Why do we not have some brilliant mind just fully memorize all of the ins and outs of how these arise and just crush bad faith arguments by simply labeling them in real time rather than engaging with them?
Like, if framed correctly “I don’t engage in logical fallacy. I will immediately call it out, move on, and go back to the relevant topic.”
“Oh you don’t care about starving children?”
“That’s an appeal to emotion. I won’t engage with this obvious logical fallacy. I will address the causes of children suffering to alleviate their suffering.”
“But the cause is illegal immigrants!!!”
“That’s a strawman. I won’t engage with logical fallacies. If you’d like to have a discussion about solving problems, Im all ears, but until we’re done pointing fingers, this conversation is over.”
It’s actually somewhat effective in my experience. Another thing I’ve recently started doing is calling out mean comments. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a mean person but it’s quite difficult accusation to argue against when the evidence is right there in front of their face.
To be clear, almost every argument contains a fallacy in it. Having a fallacy in an argument only introduces the possibility of it being wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.
An example of a valid argument is like:
P1: Socrates is a man
P2: All men are mortal
C: Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is guaranteed to be correct if the premises are correct. Most scientific arguments are technically invoking a fallacy or are invalid in some way, due to the extrapolation from an experiment in lab conditions to a more general conclusion.
Your response itself relies on several fallacies… false equivalence, hasty generalization, equivocation, a strawman, and non sequitur reasoning, probably more?
You’re incorrectly conflating logical fallacies (which are clear mistakes in reasoning) with inductive uncertainty or experimental limitations in science. Logical fallacies invalidate reasoning structures. Scientific reasoning explicitly includes uncertainty and error correction as fundamental principles; it’s not fallacious; it’s cautious and probabilistic.
Additionally, your example of Socrates is actually demonstrating deductive validity, a different kind of reasoning entirely. Thus, your argument misrepresents logic and science simultaneously. Please correct these fallacies if you want this conversation to proceed productively
foggy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Why do we not have some brilliant mind just fully memorize all of the ins and outs of how these arise and just crush bad faith arguments by simply labeling them in real time rather than engaging with them?
Like, if framed correctly “I don’t engage in logical fallacy. I will immediately call it out, move on, and go back to the relevant topic.”
“Oh you don’t care about starving children?”
“That’s an appeal to emotion. I won’t engage with this obvious logical fallacy. I will address the causes of children suffering to alleviate their suffering.”
“But the cause is illegal immigrants!!!”
“That’s a strawman. I won’t engage with logical fallacies. If you’d like to have a discussion about solving problems, Im all ears, but until we’re done pointing fingers, this conversation is over.”
Pronell@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s a tactic I’ve seen widely used, especially by the assholes we are talking about.
Words have meaning to us, and fascists love that because they are not beholden to any truth at all.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 week ago
It’s actually somewhat effective in my experience. Another thing I’ve recently started doing is calling out mean comments. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a mean person but it’s quite difficult accusation to argue against when the evidence is right there in front of their face.
steeznson@lemmy.world 1 week ago
To be clear, almost every argument contains a fallacy in it. Having a fallacy in an argument only introduces the possibility of it being wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.
An example of a valid argument is like:
P1: Socrates is a man P2: All men are mortal C: Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is guaranteed to be correct if the premises are correct. Most scientific arguments are technically invoking a fallacy or are invalid in some way, due to the extrapolation from an experiment in lab conditions to a more general conclusion.
foggy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You’re conflating two separate ideas.
A valid arguent needn’t any logical fallacy.
foggy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Okay I’m free now.
Im so glad you gave me this gem.
Your response itself relies on several fallacies… false equivalence, hasty generalization, equivocation, a strawman, and non sequitur reasoning, probably more?
You’re incorrectly conflating logical fallacies (which are clear mistakes in reasoning) with inductive uncertainty or experimental limitations in science. Logical fallacies invalidate reasoning structures. Scientific reasoning explicitly includes uncertainty and error correction as fundamental principles; it’s not fallacious; it’s cautious and probabilistic.
Additionally, your example of Socrates is actually demonstrating deductive validity, a different kind of reasoning entirely. Thus, your argument misrepresents logic and science simultaneously. Please correct these fallacies if you want this conversation to proceed productively
iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week ago
Be the change you want to see:) Really, though, it’ll take all of us calling these out.