What Should Be Pinned Up Top On Front Page?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

I think mods should do it so that it's properly done, not users.
But it seems very few want such a pinned post. Don't know why though, seems people don't want to be reminded that their argument might be flawed :chin: :lol:

Quoting tim wood

And what keeps you from writing it?

Not my exceptional talent, that's for sure. :grin:

I don't have the ability to pin what I've written to the top of the front page. I would need a gurantee that it would be pinned to the top of the front page. And why even assume that I would need to write something up to begin with? It doesn't have to be me, and it doesn't have to be written, or at least not all of it. I wouldn't work from scratch. If it were down to me, I would get most of it from an online source, and simply copy and paste. Wikipedia has a list of logical fallacies, for example.

Quoting Christoffer

But it seems very few want such a pinned post. Don't know why though...

Yeah, why aren't people speaking up? Speak up, people! Don't just vote and remain silent! Sheesh. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? At present, four of you haven't explained your "Disagree" vote.

Reply to S

Not sure why people are against it? It's just some tips about how to improve an argument and handle a dialectic properly. Weird.

Quoting Christoffer

Not sure why people are against it? It's just some tips about how to improve an argument and handle a dialectic properly. Weird.

Maybe because it's me, and I'm like a gadfly. A gadfly that doesn't just sting the horses, but makes fun of them, and speaks bluntly and sarcastically to them, telling 'em how it is. :lol:

If your idea is guilty by association with me, then that'd be a shame, because it's a good idea.

Quoting Christoffer

Not sure why people are against it?

It's just not the sort of pinup decent folks want to see. Show me your boobies and I'll show you my phallusies ...
so adolescent. Tut tut!

So there's no good reason not to do this? People are maybe just fucking with me: let's vote "Disagree" just to mess with him!

Okay, very funny, guys. :clap:

Reply to S

Maybe tips on how to improve posts scare those away who just want to express opinions and not do philosophy at all.

Quoting S

People are maybe just fucking with me: let's vote "Disagree" just to mess with him!

Are you saying that's not a valid reason? What's the fallacy?

I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need.

Reply to unenlightened

:lol:

Reply to StreetlightX

:up:

Reply to S

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.

Quoting StreetlightX

I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need.

It's [i]one[/I] more item, and it would be very helpful and relevant. I get the minimalism, but it doesn't have to be so extreme that one more pinned item is unthinkable. That would leave [i]plenty[/I] of room for discussions! The whole rest of the page. It would barely have an impact on that at all.

Reply to S I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.

We could pin this as an example of what not to do.

Quoting Hanover

I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

Finally, some criticism worth taking on board. I [i]knew[/I] it would come from someone like you. That's possible. Though I think that we could counteract that to some extent with the way that we word it. We'd just need to word it in a sort of "Helpful Tips" way, rather than a "These are the rules of logic you must follow or else!" way.

Reply to Terrapin Station :lol: :up:

Quoting StreetlightX

3.3k
I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need.

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there?

Quoting Hanover

My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

The suggestion wasn't really about "rules", but recommendations or a list to have in mind in order to not drift away too much when writing.

Quoting Christoffer

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there?

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.

:scream:
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen you make. Where did you learn philosophy? Logic is the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking itself.

Your post is essentially the outcome of post-truth. I can only imagine all the logical inconsistencies of Trump's that you all pointed out in an effort to show that what he said is false.

Without logic, how do you filter out all of the contradictory and subjective non-sense coming from all directions? How do you determine the truth-value of a claim or statement? The problem with most philosophical questions, isn't the use of logic, it is the misuse of terms.

For anyone to understand anything you write, your words must follow a logical pattern.

Quoting Terrapin Station

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.
— TheWillowOfDarkness


We could pin this as an example of what not to do.

Yes, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding towards what a fallacy and bias really is. If we are interested in truth, we cannot arrive there if every post reads like personal opinions and facts mixed in with personal values around those facts.

Keeping fallacies and biases in mind while writing is not limiting, it's focusing.

Quoting Baden

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

https://yourbias.is/

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in anything worthy of sustained discussion.

Quoting Baden

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

Sounds good! :ok:

Found these two, which are a nice and clear to some fallacies and biases, maybe these links?

Fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Biases
https://yourbias.is/


Quoting StreetlightX

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in any interesting discussion at all.

They're foundational for philosophical arguments. I've seen way too many examples on this forum where arguments go nowhere since people just bash opinions and doesn't listen to the other side.

Quoting StreetlightX

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in any interesting discussion at all.

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't.

I can't wait to see this idea implemented in the next "God Exists" thread. :rofl:

Haven't people been banned, or have their posts deleted, for not being logically consistent and continually fail to make their case in a logical manner?

Reply to Christoffer

@Harry Hindu posted the same. Are you both on commission for fallacy posters? :wink:

Basic idea is OK by me if that's what people want. But no pages with commercial links.

Reply to Baden

Hahahahaha, didn't see that :rofl:

Maybe just the wikis?

Biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Reply to S
If you want to learn about logical fallacies, take an introductory course in logic, or do some reading. It's a good idea.

Quoting Harry Hindu

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't.

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity.

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful.

Validity: the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct

Quoting Christoffer

They're foundational for philosophical arguments. I've seen way too many examples on this forum where arguments go nowhere since people just bash opinions and doesn't listen to the other side.

Yes, there's alot here beneath engagement. It's the gems one must look out for. It's simple self-respect to know when to ignore someone and their argument when it leads to no interesting discussion. The problem here is not fallacies. It's misplaced pride and an inability to ruthlessly discriminate. No pinned post can fix that.

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen.

--

That said, a link tacked on to the rules as a resource is not a bad idea at all.

It's patronizing and overbearing and has a whiff of... Let's just say it has a whiff of Sapientia about it :razz:

Having a sound logical structure is the bare minimum requirement for an argument, so bare indeed that it is hardly worth noting - unless the argument itself is so bare that a sound logical structure is all that it has going for it. Most disagreements that are worth arguing about are not over logic, and those that are not worth arguing about shouldn't be argued. (ETA: Just saw that Reply to StreetlightX said the same thing.)

Besides, I doubt that such hectoring will be pedagogically effective.

Quoting SophistiCat

Having a sound logical structure is the bare minimum requirement for an argument

...and these things are not only a tool in order to spot counter-arguments that doesn't work, but it can also be used to help someone who's interested in a dialectic to improve their own argument. An argument free from fallacies and biases helps the one who wrote the argument to communicate the idea. People treat it as a negative, but as I mentioned earlier, it's not limiting to the argument, it's focusing.

Quoting StreetlightX

Yes, there's alot here beneath engagement. It's the gems one must look out for. It's simple self-respect to know when to ignore someone and their argument when it leads to no interesting discussion. The problem here is not fallacies. It's misplaced pride and an inability to ruthlessly discriminate. No pinned post can fix that.

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen.

LOL. Post-truth BS in a logical format.

Reply to ????????????? Truth.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful.

Of course you don't.

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

"An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself."

Reply to Baden
From that same link:
True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid.

Reply to Christoffer

Thanks for that. Feel like consensus on this may not materialize though...

So, it seems to me that some people in this thread want this forum to have discussions be more like what we see on Facebook.
:confused:

Reply to ????????????? :vomit:

Quoting Harry Hindu

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid.

Which is in line with what Baden said.

Reply to Christoffer Except that it isn't.

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.)

Reply to unenlightened

Baden mentioned that it's not correct to say valid premises and true arguments. Harry then countered by a quote that says just that, which made him counter himself. That was the point.

Reply to Christoffer and with what I have said. So, we're both right?

Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument?

Reply to Christoffer

Yes. He just managed to be wrong again with this.

Quoting Harry Hindu

So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid.

I agree with @TheWillowOfDarkness and @Hanover and @StreetlightX.

Among the bad posts and obnoxious posters, I suspect that fallacies and biases are far from being the biggest problems. In fact, the identification of fallacies can be part of a bad argumentative style, and a preoccupation with fallacies seems sometimes to indicate an interest in critical thinking at the expense of philosophy.

And there's just something so middlebrow about it, like a preoccupation with "correct" grammar.

So I say no way.

The new post-truth meme:

On his way down the slippery slope to the straw man festival, the one true Scotsman felt a rumble in his tummy, he had forgotten to eat today and thus had an undistributed middle. Unfortunately, he could not attribute his hunger to his eating habits today; so he quenched his thirst with some fine post hoc( k ) and fried up some red herring, though he felt some hesitation in having both - he could not decide if it was a constructive dilemma or a false one. Anyway, he affirmed the consequence that his hunger was sated due to the meal, and after he finished his fried fisking he sat down in a circle with the rest of the smoking guns and retired hazily with them to their tent. Unfortunately, their activities in the tent were an enthymeme and he awoke with an illicit minor.

Reply to Christoffer The quote is "True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun)."

The conclusion that is Harry's and not part of the quote, but not distinguished clearly is "So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid." Harry repeats the error just pointed out by Baden and pretends that it is either said by the source or follows from what is said by the source. And he is wrong, as I have just demonstrated. All of which demonstrates both the importance of logic, and the futility of reducing it to a checklist of fallacies. You have to study it and think, and you can still go wrong.

Reply to fdrake :love:

Also, how great of a word is enthymeme?

All fallacies are originally derived from argument. One of the dangers of learning a list of fallacies is that you miss out on the ability to identify why they are fallacies in the first place -- it's a common sophomoric mistake to dismiss arguments by quickly categorizing them into their respective domains of invalid inference.

The names are better served for self-criticism than as a list of do's and don'ts for others. Especially because most fallacies are of the informal variety, anyways, and so whether or not they apply is a matter of judgment to the particular argument rather than a solid proof of invalidity.

Which is to say -- I don't think it would change our penchant for making mistakes in thinking to have a list pinned up. I think all it would accomplish would be to endorse the bad use of fallacies. So I voted no.

Quoting jamalrob

And among the bad posts and obnoxious posters, I suspect that fallacies and biases are far from being the biggest problems. In fact, the identification of fallacies can be part of a bad argumentative style, and a preoccupation with fallacies seems sometimes to indicate an interest in critical thinking at the expense of philosophy.

And there's just something so middlebrow about it, like a preoccupation with "correct" grammar.

So I say no way.

I only see fallacies used in arguments when the other one is actually brutally bad at making a point without totally bonkers reasoning or ad hominems. I don't see fallacies as part of a bad argument, they can be, as any language can be used in a bad way, but they can also be used in a good argument, especially counter-argument. If someone has fallacies and biases within their argument and it's pointed out, then the OP poster might have a very clear understanding of what is wrong with their argument.

This is part of a healthy dialectic in my opinion.

And it's not really about rules that must be followed, but tips for being a better participant in philosophical discussions and dialectics. If I want heated brawls and extreme focus on opinions there are thousands of other forums, FB and Twitter. Having tips on how to improve your argument and participation of discussions I can't see what's wrong with having such tips. It's also good for newcomers who are new to philosophy and get blasted by others for their way of reasoning and they have no idea how to really improve.

Tips aren't rules, they're just tips for those who want them. I never suggested them to be rules we must follow without exception, i.e you get banned if you don't use them, that's not it at all.

Reply to Christoffer Yeah, it's good to know about those fallacies, but I don't think it's a case for pinning.

Quoting Moliere

it's a common sophomoric mistake to dismiss arguments by quickly categorizing them into their respective domains of invalid inference.

But can also be used to point out holes in an argument in a very clear and to the point way than incomprehensible counter-arguments that goes on for pages after pages.

Quoting Moliere

The names are better served for self-criticism than as a list of do's and don'ts for others.

Tips aren't do's and don'ts, rules are. These things should be tips on how to improve your way of creating arguments and participate in discussions. There are many who don't even seem to know what fallacies and biases are.

Quoting Moliere

I think all it would accomplish would be to endorse the bad use of fallacies. So I voted no.

That's a sound counter-point though, hard to know if it's gonna go down that road, but.... isn't that a slippery slope? :wink:

Quoting jamalrob

Yeah, it's good to know about those fallacies, but I don't think it's a case for pinning.

I think the general idea that was proposed earlier was to include them in the already pinned guidelines as "General tips on how to improve your writing" or something like that. So no new post pinned and clear point that they are tips and not rules that must be followed. Just like there are guidelines to include an actual argument in the first point, which can't be a rule since sometimes there's a question to be asked and discussed rather than making an argumentative point.

Reply to Christoffer

At least you seem to recognise the limitations of syllogistic form when arguing for a point. :P

This is why a fallacy list is a stupid idea. The most interesting deductions don't even work with pre-established logical rules. If you doubt this, try going through Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and put the argument into a series of syllogisms. Even Spinoza's Ethics, which was explicitly written to ape Euclid's Elements' axiomatic style, relies heavily on footnotes and often does not explicitly spell out how one thing follows from another, just what things depend on other things - and even then, there's lots of footnotes that don't fit into the structure he wants which are nevertheless essential to understanding the text.

On a more basic level, logic alone doesn't let you derive 'it is coloured' from 'it is red'...

Reply to StreetlightX

It reminds me of urethra for some reason. Spoils it a touch for me.

Reply to fdrake

I think the misconception about this is that they should be rules, but they are tips. It's not about limiting people's ability to write philosophy, but focusing an argument when focusing is needed.

Quoting Christoffer

That's a sound counter-point though, hard to know if it's gonna go down that road, but.... isn't that a slippery slope?

On the contrary -- if it were a slippery slope I would be substituting what the proposal is for some other proposal. So something along the lines of "If we post a list of tips, then this is just one step on the road to making them rules, which is surely just a way for the socialists to take over the forum"

Which is basically a non-sequiter, and is fallacious because I am not addressing what a person said but rather what I would rather talk about -- usually because it is easier to dismiss or scarier to the audience I wish to influence.

But I believe that a list of tips wouldn't encourage the good, but would rather encourage the bad. Perhaps my prediction is wrong, but I am addressing the proposal put forward. I don't believe you are saying these should be rules, nor do I believe that it will eventually lead to socialism.

Reply to fdrake

Quoting Moliere

On the contrary -- if it were a slippery slope I would be substituting what the proposal is for some other proposal. So something along the lines of "If we post a list of tips, then this is just one step on the road to making them rules, which is surely just a way for the socialists to take over the forum"

Sure, was just making a bit of a meta-joke :wink:

A stickied list of logical fallacies probably wouldn't help... But maybe if we zoom out a bit, a stickied list of philosophical resources would probably be quite helpful. A link to logical fallacies could well be a part of that.

Reply to Christoffer Cool. I was hoping to demonstrate how one might use a knowledge of fallacies by placing them into argumentative form rather than list form :).

Reply to fdrake

We've got the resources section of the Learner centre. We could pin there maybe.

Quoting fdrake

A stickied list of logical fallacies probably wouldn't help... But maybe if we zoom out a bit, a stickied list of philosophical resources would probably be quite helpful. A link to logical fallacies could well be a part of that.

This actually sounds like a better idea! :ok:

I'm often using this as a resource and way of reminding some things that might slip my memory from time to time. Could maybe be part of such a resource material.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/

EDIT: saw that it already was part of it :smile:

Reply to Baden Reply to Christoffer @jamalrob @Baden @StreetlightX

If having a sticked resources thread is a good idea, advise we include:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, articles on pretty much everything by experts in the field, peer reviewed, citable, free.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, articles on pretty much everything by experts in the field, peer reviewed, citable, free.

Brian Magee interviews, introductory videos to various fields and thinkers, always with an expert.

David Harvey's lectures on Marx's Capital Volume 1, expert in the field, pedagogical style, introductory, free.

UCL's introduction to philosophy resource, pedagogical and introductory, free.

Wikipedia's list of fallacies, free.

Rick Roderick's lectures on continental philosophy, series 'Self Under Siege' - Freud, Nietzsche, Derrida, Sartre, Heidegger, introductory and pedagogical, free.

Rick Roderick on the 'Postmodern Condition', Nietzsche, introductory and pedagogical, free.

Project Gutenberg, loads of free books.

Marxist internet library, free books/letters.

Quoting unenlightened

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.)

Right, so what is valid is what is contextual. An invalid argument is where the premises have no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion. In other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises - a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy.

Quoting Baden

, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself."

Right, a logical property - where we verify whether or not the argument is a non sequitur.

Reply to Christoffer Reply to fdrake We have a Resources section just for that sort of thing. A topic with resources on good argumentation and critical thinking would be right at home there.

I doubt anyone would read it so it’s a waste of space.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you want to learn about logical fallacies, take an introductory course in logic, or do some reading. It's a good idea.

How did @Janus word it? Ah, that's it: "egregious projection".

Reply to Baden :shade:

Quoting Christoffer

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there?

It's hopeless. The site staff will band together and keep coming up with reasons to reject it, no matter what you say. I should know better than most: I was one of them for a couple of years.

Quoting Baden

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

Do it! That's better than nothing, at least.

Reply to StreetlightX :roll:

Reply to S

What about @fdrake's idea? My suggestion would be to combine the two. Pin a list of resources / fallacies in the Resources section and link from the guidelines.

Reply to Michael

If no-one reads in the Resources section, I guess they won't notice the waste of space either. :nerd:

Quoting Baden

Basic idea is OK by me if that's what people want.

Need I remind you that the British people wanted Brexit, which you strongly disagree with, a significant enough number of the American people wanted Trump, who you strongly disagree with, and that you take lots of actions here in your role as an administrator without deferring to what the people of this forum want?

Reply to S

Ok, I'll just wait 'til you work your way through every reply then... :ok:

Quoting Baden

Ok, I'll just wait 'til you work your way through every reply then... :ok:

Alright, alright! I'll catch up first, then reply to whatever you're referring to. :grin:

Reply to S

Cool. I'll try not to spoil the suspense by telling you jamalrob said no. :up:

Quoting StreetlightX

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen.

Quoting SophistiCat

It's patronizing and overbearing and has a whiff of... Let's just say it has a whiff of Sapientia about it :razz:

Yeah, let's read emotional things into it and name call and sling mud and make it personal. That kind of stuff is [I]so[/I] much more reasonable.

Quoting Baden

Cool. I'll try not to spoil the suspense by telling you jamalrob said no. :up:

He also got in a few subtle digs, and acted as though he's superior. The irony is that he sees it in others, and disapproves, but apparently doesn't see it in himself. At least I'm self-aware. I'm even self-aware of the super duper irony this could be.

Or I'm misinterpreting what he said and making it all about me. Whatever, he has plausible deniability, the cunning fox. :lol:

Quoting Moliere

Which is to say -- I don't think it would change our penchant for making mistakes in thinking to have a list pinned up. I think all it would accomplish would be to endorse the bad use of fallacies. So I voted no.

It wouldn't endorse the bad use - at least not explicitly. That would be an unintended consequence, and I agree that it would be bad. That's why, of course, here of all places, there would be an emphasis on learning them, and learning how to correctly identify them, and learning how to do so appropriately.

Quoting Baden

We've got the resources section of the Learner centre. We could pin there maybe.

Yeah, let's pin it where it won't be seen by most people. Great idea.

Quoting Michael

I doubt anyone would read it so it’s a waste of space.

That you doubt that anyone would read it, and therefore think that it’s a waste of space, is countered by my lack of such doubt, which leads me to conclude otherwise.

Reply to S Your doubt is countered by the fact that you're wrong.

Reply to fdrake What happened to the minimalism that was mentioned earlier? That's too much, and it's just kind of a needless replica of the resources section, and if it was hidden away from the front page, then it would undermine the whole point of increasing awareness.

Quoting Michael

Your doubt is countered by the fact that you're wrong.

I doubt that. :grin:

(I'm setting you up, here. Go ahead and say it).

Quoting S

Great idea.

At last, consensus. Just need @Michael's go ahead then. Oh...

Reply to S

Special pleading. False dilemma. ;)

Reply to fdrake Fallacy of trying to be wittier than me.

Reply to S

Ad hominem. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Quoting S

The site staff will band together and keep coming up with reasons to reject it, no matter what you say.

Yes, we should really change your name to @K, and this place to "The Philosophy Castle".

Quoting fdrake

Ad hominem.

Do do do-do-do

Reply to S

This helps me sleep.

Reply to fdrake :rofl:

Quoting Christoffer

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid. — Harry Hindu


Which is in line with what Baden said.

Quoting unenlightened

Except that it isn't.

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.)

@Harry Hindu is correct and @unenlightened is incorrect here. To be sound (which means true) an argument must have both true premises and a conclusion that follows validly from those premises.

The example given by @unenlightened may have true premises, but even if the conclusion were true as claimed, the argument would not be true if the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Quoting StreetlightX

Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in anything worthy of sustained discussion.

So something could be philosophically interesting, even if it were riddled with fallacies? :confused:

Quoting Janus

To be sound (which means true) an argument...

Arguments can't be true. So, he messed up the vocab.

Quoting Janus

the argument would not be true...

As are you...

"If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using logical jargon correctly."

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

But who cares, really. That was kind of the point.

I voted 'agree' to the OP, because despite protestations that it would take up precious space; I can't see how it could take up more precious space than the reams of drivel that make up much of what is posted on this forum.

Quoting Baden

Arguments can't be true.

Then what are you actually saying with an argument, if not making the case for the fact of some state-of-affairs?

Quoting Janus

So something could be philosophically interesting, even if it were riddled with fallacies? :confused:

I can see it being interesting like a puzzle. Making an argument riddled with fallacies is like mixing up the colours of a Rubik's cube and then placing that cube somewhere as a kind of open invitation to solve it.

Reply to Harry Hindu

We are talking about logic and logical fallacies in a philosophical context and the appropriate vocabulary to be used within that context. I didn't invent the frigging vocab.

Premises and conclusions are true (or false). Arguments are valid (or invalid).

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology.

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point.

Quoting Baden

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point.

It wasn't a matter of either one of us being right or wrong. We were simply talking past each other. But you can believe whatever makes you sleep better tonight.

Quoting Michael

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology.

Great idea, only this time we've switched roles, with you being ironic and me being sincere. (Oh wait, that was @Baden. Whatever, you're all the same to me. Everything's a goat anyway).

Reply to Harry Hindu

:lol:

Reply to Baden

Of course I knew you are right, technically speaking. But I am arguing that 'sound' means 'true' in the sense that a straight board or an arrow can be true. An argument is true if it 'hits the mark'. The analytics are sometimes just that; too anal with their terminology, too desperate to be rid of ambiguity.

Quoting Michael

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology.

Shall we do a poll?

Quoting Janus

The analytics are sometimes just that; too anal with their terminology, too desperate to be rid of ambiguity.

Probably. It's sometimes necessary, but certainly not in most of what goes on around here.

Reply to S

If the fallacies were deliberately woven into the text I suppose it could be something interesting; a kind of novelty; but could it be philosophically interesting?

Quoting Baden

Shall we do a poll?

That's a terrible idea! (Now everyone will think that it's a good idea).

Reply to S

You're catching on K. :razz:

Quoting Janus

If the fallacies were deliberately woven into the text I suppose it could be something interesting; a kind of novelty; but could it be philosophically interesting?

Apparently whether or not something is philosophically interesting is entirely a matter of StreetlightX's opinion, so you're asking the wrong person.

Quoting Baden

But who cares, really.

[I]*raises hand*[/I]

Quoting Janus

I voted 'agree' to the OP, because despite protestations that it would take up precious space; I can't see how it could take up more precious space than the reams of drivel that make up much of what is posted on this forum.

When did you become so sensible? Maybe I just missed it before. Anyway, I like this you.

(And yes, I do judge sensibleness on a scale with myself at the top and we-both-know-who at the bottom). :wink:

Reply to S

Take it up with Harry then. And I hope you'll be able to sleep at night after that.

Quoting S

Apparently whether or not something is philosophically interesting is entirely a matter of StreetlightX's opinion, so you're asking the wrong person.

Yes, @StreetlightX does tend to universalize his own personal preferences.

Reply to Baden You already corrected him. And I see what you did there.

Reply to S Well thanks, @S, I probably still have some philosophical sympathies that you would disagree with, but to me this is more an argument about form than content; and I've always been a stickler for coherence and consistency, and open acknowledgement of one's presuppositions (we all have them!).

Reply to Harry Hindu

I’ve got no problem the logic. The necessary meanings of logic are how we distinguish and reason about things.There are many different logics. Fallacies are one of these logics. Of itself, this is perfectly fine.

Fallacies and their logic are a field of knowledge we may be an expert on. Just as I know how I felt yesterday, what’s in my backyard, what’s important for me to do today and how planets are moving, I may know about fallacies and when people commit them. If the subject was fallacies someone had committed, I would have exactly what’s needed.

The problem with fallacies is not they aren’t real or that logic somehow doesn’t work, it’s they don’t address a claim being made. If I’m talking about which shops are in my local area, I’m not making claim about how fallacious my argument is or not. My subject of interest is another fact entirely, one which is not actually a fact of my argument at all.

We can see this easily in examples. Let’s say I claim there is a fruit shop on my street. I make the argument:

“I am a poster of The Philosophy Forum. Since I dislike fallacies, I am an idiot who can never be trusted. Ergo, there is a fruit shop on my street.”

I’m sure the fallacy minded will have a lot of fun picking that one apart, finding all the different sorts of missteps in logical inference I’ve made. But what have we said/learnt/discovered about whether there is a fruit shop on my street? Absolutely nothing. The metric which justifies the claim “There is a fruit shop on my street” or gives a reason to reject it hasn’t even been addressed.

The fallacies of my argument doesn’t actually give us a reason to conclude the claim should be rejected. I could commit all those fallacies in my argument and it might be true there is a fruit shop on my street.

If someone want to now about the fruit shop is there or not, fallacies and their logic does not them. The subject is not my argument and whether it has made a fallacious misstep, it’s the empirical fact of whether a shop exists on my street.

To comment on the truth of the claim, someone needs the appropriate definitions of fruit shop and knowledge of if the shop exists. Talking about fallacies I’ve committed gets no-one any closer to knowing if there is a fruit shop on my street.

In any case fallacies make comment on the structure os someone’s argument, not the content of their claim. This is fine if you are interested in the fallacies of their argument. If, however, you are interested in whether their underlying claim about something is true or not, talking about fallacies is utterly useless. They only give you cause to think an argument has fallacious reasoning. They don’t give a reason to accept or reject the underlying claim.

Why not just sticky this thread. Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right".

Reply to S I suppose, in the end, my feelings don't run too deep on this so I'd be willing to give it a shot in spite of my prediction and see what actually happened.

Harry Hindu:Then what are you actually saying with an argument, if not making the case for the fact of some state-of-affairs?

One does that all the time, assuming one's argument is making a truth claim.

The point is the fact of someone making a case (one's argument) is a different fact to what is true or false (the thing someone makes a claim about).

Quoting Michael

Premises and conclusions are true (or false). Arguments are valid (or invalid).

And I as I pointed out an argument is only valid if it is logically consistent - that it is not a non sequitur.

So in order for your argument to be valid it must still be logical. An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Why not just sticky this thread. Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right".

He's only right because I agree him and wrong otherwise. It's all about me, really. Everyone should bear witness to me, not him. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me...

Reply to Janus Unlikely, but that's my point. At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting.

Reply to Janus

Yes, absolutely.

There are many ways a fallacious argument might be interesting.

It's underlying truth claim might be correct, so it would be a mistake to think everything being said ought to be rejected because of the fallacies.

We might find it interesting for how it might jolt us out of a particular mode of thinking or imagine differently.

The fallacious statement might be an example which shows as something about claims and reasoning, such as examples in his thread, where a fallacious argument is used to show how the presence of fallacies don't address the truth claim of an argument.

Quoting StreetlightX

At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting.

Sure, but I would say that "wrangling over fallacies" only occurs because some people don't understand or, even worse, obstinately refuse to accept, that they are indulging in fallacies. And they will never "make it out of the gate of interesting" until they correct that shortcoming.

Having to correct such misguided people may well not be a very interesting thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend much time on the task, but then if the aim is to increase the interestingness of this forum, it is a task which all who are sufficiently interested in that aim should be prepared to share to some degree in the burden of.

Good luck to them.

Quoting StreetlightX

Unlikely, but that's my point. At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting.

I'm not overly concerned about what side of your imaginary gate you think I'm on. This imaginary gate of yours is merely a manifestation of your inflated opinion.

Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness There may possibly be gems of insight hiding in nests of fallacy, but who would care to take the trouble to search for and unearth them?

Reply to StreetlightX That's very kind of you! (Do you get the non-fallacious double entendre?)

Reply to Janus

Anyone interested in the insight?

Those who want to discover what is interesting and true in the statement, as opposed to the fallacy obsessed, who are only interested in ignoring or rejecting any such insight to win contest of logical structure.

Do you not see the irresponsibility of suggesting we not be bothered with insight just because someone built a nest of fallacies? Is insight or truth not a good enough reason for bother? How could rejecting this interest in truth or insight ever square with genuine philosophical interest?

It's a terrible prejudice, build from motivation of trying to tear down an argument, rather than understand what is true.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. If I'm in a discussion with someone, and they make a claim which I doubt, and I ask them if they can present an argument in support of this claim, and they say yes, and then they present a fallacious argument, then it is wrong of me to identify the fallacy, explain why it is a fallacy, and urge them to understand that they need to try again in a different way? That's not philosophically interesting, I'm wrangling over something I shouldn't be, I'm overlooking gems, I'm not trying to ascertain whether there's any truth to their claim, I'm being obnoxious, childish, patronising, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow, and all the rest of it?

Reply to S

Yes (unless your topic was the fallacies in the argument, rather than a truth claim). You should just cut the bullshit and address the claim. Put aside the fallacies and consider whether you have a reason to deny the truth claim they are making.

The point at stake isn't whether they've reasoned perfectly, it's whether they understand what is true. You have a responsibility to care what is true, to reject their truth claim for good reason, rather than just because their argument had some fallacies. You can't just be lazy and reject their claim is true because they haven't followed a particular rule of logical inference.

(this also means Burden Of Proof is out as an objection, as someone failing to present evidence or show a truth in their argument doesn't actually give us a reason to think their claim is false).

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

Do you not see the irresponsibility of suggesting we not be bothered with insight just because someone built a nest of fallacies?

By all means praise them for their insights if there are any. If someone produces a nest of fallacies, though, whatever insights may be there may only be discovered by diligent reading. Who has time to read many pages of fallacious rubbish just in order to discover whether there are any gems hidden there?

Quoting S

That's not philosophically interesting, I'm wrangling over something I shouldn't be, I'm overlooking gems, I'm not trying to ascertain whether there's any truth to their claim, I'm being obnoxious, childish, patronising, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow, and all the rest of it?

No! It could all be valuable philosophical work. Of course you could still do this work in an obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow and all the rest of it" way, but then the good part of your work might be wasted. The "obnoxious, etc, etc......" is more a matter of style than substance.

Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness Are you a brick wall? Because I feel like I'm talking to one.

I began with my doubt of their claim, which your advice seems to forget. That suggests that I already have a reason not to accept their claim. Hence I asked for one, and that resulted in them committing a fallacy. Given the aforementioned, why would it be wrong of me to identify the fallacy, explain why it is a fallacy, and urge them to understand that they need to try again in a different way?

Why would all of those frankly ludicrous accusations (which I admittedly took out of context) apply to me in that scenario, as you've just suggested by answering with a "Yes"?

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

The point at stake isn't whether they've reasoned perfectly, it's whether they understand what is true. You have a responsibility to care what is true, to reject their truth claim for good reason, rather than just because their argument failed to follow some rules. You can't just be lazy and reject their claim is true because they haven't followed a particular rule of logical inference.

(this also means Burden Of Proof is out as an objection, as someone failing to present evidence or show a truth in their argument doesn't actually give us a reason to think their claim is false).

You seem quite oblivious and you don't make much sense. Sorry.

Reply to Janus

Anyone does! For the presence of fallacies is no measure of the truth claim or insight in question. One just ignores it and jumps straight to what is being claimed (like whether there is a fruit shop in my street, in my example) or what might be insightful (say a funny combination of things we never thought might occur together).

I always follow the herd so I disagree too.

Prominently pinning the basics may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and could offer better and more interesting content), signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

Reply to S

Doubt is the problem, it's no reason for taking any position.

If I say: "But how to I know this is true? Give a reason to think it's true" I haven't given myself no reason to reject the given claim. The idea it is false isn't justified be the act of doubting. If I am only doubting, I have no justification in rejecting a claim. I need to know how it is false to justify rejecting its true.

Quoting praxis

I always follow the herd so I disagree too.

I'm a contrarian, so I disagree with your disagreement.

Quoting praxis

Prominently pinning the basics may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and could offer better and more interesting content), signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

Okay, then on that note, let's unpin the guidelines. After all, it may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and can behave in an appropriate manner without having to be guided) signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

Doubt is the problem, it's no reason for taking any position.

[I]Reasonable[/I] doubt. Not just doubt for doubt's sake. :roll:

Reply to praxis

This presupposes that the proposed additional guidelines would be so prominent, so overbearing, as to render everything else on the site more or less invisible.

Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't know about you, but I don't even have time to read everything I want to read, let alone spend time sifting through garbage hoping to uncover something of value. If something of value jumps right out of a pile of garbage, then for sure, acknowledge that, and then, if you think you can, and you feel you can be bothered, try to educate the author as to how they might more coherently and consistently present their valuable insight.

Reply to S

That's not really doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" is actually an evidence/knowledge based claim. If we take the concept of "reasonable doubt" in law, for example, it is actually based on the expectation that if someone performed a crime, it amounts to empirical states which we can observe and investigate. It actually rejects someone committed a crime on the basis we know empirical states we would expect from the crime haven't occurred.

Reply to Janus

This is a red-herring because the garbage of it being fallacious is unrelated to its truth claim. In this respect, it's no more difficult to sort through whether to read it than anything else.

Now, if it's garbage in terms of its truth claim, that's a different story. Few want to waste their time reading pages of falsehoods, which is totally understandable.

Quoting StreetlightX

Also, how great of a word is enthymeme?

Quoting fdrake

It reminds me of urethra for some reason. Spoils it a touch for me.

@fdrake perhaps you are thinking of eurythmics or eurythmy?

Quoting S

let's unpin the guidelines

:up:

Quoting Janus

This presupposes that the proposed additional guidelines would be so prominent, so overbearing, as to render everything else on the site more or less invisible.

No, just a small sign or impression.

Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness

It cannot be both fallacious and true in its entirety. If it is mostly fallacious and yet contains a nugget of truth, then the nugget of truth should be valued and acknowledged. But your argument assumes that the nugget of truth is immediately obvious, whereas as the scenario I have outlined is one where the nugget is not immediately obvious and one would have to read through a pile of fallacious garbage in order to discover a nugget that may not even be there.

So, I haven't committed the "red herring" fallacy here, rather it is the case that you have committed the "strawman fallacy".

Is clusterfuck a fallacy?

Reply to Janus

I wasn't saying you committed a "red herring" fallacy.

My point was the idea that lots of fallacies make it hard to discern a truth claim was mistaken. "Red-herring" was referring to how your truth claim was wrong, that you are supposing a problem in identifying truth claims which isn't there.

Reply to praxis

So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly?

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

"Red-herring" was referring to how your truth claim was wrong, that you are supposing a problem in identifying truth claims which isn't there.

I wasn't talking about identifying truths (or truth claims) in texts, but about discovering truths or insights in texts. The point is that you actually have to read the text in order to discover whether there are even any potential truths or insights there, before you can actually identify them as such.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Only if you don't clusterfuck off!

Reply to Janus

Agreed.

I was saying the amount of fallacies present in the text don't affect the truth claims. One just reads it and focuses in on the truth claims, ignoring the fallacious moves to get at what at stake for the claim. It's not hard to isolate them, assuming someone has made the truth they are interested clear.

(obviously, in some cases, a person might be committing fallacies in a way that makes the truth claim opaque, but that's just issue of communication. As with any text which didn't commit fallacies but was similarly opaque, you would have to wait to find a way in or just leave it alone because you didn't want to waste time trying to understand it and failing).

Quoting Janus

So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly?

Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.

The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever[/I] and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level [i]whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.

Reply to praxis Fair point.

Quoting Janus

Only if you don't clusterfuck off!

Really, if a piece of writing is literally a clusterfuck, does this qualify as a fallacy?

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

The problem with fallacies is not they aren’t real or that logic somehow doesn’t work, it’s they don’t address a claim being made. If I’m talking about which shops are in my local area, I’m not making claim about how fallacious my argument is or not. My subject of interest is another [b]fact entirely, one which is not actually a fact of my argument at all.[/b]

But if your claim about which shops are in your local area is false, then it isn't a fact at all, but a falsehood. Your "subject of interest" would be lacking in facts.

I asked this a while ago:
Quoting Harry Hindu

Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true or invalid and true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument?

And so far, I've only seen these two examples:
Quoting unenlightened

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.)

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

I am a poster of The Philosophy Forum. Since I dislike fallacies, I am an idiot who can never be trusted. Ergo, there is a fruit shop on my street.”

If these topics are so "interesting", then I'd love to see a thread started on these. :rofl:

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

I’m sure the fallacy minded will have a lot of fun picking that one apart, finding all the different sorts of missteps in logical inference I’ve made. But what have we said/learnt/discovered about whether there is a fruit shop on my street? Absolutely nothing. The metric which justifies the claim “There is a fruit shop on my street” or gives a reason to reject it hasn’t even been addressed. The fallacies of my argument doesn’t actually give us a reason to conclude the claim should be rejected. I could commit all those fallacies in my argument and it might be true there is a fruit shop on my street.

:clap: You just explained the fallacy fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Isn't it strange that you can't seem to avoid referring to some logical fallacy when it comes to making claims about how to determine what is true or not?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I don't know...maybe a clusterfallacy? Or a clusterphallusy?

Quoting Harry Hindu

An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy.

So induction is a logical fallacy? Poor science.

Quoting Janus

No! It could all be valuable philosophical work. Of course you could still do this work in an obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow and all the rest of it" way, but then the good part of your work might be wasted. The "obnoxious, etc, etc......" is more a matter of style than substance.

Obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, middlebrow? Sure, whatever. I'm not everyone's cup of tea. But stupid? Never! :grin:

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not really doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" is actually an evidence/knowledge based claim. If we take the concept of "reasonable doubt" in law, for example, it is actually based on the expectation that if someone performed a crime, it amounts to empirical states which we can observe and investigate. It actually rejects someone committed a crime on the basis we know empirical states we would expect from the crime haven't occurred.

Sure, there'd be two sides to the argument. This isn't a one sided thing. But I may have already gone over my side, leaving the problem of trying to figure out whether this claim of the other person has anything going for it. Left to my own devices, there would be little chance of acheiving a different outcome. I don'taccept it, and I have my reasons. I've gone through that process and reached a conclusion. But I could be wrong, hence giving an opportunity for the other person to make their case. You expect me to argue against myself? Kind of an odd take. Anyway, this is where you miss the importance of the burden of proof.

If I've done all that, which is to take a reasonable approach, and then they produce a fallacious argument in reply, then the other reasonable thing to do is as I've described.

I just don't think you're seeing what reasonable behaviour looks like in these situations. Or you're just kind of being a contrarian for the sake of it. Maybe you have an axe to grind, a chip on your shoulder. Logic bad, fallacies good. Yeah, right... :brow:

Reply to Janus

No, no, enthymeme reminds me of urethra.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a red-herring because the garbage of it being fallacious is unrelated to its truth claim.

No. You're missing the point. People like myself and @Janus understand how the logic words. We understand that producing a fallacious argument in support of a claim doesn't mean that that claim is not true. You don't need to explain this to us. You shouldn't assume that we don't understand this.

They commit the fallacy in trying to demonstrate the supposed truth to the claim. That's what we're trying to find out: whether there's a good enough reason to believe that the claim is true. If I can't reasonably find one, which would be the charitable assumption in this situation, then I pass it over to you.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right".

Baden is not the kind of thing that can be 'right'. Baden can be good or bad. Directions can be right or left. Inferences can be true or false. Statements can be sound or unsound. And whole arguments can be valid or invalid, as well as true or false. I hope we can now draw a line under this.

@praxis

Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.

The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.

But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level. If you're looking for a club who only lets in elites, then this isn't it.

Quoting S

But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level.

On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign.

Quoting praxis

On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign.

This place isn't for them, then. We have a significant number of low levels here. (N.b. a significant number doesn't necessarily equate to most, and it doesn't in this case. It's a number of significance by my assessment).

Reply to S

It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy.

Quoting praxis

It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy.

No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves.

My argument is not the straw man that you addressed. It's not that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality, they should therefore be catered to. That obviously has one or more missing premises. The missing premise would be something along the lines that, regarding the actions we take for the forum itself, we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic, especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy, and it wouldn't make a significant difference in how the front page looks, and although it might put some people off, these people would be of a bad, snobbish attitude, and they would have the wrong priorities, and this site would very likely continue to attract those higher levels you have in mind who do not have that bad attitude and probably think nothing of a little sticky note about logic on a philosophy forum.

When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities.

Quoting S

No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves.

This is a poor analogy because a hazardous wet floor is equally relevant to both the hillbilly and the ivy league academic. Indeed it may be more relevant to the achademic who, being so often lost in their deep thoughts, may be less likely to notice floor hazards. The hillbilly, on the other hand, is likely to be continually scanning the floor for food scraps and cigaret butts that might still have a buff or two left in them, and being so focused on the floor are much less likely to fall pray to its potential pitfalls. In fact, if the floor cleaner were sufficiently toxic they may lick it off the floor in the hopes of attaining a cheep high, inadvertently providing a public safety service.

S:we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic

If prominently posting basic instruction gives the impression that this site is for beginners and this consequently discourages potential participants more skilled in logic it could have the effect of increasing the ratio of illogic.

S:... especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy,

It may be simple and easy to post some basics but would it be effective? In order to improve critical thinking you need to value critical thinking. It's not simple and easy to make people value logic, critical thinking, knowledge, truth, wisdom, etc.

S:When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities.

I doubt anyone wants an elitist club. For one thing, the membership fees would likely be outrageous. I do think that many members, including myself, would like to see interesting topics that are discussed deeply and reasonably.

:heart: