Indeed a private website does not seem a great place for a master list of anything. Github or Wikipedia seem like much better places. Since it is possible to extend discussion on the validity of any member of that list, or indeed add new ones.
The definitions given for these "logical fallacies" are packed with rancourous comments that don't throw light on the nature of the fallacy. The names given for them are not the standard names; the classical Aristotelian fallacies are usually named in Latin (and they aren't all there).
And indeed, a lot of the so-called fallacies are not fallacies at all, because they aren't a type of faulty argument or reasoning; they're just sayings.
Agree. It is a fallacy to assume full knowledge of all fallacies humanity did and still will invent to trick themselves to make opinion and fact interchangeable.
Absolutely agree - I would label some of them "arguments" rather than logical fallacies.
For instance "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't a logical fallacy, it's just an idiom/argument.
Also some of the definitions of things that aren't logical fallacies themselves contain real logical fallacies. For instance the 'proof' of 'The Passive Voice' seems to include an a-priori argument ('Rape statistics are reported as number of rapes rather than number of rapists, thus this was intended to shift the focus from men to women and is a logical fallacy'). This ignores the fact that the number of rapists can't be known, while the number of reported rapes can be known.
This example is particularly odd and illogical as it doesn’t not that crime statistics are by crime, not by criminal. So it singles out “rape statistics” as if they have a particular characteristics.
And of course misses what you brought up in that rapes are more knowable than rapists.
Even though this is appealing (mostly to people who are lazy) because it's like importing a library, this never actually won any argument.
A better alternative is to detect whether the person is proposing an alternative course of action followed by a successful example.
The person that provides the most workable and actionnable solution usually wins.
A good example of this is the design of the University of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
In his multi-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson and His Time, Dumas Malone tells the story of how Jefferson handled the first meeting held to decide the organization of the future University of Virginia. The University had been Jefferson’s idea in the first place, but (as is the case everywhere, not just in open source projects) many other parties had climbed on board quickly, each with their own interests and agendas.
When they gathered at that first meeting to hash things out, Jefferson made sure to show up with meticulously prepared architectural drawings, detailed budgets for construction and operation, a proposed curriculum, and the names of specific faculty he wanted to import from Europe. No one else in the room was even remotely as prepared; the group essentially had to capitulate to Jefferson’s vision, and the University was eventually founded more or less in accordance with his plans.
The facts that construction went far over budget, and that many of his ideas did not, for various reasons, work out in the end, were all things Jefferson probably knew perfectly well would happen. His purpose was strategic: to show up at the meeting with something so substantive that everyone else would have to fall into the role of simply proposing modifications to it, so that the overall shape, and therefore schedule, of the project would be roughly as he wanted.
This is good advice. Maybe slightly dangerous to the less people-minded among us, who are prone to take it as "prepare a pile of documentation" when nobody wants such a pile. So I'd tweak the advice a bit: when preparing for a meeting, do homework on the other participants first, try to empathize with what they want and would accept. Then, depending on that, do the material homework - reading, writing, etc. It works like magic.
Being solutions-oriented, looking at solutions proposed by each party, is one way to cut through bullshit. But if you think about it, if everyone already has a solution coming to the table and just argue for them, they will come away having learned nothing.
One big fallacy of the thinking man, perhaps not logical, but essential: Thinking too much. Some are so good at thinking that they can fool the rest into believing that they are living in the real world.
I don't think you can think too much. But thinking un-aligned with reality gets bogged down sooner or later. Sadly it tends to be later with some of the more grandiose & expensive schemes people dream up for the rest of us.
This is why deadlines are useful. The customer cares what was delivered, not how exquisitely sculpted my code was.
So the acme of skill is to nail the 80% of the challenge that is readily automated, eschew the yak shaving, and then maybe "polish the cannonball" if the problem comes 'round again.
Like most of the entries in the article's silly list, this is not a "fallacy", formal nor informal; one does not invalidate a particular argument just by "thinking too much".
146 dense, difficult to read blocks of very wide text. I can't comment on the content because I didn't want to read it after the first few lines, despite being interested enough to go there in the first place. As noted in another comment, wikipedia seems better for this topic.
I'm not sure about the others, but in Firefox, whenever a site supports its reader mode, there's a little icon in the address bar that removes all the excess stuff and reformats the page with your preferred font size, colors, margins.
This is not the way to develop your truthseeking, in fact it may make you worse at it. The unbiased way to check validity of others' statements is to be able to check validity of your own beliefs. If you can do that then you have nothing to worry about: even if you get convinced by a flawed argument, you'll soon debug it out of yourself.
To take a software metaphor, you reuse the same libraries. Work on that self-skepticism, because this ability translates into the ability to be skeptical of thoughts coming from others.
You should memorize them only for your own benefit so that you are less likely to produce them and quicker to realize the foolishness and incompleteness of other peoples opinions.
You cannot hope to correct people making these mistakes though. The foolishness is more important than the substance of an opinion even though poorly formed and provably so. Pointing the logical fallacy out to a HN comment will reward you with down votes and possibly flag your comment.
There are better ways of doing that. This type of knowledge, we're prone to overapply to others and underapply to ourselves. You see the many flaws of the enemy camp and don't see as many in your own. So you pigeonhole yourself into staying in your camp without realizing.
Better to focus on such mantras as "What do I know and why do I think I know it?" or "If homeopathy is effective, I desire to believe homeopathy is effective; and if homeopathy is ineffective, I desire to believe homeopathy is ineffective. Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want."
Three things that helped my reasoning skills and rationality:
- programming / applied maths;
- being forced to memorise ~20 logical fallacies in high school;
- growing the hell up and learning that being right just doesn't matter.
The third point was the most important. As a child / teenager, I always wanted to win discussions. Even if I knew I was wrong, I'd use every trick in the book to try and win an argument nonetheless. Then, I started studying computer science and I met a lot of highly neurotic people who wanted to be right no matter what. I obviously found them extremely annoying before I realised I was in fact one of them.
The very words you use ("You see the many flaws of the enemy camp and don't see as many in your own") are the ones I now try to avoid at all times, because viewing the other as the enemy is what really messed up my reasoning skills.
Learning to treat a discussion as a genuine learning opportunity has been a huge blessing for me.
You can point out the fallacy or you can explain why the argument doesn’t hold. People that debate by yelling out the names of logical fallacy’s are point scoring and look disingenuous. If you actually engage with the substance and explain why the argument is wrong without invoking talismans people tend to be more receptive. Basically don’t make people feel dumb if you want them to engage rationally.
It's pretty awful to never be able to advance an opinion I have because people will always criticize my person instead, and never answer the arguments.
The best tactic is to avoid talking about myself so that people can't find any angle.
It reminds me of several things:
* "do as I say, not as I do"
* "Kill the messenger"
* "Separate the art from the artist"
Generally pseudonymity almost allows people to express without fear of being judged.
This paper leaves me puzzled as to how proofs are connected to cyberattacks, etc.. Perhaps he means that deficiencies in first-order logic lead to security bugs in computing systems?
I do like the idea of classifying self-contradictions (as above) and other irritating paradoxes as "monsters" or "bugs."
I tend to agree that they are relied on in a number of incorrect "proofs" as well as informal arguments, often for unrelated propositions.
> …Be-verb Fallacy, a cultish linguistic theory and the bane of many a first-year composition student's life, alleging that an extraordinary degree of "clarity," "sanity," or textual "liveliness" can be reached by strictly eliminating all passive verb forms and all forms of the verb "to be" from English-language writing. This odd but unproven contention, dating back to Alfred Korzybski's "General Semantics" self-improvement movement of the 1920's and '30's via S. I. Hayakawa, blithely ignores the fact that although numerous major world languages lack a ubiquitous "be-verb," e.g., Russian, Hindi and Arabic, speakers of these languages, like English-speaking General Semantics devotees themselves, have never been proven to enjoy any particular cognitive advantage over ordinary everyday users of the passive voice and the verb "to be." Nor have writers of the curiously stilted English that results from applying this fallacy achieved any special success in academia, professional or technical writing, or in the popular domain.
This isn’t a fallacy and I’m not sure the complaint other than this author doesn’t like it.
It’s particularly hilarious that somehow the author thinks there should be research for an author to choose a writing style. And doesn’t cite any research showing supporting their own style decisions or rationale for clarity, tone, etc.
I’m not familiar with whatever field would study success based on writing style, but E-Prime [0] has arguments for its use and someone choosing to follow it shouldn’t be criticized for choosing this method.
I agree with you. The idea that using e-prime makes one's writing more clear isn't a "fallacy". People might disagree but it's hardly fallacious. There are many items in this list that aren't fallacies (e.g., "Dog-Whistle Politics"). This list seems to be a mix of actual fallacies and "Things I don't like".
If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one.
I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook:
"A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
I think that using e-prime to write, think, and contextualize thoughts adds clarity for me. Most folks I know who are familiar with it are not absolutists about it. It's just a tool in the toolbox.
Korzybski's work is very valuable in my opinion. It lets me think about things in a much less dogmatic and either/or way.
I’m not terribly familiar but went through an e-prime phase back in college and still use it as a thinking tool.
I was interested in criticism as I don’t like most formal language rulesets but this content didn’t really give any insight as to e-prime’s flaws. Other than the author doesn’t like it.
I also find it useful as part of the “nonviolent communication” toolkit of trying to remove and work around ego as part of discussion and persuasion.
I think these kinds of lists encourage a particular approach to debate I've seen on the Internet – respond to someone's argument with a claim "you've just committed the X fallacy!" Often with no explanation of how what they've said is actually an instance of the X fallacy, or justification of why the X fallacy is actually fallacious. (Just because someone calls something a fallacy, or even publishes it on a list of fallacies, doesn't actually make it a fallacy.) As if fallacies were magical spells with which your opponents arguments could be dismissed by mere invocation of their names.
Well checking if your opponent argument commits logical fallacies is just the first part.
The second part is, of course, providing your own logical counter.
I think it is often better if you explain why and how the argument is fallacious without actually bringing any named fallacies into it. If you’ve done a good job of explaining the why and the how, you don’t need the name. But sometimes people think if they use the name they can skip the explaining why and how
Because it does not scale. If they did, they would spend a lot of time explaining easy-to-produce fallacious statements, in a similar dynamic to that of people „feeding the trolls“ on the internet.
And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response.
> P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another?
Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph:
> Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact.
And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]:
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the fallacy :)
I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting.
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is:
1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true).
2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?)
> It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application
So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application.
Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here).
EDIT: s/OP/you/
As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.
Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc.
In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity.
Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.
I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks.
To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness.
I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims).
IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo.
So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument.
Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic.
I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.
I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention.
On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.
Yes, and it's annoying. It's pseudo-intellectualism that uses the tactic of confusion, of shifting the argument from its substance to deconstructing the discussion itself.
When that happens, declare victory and leave the conversation.
Then you can throw fallacy 38 back at them (Deliberate Ignorance).
My reaction upon starting reading, was that most of the "fallacies" covered are thought patterns that are sometimes useful and sometimes bad.
In other words, for most of them, saying that the pattern is always wrong or always right are both fallacious. This is covered by fallacy 42 (Either/Or).
Also, while each "fallacy" is not universally true, they can still be useful for two reasons:
1) They can be used in bad faith (to manipulate people who are likely to fall for them). For this, knowing this list can provide "Defence Against the Dark Arts"
2) To break out of indecision, or to avoid a decision when indecision is better. May of the "falacies" have a set of situation where their claim is valid
For instance:
A: Let's say your brother owns a business that is, and alwyas has been losing money, and comes to you to ask you to invest in his business. If you don't see any reason why the business should become profitable, you could say "I don't throw good money after bad", as a way of explaining the situation. This does not mean that you would never invest in a busness that has lost money for some period, as long as it is reasonable to think that profit will come in the future, but it places the burdeon of proof on the one that wants your investment.
B: "Trust your gut" may sometimes be a bad idea, but in some situations, intuition may be the most reliable guide. If one listens to one's inner voice (and knows how to do it), one may sometimes "hear" things that are probably true, but perhaps uncomfortable. Maybe you are about to marry a young, beautiful person, but your gut tells you it is for the money? In that case, your gut may be right, even if he/she insists its your humor.
C: "Two-sides fallacy": Even though there are some cases that clearly does not have two symmetrical sides, there are also a lot of situations where there ARE two comparable sides. Sometimes, one may weigh evidence differently, and sometimes one may prioritize different values. When people are too quick to label others (or Others) as either delusional, dishonst or plain evil, they may need to be reminded that perhaps they should try to see the alternative perspective. Then of course, sometimes there are conflicts where compromize or an agreement to disagree is not acceptable. It is possible that your spouse/boss/parent really is a psychopath that really wants to hurt you as much as possible, your country may be facing a military enemy that cannot be alowed to exist (ie Hitler), or you may not want to waste time considering if the earth is flat. To resolve those cases, though, you have to use some kind of force, like total war, a court order for your ex to keep his/her distance or a law banning teachers from teaching about the flat earth.
> “ I think these kinds of lists encourage a particular approach to debate I've seen on the Internet...”
My brother once said to me the surest way to get the right answer to something you post on Reddit is to intentionally post the wrong answer. Someone will always correct you.
> This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the saying popularized by Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," to an absolute law of logic.
I have never heard anybody claim absolute logical validity for an argument like this. I think the author of this list mistakes other people's intentions and believes they are trying to argue by "absolute laws of logic" when they really aren't. Arguing by absolute logic is a game that can occasionally yield stimulating results, but enforcing the rules of this game isn't a constructive contribution in most conversations.
This page is full of 'fallacies' that are technically correct — they are sometimes used fallaciously, but simultaneously, many are fair considerations that are often used correctly.
It is fun to read and healthy to be aware of these, but I hope that, in reading these, one doesn't paint broad brush strokes and declare that any appeal to nature, or pity, or tradition is fallacious.
As one example:
> 12. The Appeal to Tradition
A lack of any respect for tradition is a serious issue for a society. It's not fallacious to give credence to tradition, meaning to tread carefully around it.
If people before you designed a system in a certain way, it's important to be able to fairly note the advantages and disadvantages of their system, and why they designed it the way they did before changing it. Use the principle of charity. Assume that they, intelligent and resourceful as you, had considered your option and decided against it. Why? Is there anything you're missing?
In support of it being a fallacy, there are people who cling to clearly disadvantageous things based solely on tradition regardless of objective consideration, but there's just as many people who think through the pros and cons of the new and old and use tradition healthily. These days they're often labelled as fallaciously appealing to tradition for even giving the past consideration.
Of course the tricky thing about traditions is that they change... which is also the best thing about them, as infanticide, slavery, stoning people to death etc. are 'traditional' but humans have mostly moved on from them now, luckily. Generally I'd say when people appeal to tradition in an argument it is an attempt to derail the discussion - "it goes without saying..."
We also have many traditions around general morality, consideration, respect, tolerance, and so forth.
To give no consideration to tradition is a terrible idea for society; it devalues the work and thought of those who came before us, and it leads to throwing out hundreds of babies with the bathwater.
We're in agreement on the fallacy of "it goes without saying...," but many people in society today show no consideration to history or tradition, and see no value in attempting to understand it enough to see its advantages.
In other words: this 100% can be a fallacy, but in modern society, we're currently in more danger of forgetting the value of history and tradition, than the danger of valuing it too much.
Sure, I don't think any critic of some traditions in their culture would want to try to live without any of them. It is one of the advantages of being exposed to other belief systems, 'making the familiar strange and the strange familiar'.
65 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadThe definitions given for these "logical fallacies" are packed with rancourous comments that don't throw light on the nature of the fallacy. The names given for them are not the standard names; the classical Aristotelian fallacies are usually named in Latin (and they aren't all there).
And indeed, a lot of the so-called fallacies are not fallacies at all, because they aren't a type of faulty argument or reasoning; they're just sayings.
This is a much better list of fallacy definitions: https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Introduction%20to%2...
It doesn't claim to be a "master list"; in fact it states on the front page that a complete list is impossible.
> Open Courseware | OCW |This work is dedicated to the Public Domain..
A benefit of having such a doc on GitHub would be the ease with which others could critique and contribute, potentially making the list stronger.
For instance "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't a logical fallacy, it's just an idiom/argument.
Also some of the definitions of things that aren't logical fallacies themselves contain real logical fallacies. For instance the 'proof' of 'The Passive Voice' seems to include an a-priori argument ('Rape statistics are reported as number of rapes rather than number of rapists, thus this was intended to shift the focus from men to women and is a logical fallacy'). This ignores the fact that the number of rapists can't be known, while the number of reported rapes can be known.
And of course misses what you brought up in that rapes are more knowable than rapists.
A better alternative is to detect whether the person is proposing an alternative course of action followed by a successful example. The person that provides the most workable and actionnable solution usually wins. A good example of this is the design of the University of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
Quote from https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/03/03/thomas-jefferson-m...
In his multi-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson and His Time, Dumas Malone tells the story of how Jefferson handled the first meeting held to decide the organization of the future University of Virginia. The University had been Jefferson’s idea in the first place, but (as is the case everywhere, not just in open source projects) many other parties had climbed on board quickly, each with their own interests and agendas.
When they gathered at that first meeting to hash things out, Jefferson made sure to show up with meticulously prepared architectural drawings, detailed budgets for construction and operation, a proposed curriculum, and the names of specific faculty he wanted to import from Europe. No one else in the room was even remotely as prepared; the group essentially had to capitulate to Jefferson’s vision, and the University was eventually founded more or less in accordance with his plans.
The facts that construction went far over budget, and that many of his ideas did not, for various reasons, work out in the end, were all things Jefferson probably knew perfectly well would happen. His purpose was strategic: to show up at the meeting with something so substantive that everyone else would have to fall into the role of simply proposing modifications to it, so that the overall shape, and therefore schedule, of the project would be roughly as he wanted.
This is why deadlines are useful. The customer cares what was delivered, not how exquisitely sculpted my code was.
So the acme of skill is to nail the 80% of the challenge that is readily automated, eschew the yak shaving, and then maybe "polish the cannonball" if the problem comes 'round again.
I've never checked if this story is true. But it sounds like something Aristotle would do, so I believe it. ;-P
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
I would imagine the other browsers have a similar feature... maybe as an add-on, if not built-in.
This is not the way to develop your truthseeking, in fact it may make you worse at it. The unbiased way to check validity of others' statements is to be able to check validity of your own beliefs. If you can do that then you have nothing to worry about: even if you get convinced by a flawed argument, you'll soon debug it out of yourself.
To take a software metaphor, you reuse the same libraries. Work on that self-skepticism, because this ability translates into the ability to be skeptical of thoughts coming from others.
You cannot hope to correct people making these mistakes though. The foolishness is more important than the substance of an opinion even though poorly formed and provably so. Pointing the logical fallacy out to a HN comment will reward you with down votes and possibly flag your comment.
Better to focus on such mantras as "What do I know and why do I think I know it?" or "If homeopathy is effective, I desire to believe homeopathy is effective; and if homeopathy is ineffective, I desire to believe homeopathy is ineffective. Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want."
Or if you like memorizing things, anti-epistemology (https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/anti-epistemology) seems better to spend time on than logical fallacies.
- programming / applied maths;
- being forced to memorise ~20 logical fallacies in high school;
- growing the hell up and learning that being right just doesn't matter.
The third point was the most important. As a child / teenager, I always wanted to win discussions. Even if I knew I was wrong, I'd use every trick in the book to try and win an argument nonetheless. Then, I started studying computer science and I met a lot of highly neurotic people who wanted to be right no matter what. I obviously found them extremely annoying before I realised I was in fact one of them.
The very words you use ("You see the many flaws of the enemy camp and don't see as many in your own") are the ones I now try to avoid at all times, because viewing the other as the enemy is what really messed up my reasoning skills.
Learning to treat a discussion as a genuine learning opportunity has been a huge blessing for me.
That is completely dependent upon the subject of conversation. On some topics people are only looking for agreement.
The best tactic is to avoid talking about myself so that people can't find any angle.
It reminds me of several things:
* "do as I say, not as I do"
* "Kill the messenger"
* "Separate the art from the artist"
Generally pseudonymity almost allows people to express without fear of being judged.
It's arguing to defend one's ego, group affiliation, job, or simply doubling down on an incorrect position to avoid being wrong.
I guess it's more of a motivational fallacy?
the literature (Wikipedia, encyclopedias, text books, etc.)
See the following for an explanation:
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021
I do like the idea of classifying self-contradictions (as above) and other irritating paradoxes as "monsters" or "bugs."
I tend to agree that they are relied on in a number of incorrect "proofs" as well as informal arguments, often for unrelated propositions.
This isn’t a fallacy and I’m not sure the complaint other than this author doesn’t like it.
It’s particularly hilarious that somehow the author thinks there should be research for an author to choose a writing style. And doesn’t cite any research showing supporting their own style decisions or rationale for clarity, tone, etc.
I’m not familiar with whatever field would study success based on writing style, but E-Prime [0] has arguments for its use and someone choosing to follow it shouldn’t be criticized for choosing this method.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one.
I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook:
"A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
Korzybski's work is very valuable in my opinion. It lets me think about things in a much less dogmatic and either/or way.
I was interested in criticism as I don’t like most formal language rulesets but this content didn’t really give any insight as to e-prime’s flaws. Other than the author doesn’t like it.
I also find it useful as part of the “nonviolent communication” toolkit of trying to remove and work around ego as part of discussion and persuasion.
P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
Arguing on the Internet doesn't scale.
And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response.
> P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)
I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another?
Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph:
> Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact.
And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]:
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305
[1] Keith Lehrer, Why Not Scepticism?, Philosophical Forum 2 (3):283 (1971)
I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting.
> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...
If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is:
1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true).
2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?)
> It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application
So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application.
Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here).
EDIT: s/OP/you/
As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.
In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity.
Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.
To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness.
I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims).
IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo.
So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument.
Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic.
I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.
On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.
When that happens, declare victory and leave the conversation.
I think this is almost always the “winning move” when dealing with intellectual, yet idiot types.
My reaction upon starting reading, was that most of the "fallacies" covered are thought patterns that are sometimes useful and sometimes bad.
In other words, for most of them, saying that the pattern is always wrong or always right are both fallacious. This is covered by fallacy 42 (Either/Or).
Also, while each "fallacy" is not universally true, they can still be useful for two reasons: 1) They can be used in bad faith (to manipulate people who are likely to fall for them). For this, knowing this list can provide "Defence Against the Dark Arts" 2) To break out of indecision, or to avoid a decision when indecision is better. May of the "falacies" have a set of situation where their claim is valid
For instance: A: Let's say your brother owns a business that is, and alwyas has been losing money, and comes to you to ask you to invest in his business. If you don't see any reason why the business should become profitable, you could say "I don't throw good money after bad", as a way of explaining the situation. This does not mean that you would never invest in a busness that has lost money for some period, as long as it is reasonable to think that profit will come in the future, but it places the burdeon of proof on the one that wants your investment.
B: "Trust your gut" may sometimes be a bad idea, but in some situations, intuition may be the most reliable guide. If one listens to one's inner voice (and knows how to do it), one may sometimes "hear" things that are probably true, but perhaps uncomfortable. Maybe you are about to marry a young, beautiful person, but your gut tells you it is for the money? In that case, your gut may be right, even if he/she insists its your humor.
C: "Two-sides fallacy": Even though there are some cases that clearly does not have two symmetrical sides, there are also a lot of situations where there ARE two comparable sides. Sometimes, one may weigh evidence differently, and sometimes one may prioritize different values. When people are too quick to label others (or Others) as either delusional, dishonst or plain evil, they may need to be reminded that perhaps they should try to see the alternative perspective. Then of course, sometimes there are conflicts where compromize or an agreement to disagree is not acceptable. It is possible that your spouse/boss/parent really is a psychopath that really wants to hurt you as much as possible, your country may be facing a military enemy that cannot be alowed to exist (ie Hitler), or you may not want to waste time considering if the earth is flat. To resolve those cases, though, you have to use some kind of force, like total war, a court order for your ex to keep his/her distance or a law banning teachers from teaching about the flat earth.
My brother once said to me the surest way to get the right answer to something you post on Reddit is to intentionally post the wrong answer. Someone will always correct you.
> This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the saying popularized by Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," to an absolute law of logic.
I have never heard anybody claim absolute logical validity for an argument like this. I think the author of this list mistakes other people's intentions and believes they are trying to argue by "absolute laws of logic" when they really aren't. Arguing by absolute logic is a game that can occasionally yield stimulating results, but enforcing the rules of this game isn't a constructive contribution in most conversations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
It is fun to read and healthy to be aware of these, but I hope that, in reading these, one doesn't paint broad brush strokes and declare that any appeal to nature, or pity, or tradition is fallacious.
As one example:
> 12. The Appeal to Tradition
A lack of any respect for tradition is a serious issue for a society. It's not fallacious to give credence to tradition, meaning to tread carefully around it.
If people before you designed a system in a certain way, it's important to be able to fairly note the advantages and disadvantages of their system, and why they designed it the way they did before changing it. Use the principle of charity. Assume that they, intelligent and resourceful as you, had considered your option and decided against it. Why? Is there anything you're missing?
In support of it being a fallacy, there are people who cling to clearly disadvantageous things based solely on tradition regardless of objective consideration, but there's just as many people who think through the pros and cons of the new and old and use tradition healthily. These days they're often labelled as fallaciously appealing to tradition for even giving the past consideration.
To give no consideration to tradition is a terrible idea for society; it devalues the work and thought of those who came before us, and it leads to throwing out hundreds of babies with the bathwater.
We're in agreement on the fallacy of "it goes without saying...," but many people in society today show no consideration to history or tradition, and see no value in attempting to understand it enough to see its advantages.
In other words: this 100% can be a fallacy, but in modern society, we're currently in more danger of forgetting the value of history and tradition, than the danger of valuing it too much.