|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The 10 Logic Commandments ... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
from facebook post by Update Your Browser | Facebook
Good references for logical fallacies: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htmPage not found - Nizkor Logically Fallacious - Webpages I'm sure there are others (wikipedia has a page) Recommend a little study ... Enjoy perhaps links and information forum if not coffeehouseby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Hi RAZD,
I'm having difficulty with commandment #2:
quote: There's a critical difference between misrepresent and exaggerate. The argument using strawmen is basically lying:
quote: While the Reductio_ad_absurdum argument, is commonly used in our forum debates.
quote: As long as the argument is the SAME, an exaggeration can help illuminate why a particular reason is faulty. I often use this technique in debates about religion. And as long as one doesn't go too far, (for example, using Hitler when not debating war criminals) I think Reductio_ad_absurdum is okay to use. Comments? Or are you exactly like Hitler? Edited by dronestar, : "too," "zwei?"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
While the Reductio_ad_absurdum argument, is commonly used in our forum debates. I think there is a clear difference between merely exaggerating and Reductio ad Absurdum (RAD). The difference for is that for RAD the absurd or exaggerated consequences flow directly from the given argument as stated. If so, then when you attack the absurd consequences you are actually attacking the argument that was made. If instead you enlarge the argument in a way that is not required by the original argument, then you are not attacking the argument made. Your attack is then fallacious. Check: 1) If a proper response to your argument is for the other side to say, 'I did not say X and surely we can stop before we reach X' then perhaps you've misrepresented or exaggerated the other persons argument in a way that is a fallacy. If you did that intentionally, then maybe we can say that you just lied. I don't think mistakes in logic are lies. 2) If you really don't have an attack without exaggerating, then you ought to think again about whether you have an argument at all. 3) Take the extra step of working out for yourself that the exaggeration is a logical outgrowth or at least a reasonable outgrowth of the original statement. If you are not willing to provide this reasoning when prompted, then your argument is probably fallacious. At the very least the argument is weak. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
dronester writes: The argument using strawmen is basically lying:
quote: That doesn't sound quite right. I've never considered "absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence(s)" essential to a straw man fallacy--that definition seems like a case of argumentum ad circumstantiam, the appeal to consequences, which can be used to promote or attack a proposition for the consequences of its validity. For me, the pure straw man fallacy is simple and pure and often not a case of lying: People like the sound of their own arguments; they'll make straw man arguments out of sheer enthusiasm at finding a rebuttal, not willfully deceiving but innately biased in favor of their own mental creations, as we all are. The key component to the straw man fallacy is changing the proposition in rebuttal. I might have done that a time or too. It doesn't mean I'm bad. AbE: I'd add that callouts of logical fallacies generally come across as accusations, as if your opponent used the Devil's Playbook. Better, I think, just to observe the flawed reasoning itself: e.g., I didn't say that, or You're critiquing me instead of my proposition. Edited by Omnivorous, : afterthoughts"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
It sounds like we are mostly in agreement: the 2nd commandment in RAZD's list seems to be in error because of conflated wording.
NN writes: I think there is a clear difference between merely exaggerating and Reductio ad Absurdum (RAD). The difference for is that for RAD the absurd or exaggerated consequences flow directly from the given argument as stated. If so, then when you attack the absurd consequences you are actually attacking the argument that was made. Okay, good, I concur.
NN writes: If instead you enlarge the argument in a way that is not required by the original argument, then you are not attacking the argument made. Your attack is then fallacious. Yeah, I think that would then be called a strawman. While strawmen arguments can be innocent mistakes, I often think about Crashfrog's strawman arguments. Clearly those were almost always dishonest debate tactics.
NN writes: 2) If you really don't have an attack without exaggerating, then you ought to think again about whether you have an argument at all. Strange. I often think oppositely: If I can't exaggerate an argument's flaw, then perhaps I should not attack it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... And as long as one doesn't go too far, (for example, using Hitler when not debating war criminals) I think Reductio_ad_absurdum is okay to use. Well I didn't write the thing, but I would think they would say that exaggeration is not the same as extrapolation, which is what proper Reductio_ad_absurdum would be -- following the argument to a logical conclusion. One of the problems I have with Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments though, is that you are extrapolating from the initial information, and extrapolations are always suspect imho. If I said that I like the social programs that Bernie Sanders promotes, and somebody says that he is a raving socialist ... is that a misrepresentation? an exaggeration? and extrapolation? I would say that both misrepresentation and exaggeration would apply but not extrapolation (the argument has not been carried to a logical conclusion) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
quote: I agree. And exaggeration is not changing. The 2nd commandment in RAZD's list and the entire definition in the wiki entry is amiss.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The 2nd commandment in RAZD's list and the entire definition in the wiki entry is amiss. Or the wiki article is not correct: Page not found - Nizkor
quote: This one's a little simpler: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
quote: IMO, I would say that example is more Reductio_ad_absurdum than Strawman. There is SOME arch to the argument. With Strawman, the arch would be entirely broken. Thus: If I said that I like the social programs that Bernie Sanders promotes, and somebody would give examples of Sander's being a carnival barker, there would be no logical link. A strawman. Agree? And from a entertaining aspect, some of the forum's Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments have been pure gold. Dr. A should compile a book.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
quote: Yes, "different from." Not just an exaggeration. I would label this definition as the classic example of Strawman.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
IMO, I would say that example is more Reductio_ad_absurdum than Strawman. There is SOME arch to the argument. But you can't logically get from promoting some socialist programs to being a full blown socialist: that horse don't run. You would have to show that all his proposals are full blown socialist items and none are not.
With Strawman, the arch would be entirely broken ... I think you are exaggerating the reductio position to take away from the straw man fallacy ... see Message 8. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
quote: Wouldn't all extreme exaggerations/Reductio_ad_absurdum eventually become crippled. Thus the reason for not using Hitler? By the very definition, an exaggeration or Reductio_ad_absurdum is not the exact argument. Thus, it is crippled starting out of the gate. But a strawman wouldn't even make it out of the gate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dronester writes:
I would think that a reduction ad absurdum is fine as long as it isn't a non sequitur.
By the very definition, an exaggeration or Reductio_ad_absurdum is not the exact argument. Thus, it is crippled starting out of the gate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It seems we can agree that a strawman argument is one that distorts and misrepresents the argument being challenged, so it still stands as a "commandment" yes?
But I am curious why you quoted the http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm definition from Message 8 and not the Page not found - Nizkor one:
quote: bold added for emphasis
Wouldn't all extreme exaggerations/Reductio_ad_absurdum eventually become crippled. Thus the reason for not using Hitler? And I think you are missing the point that Reductio_ad_absurdum arguments are extrapolations rather than exaggerations (and making a straw man argument about what is a straw man argument in the process). To say that Bernie Sanders is a full blown dyed in the wool socialist is an exaggeration, but not an extrapolation -- because not all his policies and positions are full blown dyed in the wool socialist positions. It is an exaggeration to say the Trumpets latest rally drew hundreds of thousands of avid supporters, it is not any kind of Reductio_ad_absurdum argument to make that statement. Logically Fallacious - Webpages
quote: Curiously I don't see how exaggeration fits into that description: "following it's implications" is extrapolation not exaggeration. Can you enlighten me? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
quote: Yes, except for the word "exaggerate," I can agree with your ten commandments. It is specifically the word "exaggerate' that's sticking in my craw . . .
quote: I'm hung up on the word "exaggeration." Would you consider a mildly exaggerated paraphrased argument as a strawman argument? I wouldn't. Please confirm. FWIW, I prefer a re-assembled definition from Ringo's post above: "Strawman=non-sequitar" definition over your linked definitions. Also, I think extrapolation does not fit into the spirit of the definition in "Reductio_ad_absurdum." An extrapolation connotes a measured, objective, scientific statement. Specifically, where is the absurdity in that? Edited by dronestar, : Ringo's paraphrased definition Edited by dronestar, : "I prefer a re-assembled definition from Ringo's post above"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024