|
22 May 08 - 04:35 PM (#2347134) Subject: BS: effective arguments From: Desert Dancer A neighbor in my cohousing community shared these interesting links: How to disagree How to Write Strong Arguments Fallacies Thought there was food for Mudcat thought here, too. ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
22 May 08 - 04:45 PM (#2347146) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Amos I like that hierarchy. If only all the other asshats around here would learn it... :>) Thanks, Becky! A |
|
22 May 08 - 05:25 PM (#2347176) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: irishenglish I like that too. Good and useful link |
|
22 May 08 - 05:29 PM (#2347177) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D Oh, indeed! I have posed links to the fallacies for years. The problem is, when someone seems to know that they don't have the strongest argument, they instinctively (and probably honestly) resort to some version of one of the fallacies. Besides, it is really a lot of work to be sure your arguments comply with good practice. |
|
22 May 08 - 05:38 PM (#2347181) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: irishenglish I disagree with you I disagree with your disagreement about my disagreement..... |
|
22 May 08 - 05:41 PM (#2347184) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Becca72 "nu-uh" always worked for me...but I'm the youngest of 3 siblings. :-) |
|
22 May 08 - 05:42 PM (#2347187) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Amos LOL!! I can see you now, stamping your li'l foot.... A |
|
22 May 08 - 07:05 PM (#2347248) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,lox u r a fag ... ;-) |
|
22 May 08 - 07:29 PM (#2347264) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: bobad Good stuff, I have much to learn. |
|
22 May 08 - 07:45 PM (#2347269) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow It's good fun seeing this kind of thing laid out in a structured way. Whether it actually helps keep us on the straight and narrow I'm less certain. It probably does for some people. I find that the way I'm built is that as soon as I see a list of fallacies I start constructing circumstances in which they aren't necessarily fallacious. The crucial distinction, I think, is between arguing where the goal is to arrive at the truth, and arguing where the goal is to win the argument. |
|
22 May 08 - 07:45 PM (#2347270) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: katlaughing Boy, that lox is a self-important dilettante!:-) (Thanks, Becky, good and useful stuff.) |
|
22 May 08 - 07:51 PM (#2347274) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Desert Dancer The difficulty in actual interpersonal relations as opposed to philosophical procedure is that there usually really is more than one thing under discussion than just the logic of it all --- "I disagree with you because..., AND the way you said that makes me feel..." and they often get tangled up, especially if they don't necessarily come out in the right order. Both legitimate points of discussion, but... Theoretically, if you're writing, such as in a post to the 'Cat, you have time to stop and think and parse it all out properly. (Ha!) ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
22 May 08 - 08:29 PM (#2347294) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Amos SUre you do. That's why my hyperemotional reactions are all tailored into just sharply worded witty little gems of bad conduct. :>( A |
|
22 May 08 - 08:33 PM (#2347298) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D "...arguing where the goal is to win the argument." That process is enshrined in Formal Debate. My first week in college, I saw a request for folks to attend the first meeting of the Debate Society....off I went! Listen with growing apprehension for about 15 minutes, then walked out. They were training lawyers, not thinkers! My best example is the young political science guy I knew who managed to slip into his speech..."and as you know, 7 out of 10 doctors leaves 3!"...he did this while running his thumbs under his bright red suspenders. I went on to the Philosophy dept. and tried to learn how to dissect the flaws in debate societies. |
|
22 May 08 - 08:40 PM (#2347305) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Slag Bill_D that's probably one of the reason I like your disagreements the best. I don't recall you ever resorting to ad hominem attacks and you always seem to expand the relevant scope of the subject. Great post. You have to stay after it though. It needs to be a constant reminder. Once you get the informal fallacies down pat its fun to analyze things like TV commercials, especially the ones selling snake oil. "Coach Speak" is another and of course your favorite politician to hate! (Irony intended!) |
|
22 May 08 - 09:30 PM (#2347333) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D Why, thank you, Slag! That's a very nice affirmation of what I try to do. I never expect total agreement, but hope to at least shine a bit of light on the process. (TV commercials? Masochist! You'll burn out a brain cell) |
|
22 May 08 - 09:53 PM (#2347347) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: John Hardly I always just try to be really polite and deferential so as to never hurt anyone's feelings. For instance: Whenever I meet a French-speaking person, I always as use Spanish to ask them if they speak English. That way I can always say, "Yeah, me neither" so they don't have to feel so bad if they have to answer "No". |
|
23 May 08 - 12:30 AM (#2347377) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: catspaw49 Tell ya' John, I just tell all them foreign types to fuck off or to suck my root or something like that.If they don't speak American it ain't no big deal and if they do I just tell them they didn't understand the nuance and go on from there. All that works out pretty good as argument for me most times. Spaw |
|
23 May 08 - 12:40 AM (#2347382) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Stilly River Sage I have also posted links many times to pages that list the logical fallacies, typically when someone gets way too wound up in a stupid argument. We have some major architects of straw men around here, and pointing out what they're doing by linking to it is sometimes easier than trying to spell it out myself if I've been participating in the squabble. I like reading Bill D's arguments also. I didn't study as much philosophy as he did, but I like seeing it put to good use. SRS |
|
23 May 08 - 12:43 AM (#2347385) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: CarolC Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem. I love this part. This one gets used quite a lot in some discussions, like, for instance, discussions about 9/11. |
|
23 May 08 - 01:32 AM (#2347402) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Slag Authority does carry some weight, depending (pun intended) on what qualifies the authority. When appeal to authority IS the final argument it is by convention such as the U.S. Supreme Court. And I guess if you extended the argument far enough you might just come to appeal to populace (in a democracy) as elected judges can be put out of office and appointed judges can be impeached and their appointers put out of office. But then again, the majority can be wrong! Are we getting close to post hoc, ergo proctor hoc yet? |
|
23 May 08 - 02:39 AM (#2347417) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: CarolC Even experts can be wrong. And even experts with the same qualifications disagree about things all the time. That's why it's possible to hire an expert to testify in court in support of (or against) pretty much anything. They can't all be right. |
|
23 May 08 - 05:43 AM (#2347486) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Slag And of course the first argument is agreeing upon the definition of term which will be used. Often this is the crux of the entire dispute at hand. Once we come to term we can all agree upon, why logic just flows like the sweetest milk! |
|
23 May 08 - 11:08 AM (#2347672) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Stilly River Sage Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral. Graham can say that again! |
|
23 May 08 - 05:46 PM (#2347850) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,lox Yeah well Kat ... ... you don't have the authority to say that ... |
|
23 May 08 - 05:47 PM (#2347852) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,loxlaughing (still laughing) |
|
23 May 08 - 07:03 PM (#2347873) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: katlaughing Oh, yeah? On whose sayso, loxlaughing? (thank goodness!:-) |
|
23 May 08 - 08:21 PM (#2347898) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow "and as you know, 7 out of 10 doctors leaves 3!" What's wrong with that? Mathematically it is unexceptionable, of course, but it also might be very a very relevant point to make in an argument - for example where the opponent was putting too much emphasis on the fact that seven out of ten doctors believed that some course of treatment was good or bad. |
|
23 May 08 - 09:19 PM (#2347918) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D Except, Kevin, that he did it to 'prove' that if you posture & shout & distract, you CAN get away with almost anything when tossing rhetoric about. He did it to demonstrate that winning WAS the point and truth was secondary. (wow...I just remembered his name! 40 years ago... Gary Jackson. Nice, idealistic Young Democrat with excessive zeal...☺) That was in many ways a bad example, because even Gary would not have tried THAT during a serious debate where concerned folks were listening. Much easier to slip a 'straw man' or a 'guilt by association' in between a couple of obvious, but not necessarily relevant, truths. |
|
24 May 08 - 06:54 PM (#2348445) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow I suppose it needs the context - out of context, I can't see how it demonstrates anything except that the man could take seven away from ten and get the right answer. Arguments aren't just about logic and reason, they are also about winning opponents or neutrals over, and there are a whole set of elements that enter into that. I don't think the word fallacy applies to all of them. For example, if someone picks their nose while making their case, this doesn't in any way weaken their argument in rational terms, but it is likely to reduce their ability to convince others. (Of course that doesn't apply online, unless you're using a webcam.) But I don't think refraining from picking your nose can properly be called a fallacy. |
|
24 May 08 - 07:37 PM (#2348460) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Slag Yes!, but on the other hand I have five fingers! (wish one could have been a thumb). |
|
24 May 08 - 08:00 PM (#2348478) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,lox fag |
|
24 May 08 - 08:23 PM (#2348488) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: John on the Sunset Coast McGrath, you're right on. In the famous debate between Nixon and Kennedy (1960), those who saw the debate on television, seeing Nixon's heavy beard--he refused to wear make-up to hide it--gave the debate to Kennedy hands down. But, conversely, most of those who only heard the debate on radio felt that Nixon won the debate. Nixon never quite recovered from that confrontation. |
|
25 May 08 - 05:10 PM (#2348984) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow If Nixon had actually had a beard, rather than uneven stubble, he might have done a bit better. I can't understand why it is that, in a country where Abraham Lincoln is so revered, beards are seen as a no-no for would be presidents. |
|
25 May 08 - 05:24 PM (#2348990) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Georgiansilver No argument is effective as long as there is one person who is opposed and makes a firm stand!!! It could be said that if you are 'right' you are bound to win an argument...but here on Mudcat...is that true? You can be right but proved wrong by theorists or even those lacking in 'theory'.....Guess life goes on anyway....... Have fun! |
|
25 May 08 - 05:30 PM (#2348994) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: CarolC Beards are for commies. |
|
25 May 08 - 05:41 PM (#2349002) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow I suppose if Obama had grown a beard to give him added gravitas it would have been denounced as an unfair sexist manoeuvre by Clinton's camp. (I think it might suit him rather well.) |
|
25 May 08 - 09:18 PM (#2349087) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D Makes him look like a younger Morgan Freeman!....not that that is a problem. I might vote for Morgan also... |
|
26 May 08 - 01:23 PM (#2349444) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: McGrath of Harlow Lincoln's beard, grown to win votes There's still time for Obama to try it too... |
|
26 May 08 - 02:37 PM (#2349485) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Stilly River Sage Lincoln life mask (in bronze) taken before he became president. Life mask after he had been president, made 8 years after the first mask. The Friends of the Library where I work visited the Harlan Crow library in the spring, and these two masks are in the collection. It was a common practice to make these masks of living important figures. SRS |
|
27 May 08 - 02:09 PM (#2350281) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: autolycus What have found are things more disheartening than fallacious arguments. One is being misinformed; a second is ignorance ("if you think education is expensive, have you tries ignorance?"); and a third is blankly refusing to respond to arguments at all - simply procedding as tho the arguments weren't ever made. hard to know how to proceed. Ivor |
|
29 May 08 - 01:57 PM (#2352194) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: autolycus btw, CarolC, Beards are for commies Lincoln wore a beard Therefore................?? :-) Ivor |
|
30 May 08 - 10:53 AM (#2352991) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Mrrzy Excellent article, you (insert epithet here)! |
|
02 Jan 09 - 07:13 AM (#2529501) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: freda underhill serendipity brought this thread just after I: 1. saw the film FROST NIXON, with its ref to the Kennedy debate (fascinating film); and 2. traded books and got The gentle Art of Persuasion, about courtroom arguing tactics. so 1. will read the links on thread, and 2. well, might go see that film again. happy debating all! |
|
02 Jan 09 - 08:19 AM (#2529532) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: VirginiaTam Excellent resources. Wonder if it'd be wrong to refer Catters to this thread in the heat of discussions on other threads? Well. I hope I remember to refer to this before I open my big gob in future. |
|
02 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM (#2529757) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,lox To respond to an earlier point ... ... Moustaches are for Commies ... |
|
02 Jan 09 - 02:16 PM (#2529813) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor >>Wonder if it'd be wrong to refer Catters to this thread in the heat of discussions on other threads?<< Sometimes, maybe. But keep in mind that those rules apply to formal debate where there is an agreed upon premise and outcome. A discussion that is akin to a game of chess. A lot of people come to the internet to play dodgeball rather than chess. Another problem, as someone else has pointed out is the quality of "information" that the other person is armed with. If they get their information from Fox "News" or Rush Limbaugh, and their premise is for instance "liberals are bad" then they are working form a circular argument where the "liberal" is whoever is being demonized today and the bad behavior is the combination of all the bad things all of the people being called liberals have done in the past year. To counter this type of arguments, one must say that Limbaugh is wrong. Is that not ad hominem? To counter these arguments one must question the sources and also the reasoning of the presenter. Can one apply one set of rules to someone who is playing by another? It is prudent to keep in mind that people are all different and that they don't always want to play by the same rules. |
|
02 Jan 09 - 02:18 PM (#2529815) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Amos A lot of people come to the internet to play dodgeball rather than chess. Such wisdom from such tender years, Jack!! Well put. A |
|
02 Jan 09 - 04:35 PM (#2529948) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: katlaughing lox, ergo, all male folkies are commies! McCarthy was right! Far right!**bg** |
|
02 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM (#2530019) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D re: Jack's mention of Fox 'news'.... last night, Sean Hannity had some sort of program 'listing' the 40 worst lies told by **Liberals**; read by the guy who ...ummm... compiled them. I never in my life saw such a list of *straw man* accusitions! He kept asserting that 'Liberals' lied about things that I seldom have seen anyone actually claim. It would have been funny if I was not aware of how many 'ditto-heads' were sitting at home nodding ...ummm...wisely, and believing every word! When folks just disagree that the laws of logic apply to them, there's little you can do.....except |
|
02 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM (#2530022) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Ed T The section under fallacies, Appeal to Authority, reminds me of some of the religeous arguments/discussions I have observes and even participated in in the past. Yes, potential fallacies because many religeous folks try and promote themselves as "experts" or "authorities" on what one cannot be an expert on. |
|
02 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM (#2530026) Subject: RE: BS: effective arguments From: Bill D Oh...and there IS one other thing to do when you meet an idiot. *grin* |
