attacks.
I felt that if I could see what makes the Western world tick, maybe I could understand. Nationalism, war, the great desert of American culture, just all that human immaturity... CS and philosophy were the North and South poles, and if I could apply pressure from both sides, maybe the egg would crack. It was a very naïve perspective.
Rivers of ink have been poured out over the most basic facts: you and I will die; we do not inherently know our purpose or meaning; the universe makes little sense. All this effort to understand was really just a way for me to palliate my confusion and frustration about it. Maybe it's alright not to have everything, or know everything, or relentlessly seek out progress. But that kind of self-restraint or humility – the voluntary choice to not chase knowledge unto exhaustion – it took a while.
And that's what I got out of my CS and Philosophy degrees! (Sarcasm, but not entirely...)
Anyhow. Also, off topic, lou, and I swear I'm not stalking you, but I realized as I was writing this that you were the person who wrote a day or two ago about his mother-in-law. I just wanted to say I hope things are going okay. It sounds like a tough situation.
Hey dude, thanks for the words. Things are incredibly difficulty now with my mother in law, she's leaving sedation now and I can't imagine the pain she'll go through. I see that your an atheist...
Hey dude, thanks for the words. Things are incredibly difficulty now with my mother in law, she's leaving sedation now and I can't imagine the pain she'll go through. I see that your an atheist but I hope you can empathize with this man of faith because right now I don't have much else :/
I'll respond to the other things more in depth later but I wanted to acknowledge your loving message ♥️
I do empathize. I'm nobody, and I'm pretty sure I don't have cosmic powers, but I so very, very sincerely hope that you and your family will find contentment and peace, be free of suffering, and...
I do empathize. I'm nobody, and I'm pretty sure I don't have cosmic powers, but I so very, very sincerely hope that you and your family will find contentment and peace, be free of suffering, and remain strong in the face of whatever challenges are ahead.
They are annoying because they are lazy and replace real discussion with fallacy name dropping, as if describing the structure of an argument was the equivalent to refuting it. Fallacy name...
They are annoying because they are lazy and replace real discussion with fallacy name dropping, as if describing the structure of an argument was the equivalent to refuting it.
Fallacy name dropping is also antithetical to charitable interpretation because the function of the study of fallacies is to identify common flaws in arguments, and not to engage in productive conversation.
Identifying a fallacy can be a first step, but, if you stop there, you'll just sound like an asshole. You gotta use this to construct more elaborate criticism or an alternative of your own.
And most people that uses fallacies to bully others have a very narrow understanding of their definitions and exceptions.
I don't name fallacies in conversation unless the conversation is about fallacies.
You can do this with a collaborative approach where you use your knowledge of the fallacious logical structure to help steelman the position someone is trying to take. For example, someone does a...
Fallacy name dropping is also antithetical to charitable interpretation because the function of the study of fallacies is to identify common flaws in arguments, and not to engage in productive conversation.
You can do this with a collaborative approach where you use your knowledge of the fallacious logical structure to help steelman the position someone is trying to take. For example, someone does a tu coque fallacy and you can say "I recognize I'm a hypocrite but we gotta accept the facts!"
But when discussions are treated as a win/lose battle rather than as a joint-learning opportunity, then people call out fallacies like it's an "I win" button.
This is precisely why debate club people are tiresome and ought to be stuffed back into the school lockers from whence they came.
Yes, that's a great strategy. Although I would refrain from using your specific example because admitting hypocrisy would inevitably compromise the persuasiveness of my subsequent arguments. But I...
Yes, that's a great strategy. Although I would refrain from using your specific example because admitting hypocrisy would inevitably compromise the persuasiveness of my subsequent arguments.
But I totally get what you're aiming at, and try to do it myself.
I only know debate clubs from movies, always felt like something awesome I might engage as a student. I'm sad to learn that reality is not that great.
Honestly it depends on how much swag you have. Donald Trump basically did this in the Republican primary, accusing everyone of being corrupt and asserting "I know, because I paid them off too!" It...
Although I would refrain from using your specific example because admitting hypocrisy would inevitably compromise the persuasiveness of my subsequent arguments.
Honestly it depends on how much swag you have. Donald Trump basically did this in the Republican primary, accusing everyone of being corrupt and asserting "I know, because I paid them off too!" It was an applause line. People cheered for him claiming to be corrupt.
I only know debate clubs from movies, always felt like something awesome I might engage as a student. I'm sad to learn that reality is not that great.
You're required to argue for whichever side of a claim you've been assigned. It's basically training you to be a trial lawyer and give your client a fair shot regardless of how you feel about them. That's certainly a thing, people do deserve fair representation, but it's antithetical to the philosopher's mindset. You are actively discouraged from exhibiting any philos towards sophia (and certainly never ever alethia).
Look, Donald Trump is not a good example for a conversation about logic because that's not what he's about. He is all rhetoric, no substance, and powerful in a way that only the perverse can be....
Look, Donald Trump is not a good example for a conversation about logic because that's not what he's about. He is all rhetoric, no substance, and powerful in a way that only the perverse can be. Most people feel compelled to make sense, and those that don't are always in rhetorical advantage. They can convincingly say whatever they need to win.
This is particularly an issue with "ad hominem" in my experience, which people online love to use essentially as "you said something mean so what you said is wrong". (EDIT: removed sentence where...
And most people that uses fallacies to bully others have a very narrow understanding of their definitions and exceptions.
This is particularly an issue with "ad hominem" in my experience, which people online love to use essentially as "you said something mean so what you said is wrong". (EDIT: removed sentence where I was wrong about ad hominem because that was gonna get ironic too quickly)
I used to have this site on the limits of ad hominem, which does a good job of actually laying out how it works as a fallacy, bookmarked just to link to people when I was frustrated about this. I would not recommend that, however, as it's about as annoying and asshole-ish as being the fallacy guy in the first place, and you run into a "pearls before swine" type of scenario at some point. (The page is still worth a read though, if only for the beautiful example of an ad homonym argument lol.)
Identifying a fallacy can be a first step, but, if you stop there, you'll just sound like an asshole. You gotta use this to construct more elaborate criticism or an alternative of your own
One must appreciate the irony that the fallacy fallacy would itself be subject to the fallacy fallacy. Which means that merely stating that someone comitted the fallacy fallacy in a name dropping...
One must appreciate the irony that the fallacy fallacy would itself be subject to the fallacy fallacy. Which means that merely stating that someone comitted the fallacy fallacy in a name dropping fashion would be, itself, falacious. You should, instead, come up with an elaborate explanation without using the words "fallacy fallacy", otherwise you would be eternally condemned to recursive hell :)
I don't engage with long-form arguments online like.... anyone I've ever met. it's rare that I will quote more than one segment in a response, but I may make many different responses to a...
I don't engage with long-form arguments online like.... anyone I've ever met. it's rare that I will quote more than one segment in a response, but I may make many different responses to a long-form comment.
I find that many long-form comments arguing for a position are sort of a shotgun approach: they will try every argument in favor of a position, sometimes going of on tangents, and making many informal fallacies.
my approach, then, is to isolate each weak or fallacious bit and explain why it's poor reasoning or why I disagree with your opinion. and while I've been called a lot of unpleasant things and even had people criticize this style, I find that it helps cut through gish gallops and the longest reply threads tend to be the ones closest to the crux of the disagreement.
I wonder how many of us here have met that person in real life.
There was a tiny period of time, I am ashamed to admit, in college, right about when I chose to double major in CS and philosophy, when I might have been that person in a couple of arguments...
That's really cool. I'd love to hear about your experience majoring in these two fields.
We don't have a ~philosophy, but the philosophy tag is reasonably active under ~humanities.
Tildes needs more humanities minded people, so I'm really glad to learn of your background :D
And I also cringe at the memory of the occasions in which I name dropped falacies!
I guess I majored CS/phil because I was having a crisis of belief. I had become an atheist at 12, and afterwards became a skeptic about nationalism, tradition, culture, money, academics. None of these things excited the emotions in me that others seemed to feel. Then 9/11 happened when I was 15, and I watched as America's great big mass of fear and anger solidified into bloodlust, racism, and a weird, dogmatic unity. I didn't understand it. Thousands of people die every day unmourned; why should we follow these 3,000 graves with 100,000 more? Yet we were dead-set on transforming ourselves into the exciting sequel of Monkeys Swinging on Trees where the main characters get nukes, infosec, security checkpoints, and drone attacks.
I felt that if I could see what makes the Western world tick, maybe I could understand. Nationalism, war, the great desert of American culture, just all that human immaturity... CS and philosophy were the North and South poles, and if I could apply pressure from both sides, maybe the egg would crack. It was a very naïve perspective.
Rivers of ink have been poured out over the most basic facts: you and I will die; we do not inherently know our purpose or meaning; the universe makes little sense. All this effort to understand was really just a way for me to palliate my confusion and frustration about it. Maybe it's alright not to have everything, or know everything, or relentlessly seek out progress. But that kind of self-restraint or humility – the voluntary choice to not chase knowledge unto exhaustion – it took a while.
And that's what I got out of my CS and Philosophy degrees! (Sarcasm, but not entirely...)
Anyhow. Also, off topic, lou, and I swear I'm not stalking you, but I realized as I was writing this that you were the person who wrote a day or two ago about his mother-in-law. I just wanted to say I hope things are going okay. It sounds like a tough situation.
Hey dude, thanks for the words. Things are incredibly difficulty now with my mother in law, she's leaving sedation now and I can't imagine the pain she'll go through. I see that your an atheist but I hope you can empathize with this man of faith because right now I don't have much else :/
I'll respond to the other things more in depth later but I wanted to acknowledge your loving message ♥️
I do empathize. I'm nobody, and I'm pretty sure I don't have cosmic powers, but I so very, very sincerely hope that you and your family will find contentment and peace, be free of suffering, and remain strong in the face of whatever challenges are ahead.
I love a deep and meaningful discussion about all sorts, but these types do drive me round the bend.
They are annoying because they are lazy and replace real discussion with fallacy name dropping, as if describing the structure of an argument was the equivalent to refuting it.
Fallacy name dropping is also antithetical to charitable interpretation because the function of the study of fallacies is to identify common flaws in arguments, and not to engage in productive conversation.
Identifying a fallacy can be a first step, but, if you stop there, you'll just sound like an asshole. You gotta use this to construct more elaborate criticism or an alternative of your own.
And most people that uses fallacies to bully others have a very narrow understanding of their definitions and exceptions.
I don't name fallacies in conversation unless the conversation is about fallacies.
You can do this with a collaborative approach where you use your knowledge of the fallacious logical structure to help steelman the position someone is trying to take. For example, someone does a tu coque fallacy and you can say "I recognize I'm a hypocrite but we gotta accept the facts!"
But when discussions are treated as a win/lose battle rather than as a joint-learning opportunity, then people call out fallacies like it's an "I win" button.
This is precisely why debate club people are tiresome and ought to be stuffed back into the school lockers from whence they came.
Yes, that's a great strategy. Although I would refrain from using your specific example because admitting hypocrisy would inevitably compromise the persuasiveness of my subsequent arguments.
But I totally get what you're aiming at, and try to do it myself.
I only know debate clubs from movies, always felt like something awesome I might engage as a student. I'm sad to learn that reality is not that great.
Honestly it depends on how much swag you have. Donald Trump basically did this in the Republican primary, accusing everyone of being corrupt and asserting "I know, because I paid them off too!" It was an applause line. People cheered for him claiming to be corrupt.
You're required to argue for whichever side of a claim you've been assigned. It's basically training you to be a trial lawyer and give your client a fair shot regardless of how you feel about them. That's certainly a thing, people do deserve fair representation, but it's antithetical to the philosopher's mindset. You are actively discouraged from exhibiting any philos towards sophia (and certainly never ever alethia).
Look, Donald Trump is not a good example for a conversation about logic because that's not what he's about. He is all rhetoric, no substance, and powerful in a way that only the perverse can be. Most people feel compelled to make sense, and those that don't are always in rhetorical advantage. They can convincingly say whatever they need to win.
This is particularly an issue with "ad hominem" in my experience, which people online love to use essentially as "you said something mean so what you said is wrong". (EDIT: removed sentence where I was wrong about ad hominem because that was gonna get ironic too quickly)
I used to have this site on the limits of ad hominem, which does a good job of actually laying out how it works as a fallacy, bookmarked just to link to people when I was frustrated about this. I would not recommend that, however, as it's about as annoying and asshole-ish as being the fallacy guy in the first place, and you run into a "pearls before swine" type of scenario at some point. (The page is still worth a read though, if only for the beautiful example of an ad homonym argument lol.)
Also know as the fallacy fallacy
One must appreciate the irony that the fallacy fallacy would itself be subject to the fallacy fallacy. Which means that merely stating that someone comitted the fallacy fallacy in a name dropping fashion would be, itself, falacious. You should, instead, come up with an elaborate explanation without using the words "fallacy fallacy", otherwise you would be eternally condemned to recursive hell :)
I don't engage with long-form arguments online like.... anyone I've ever met. it's rare that I will quote more than one segment in a response, but I may make many different responses to a long-form comment.
I find that many long-form comments arguing for a position are sort of a shotgun approach: they will try every argument in favor of a position, sometimes going of on tangents, and making many informal fallacies.
my approach, then, is to isolate each weak or fallacious bit and explain why it's poor reasoning or why I disagree with your opinion. and while I've been called a lot of unpleasant things and even had people criticize this style, I find that it helps cut through gish gallops and the longest reply threads tend to be the ones closest to the crux of the disagreement.
that, or insults.
The squiggliness of the lips in the penultimate panel with the "fallacy fallacy" gets me every time. It's just so good.