Discussion The "fallacy fallacy": It's often not needed to name the fallacy or bias when refuting a claim

[pauseforever]

If he knows the List of logical fallacies and the List of cognitive biases by heart, he wouldn't have made such a flawed argument.

If he isn't familiar with fallacies or biases, the technical name of his fallacy or bias would be unfamiliar to him, so it would probably come off as pompous or pedantic. And given that he doesn't pay much mind to correcting his tendencies to be wrong, he likely has little interest to look up the unfamiliar phrase and bring himself out of ignorance.

IMO, unless you're writing an academic paper or smth, it's often better to plainly state what point he gets wrong. But he may lack the mental capacity to comprehend his own ignorance even if you explain it to him. In some cases, he may simply dislike logical arguments and will invoke even more fallacies to justify his argument, in which case he makes himself a joke.

(Here "he" is the general third person pronoun. I don't use the singular they)

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Naming fallacies is mostly rhetorical masturbation.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Naming fallacies is mostly rhetorical masturbation.

It's also only useful when both parties are operating in the same epistemic framework.

 

[Sex-Starved Beast]

Im think that it would be unwise to memorize the names of fallacies and treat a conversation like a mathemathical equation where everything works in such a rigid way. But I failed philosophy class, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say anything more.

 

[Dead End]

Naming fallacies is just useful shorthand for pointing out common errors in logic. If I'm holding a discussion with someone and they use a fallacy, I would rather name the fallacy itself rather than have to explain to them the exact flaws in their line of argument (if they are familiar with the fallacy, of course).

If he knows the List of logical fallacies and the List of cognitive biases by heart, he wouldn't have made such a flawed argument.

I strongly disagree with this. Plenty of people I have argued with have both been aware of basic fallacies and still used them in their arguments, so it's often useful to point them out.

 

[8CbZA-kHFu6pFgE*]

This reads like its written by AI

 

[Dead End]

This reads like its written by AI

I don't think it is. The usage of "IMO" and "smth" are unlike AI writing. Randomly capitalising "List", using exclusively male pronouns and beginning sentences with "And" and "But" are also things AI probably wouldn't do.

 

[8CbZA-kHFu6pFgE*]

I don't think it is. The usage of "IMO" and "smth" are unlike AI writing. Randomly capitalising "List", using exclusively male pronouns and beginning sentences with "And" and "But" are also things AI probably wouldn't do.

AI keeps evolving, there are even dedicated website/programs to make AI writing look more human like

 

[Dead End]

AI keeps evolving, there are even dedicated website/programs to make AI writing look more human like

I guess, but using that line of reasoning you could accuse any post here as being written by AI. Why in particular do you think this one is?

 

[8CbZA-kHFu6pFgE*]

I guess, but using that line of reasoning you could accuse any post here as being written by AI. Why in particular do you think this one is?

The post sounds too tryhard to appear intelligent and sophisticated by using as many technical or complicated words as possible

 

[Caichan]

Im think that it would be unwise to memorize the names of fallacies and treat a conversation like a mathemathical equation where everything works in such a rigid way

Why

 

[Caichan]

The post sounds too tryhard to appear intelligent and sophisticated by using as many technical or complicated words as possible

Yep not much of substance is said

 

[Sex-Starved Beast]

Why

Are you asking why I find pointless to memorize the names of logical fallacies, or why I said what I said about treating conversations like they follow rigid universal logical rules? If it's the latter, as I said, I don't know enough to explain it, but it has to do with what AtrociousCitizen said in the second post in this thread. If it's the former, it has to do with what he said in the first post in this thread; to me it just sounds lame, because these fallacies are very intuitive, so there is no reason to memorize their names. I think that it's more convenient to explain your reasons every time you disagree with someone or you think that they are wrong, rather than to name a fallacy that you memorized on a list.

 

[pauseforever]

This reads like its written by AI

I wrote this myself. If you think I'm being tryhard to appear intelligent, you can say just that. As you mentioned, AI text can be incredibly humanlike nowadays, so it doesn't mean much just saying a post "reads like its written by AI"

 

[pauseforever]

The post sounds too tryhard to appear intelligent and sophisticated by using as many technical or complicated words as possible

In my conception, the only technical or complicated words in my post were "fallacy" "bias" "pedantic" and probably "pompous", two of which are unavoidable cause they are part the topic of my post. Perhaps I sound too stiff, too dorky and not "cool".. but I'm a solitary man so I never learned the "natural" and slangy way to talk.

Style issues aside, do you agree with my point expressed in the post?

 

[pauseforever]

I strongly disagree with this. Plenty of people I have argued with have both been aware of basic fallacies and still used them in their arguments, so it's often useful to point them out.

You're right. My thinking was too rough-grained. It takes constant effort to steer one's thinking away from fallacious logic and it's easy to slip.

Naming fallacies is just useful shorthand for pointing out common errors in logic. If I'm holding a discussion with someone and they use a fallacy, I would rather name the fallacy itself rather than have to explain to them the exact flaws in their line of argument (if they are familiar with the fallacy, of course).

In my experience, with the exception of a few Internet places at some point in time, most people you meet are not familiar with fallacies. In particular, if smth retarded is crossposted from Reddit, it's a poor choice to list all the fallacies in that post in an attempt to discredit it (this is the most common situation where fallacies are named on .is)