THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES

[josephpalazzo]

[jonb]

That is a good system for formal debate, but actually I think its suposed imposition on the net is of very little value as it often gets in the way of conversation.
Formal debate would have a judge, jury or some other impartial adjudication.
To impose that system also presumes that the discussion is aimed at reaching a specific goal, which works if there are only two sides, however for instance in a forum there are often many contributors each with slightly different perspectives, and given that, minor details can become far more critical than in a formal presentation of issues.

To be honest Jose I don't see much evidence of either of us having stuck to the rules of formal debate, and I think we get more out of it the way things are than trying to impose rules that simply don't fit the sort of conversations that go on in forums or even between the two of us.

For me I want to know what views are out there in the wide world, and if I can what motivates those views, as such I want to question over small points because that gives away motivation. In formal debate motivation, as to why a person holds a view is of little to no importance so as a system it would not give the results I seek.

The only reason why one needs those formal rules is that at the end it could be said this side won that side lost, I think both you and I are grown up enough that we both know we are not going to win over the other one completely, however by having a conversation we can find the points where we might have a commonality, and equally important why we disagree and precisely what on.

[SGOS]

The only reason why one needs those formal rules is that at the end it could be said this side won that side lost, I think both you and I are grown up enough that we both know we are not going to win over the other one completely, however by having a conversation we can find the points where we might have a commonality, and equally important why we disagree and precisely what on.

All I saw in the OP was a partial list of logical fallacies, a couple which I've never heard of.  I'm not sure why you tie it to debates.  To me identifying logical fallacies is not just about winning debates.  In fact debates can be won even if they are full of logical fallacies.  Maybe that shit won't fly on a college debate team, but fallacies are fair game in presidential debates, where the point is not to total the number of fallacies and rank each candidate, but to deliver as much bullshit as smoothly as possible.  But then it always irks me when they refer to presidential debates as "debates."  They are just a cheap way for politicians to get air time on TV.  And allowing the opponent to a rebuttal means nothing more than equal air time, as the rebuttal often ends up on a different topic that the other guy wants to talk about.

But that aside, I see identifying logical fallacies as a way of learning how to think rationally, or to test a line of reasoning for validity.  And not much more.

[Draconic Aiur]

It was cold today but the same time it was hot and I was ready for my black hole sandwich while I sat excitably on a pink polar bear who stands on a 6,000 year old planet that is the center of the Earth.

[josephpalazzo]

All I saw in the OP was a partial list of logical fallacies, a couple which I've never heard of.  I'm not sure why you tie it to debates.  To me identifying logical fallacies is not just about winning debates.  In fact debates can be won even if they are full of logical fallacies.  Maybe that shit won't fly on a college debate team, but fallacies are fair game in presidential debates, where the point is not to total the number of fallacies and rank each candidate, but to deliver as much bullshit as smoothly as possible.  But then it always irks me when they refer to presidential debates as "debates."  They are just a cheap way for politicians to get air time on TV.  And allowing the opponent to a rebuttal means nothing more than equal air time, as the rebuttal often ends up on a different topic that the other guy wants to talk about.

But that aside, I see identifying logical fallacies as a way of learning how to think rationally, or to test a line of reasoning for validity.  And not much more.

Agree.

This is also true when talking with theists. Many of them were told that faith trumps reason, and somehow, this gives them licence to perpetrate any logical fallacies. Even if the task is ugly, one shouldn't hesitate to tell them they are wrong, and show how they are wrong.

[Solomon Zorn]

Never use Photobucket to post images. Here's a better site: http://postimg.org/ It's free, and you can link directly to the full size jpeg (photo).

I think we all commit logical fallacies from time to time. I know I catch myself on occasion. Honesty is what it's all about. Can you look at your own words with a critical eye? It's not always as easy as it seems.

[josephpalazzo]

Thanks for the tip.

[jonb]

Agree.

This is also true when talking with theists. Many of them were told that faith trumps reason, and somehow, this gives them licence to perpetrate any logical fallacies. Even if the task is ugly, one shouldn't hesitate to tell them they are wrong, and show how they are wrong.

Ah, but when talking to that kind of theist, I have found  they do not believe in the real world as we know it, just to show them their argument does not stand here is meaningless to them they believe in a gawd elsewhere and a different reality that comes from a book. So to make any sort of argument just based on the logic of physics reality etc is useless. Which is why we see all those circular arguments.
If you wish to try to persuade them you have to enter their dream world and then show them even there they have the wrong idea.

[SGOS]

I think we all commit logical fallacies from time to time. I know I catch myself on occasion. Honesty is what it's all about. Can you look at your own words with a critical eye? It's not always as easy as it seems.

That's why it's so helpful to be able to identify them; So you can sort through your own bullshit and discard invalid positions.  When I first read a list of fallacies (it may have been Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit), I was positively intrigued.  They are all irrational, but some are so deceptively seductive that people gravitate to them in numbers.  On the surface, it seems like theists can't identify them.  On the other hand, theists may learn them thinking they are tools to support their position.

[jonb]

I am sorry if I seem to be over pushing my point, but in logical debate there needs to be an agreed starting point. A theists conception of reality is not the same as the reality as we live in, a theists conception often says a book is right and then fits what is around us to what is said in the book. Since there is no agreed starting point it does not matter how logical either party is the result is meaningless.
Theists often will tell you there is a gawd and that reality is just a construction, (actually that is central to what many of them think). Given then that they place no credibility in reality. anything you say or can prove about it to them has no meaning.
Logical debate can only proceed if both parties are logical. Therefore using logic when talking to most theists is a totally illogical act.

[SGOS]

I am sorry if I seem to be over pushing my point, but in logical debate there needs to be an agreed starting point. A theists conception of reality is not the same as the reality as we live in, a theists conception often says a book is right and then fits what is around us to what is said in the book. Since there is no agreed starting point it does not matter how logical either party is the result is meaningless.
Theists often will tell you there is a gawd and that reality is just a construction, (actually that is central to what many of them think). Given then that they place no credibility in reality. anything you say or can prove about it to them has no meaning.
Logical debate can only proceed if both parties are logical. Therefore using logic when talking to most theists is a totally illogical act.

I don't disagree with that.  No, you can't have a logical debate with a person who clings to the irrational.  And I regret sounding critical.  I just value logic for other reasons, usually for more personal interests.

[jonb]

I am in agreement with you, I just wanted to place a further qualification next to what has been written.

[Baruch]

That's why it's so helpful to be able to identify them; So you can sort through your own bullshit and discard invalid positions.  When I first read a list of fallacies (it may have been Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit), I was positively intrigued.  They are all irrational, but some are so deceptively seductive that people gravitate to them in numbers.  On the surface, it seems like theists can't identify them.  On the other hand, theists may learn them thinking they are tools to support their position.

... "tools to support their position" ... such users are called theologians ;-)

[Baruch]

I am sorry if I seem to be over pushing my point, but in logical debate there needs to be an agreed starting point. A theists conception of reality is not the same as the reality as we live in, a theists conception often says a book is right and then fits what is around us to what is said in the book. Since there is no agreed starting point it does not matter how logical either party is the result is meaningless.
Theists often will tell you there is a gawd and that reality is just a construction, (actually that is central to what many of them think). Given then that they place no credibility in reality. anything you say or can prove about it to them has no meaning.
Logical debate can only proceed if both parties are logical. Therefore using logic when talking to most theists is a totally illogical act.

I completely support your insight ... except that reality of any kind is a human construct, it is as illogical and imaginary as the humans themselves are ... and imagining a discussion of the sort that might have happened in Voltaire's salon while sipping a fine wine ... is a pretty fantasy.  Rational and irrational are just another false dichotomy that ape-men confuse themselves with.

In fact, when debating rationalists, it is an obvious gambit to use their own tools against them too.  But then a Frenchman (DesCartes) was responsible for all this rationalizing silliness.  Only the English (Locke) know true reality ;-)