Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MamaLiberty]

Great article!!  If we're going to have a lot of new folks coming to TMM, we might want to brush up on this.

Love Liberty? Learn to Argue.
http://blog.independent.org/2014/12/03/love-liberty-learn-to-argue/
Have you ever observed how people argue with each other without paying particular attention to the content? If you have not had the pleasure, many “arguments” usually go something like this:

    “I think X.”

    “Well, I think Y.”

    “Y is stupid.”

    “You’re stupid!”

This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. From my observation, when two people don’t agree on an issue, their “discussion” often quickly devolves. This is particularly true in my observation of college students when they hear counterarguments and alternative views for the first time. But it’s not just “young people.” Every year we hold elections. Every year we are bombarded with “debates” in which the norm is to “answer” a question by slandering one’s opponent or switching topics completely.

But this isn’t just a trait of the millennial generation. How many times has a younger person disagreed with the position of an older adult who replies with, “well, when you’re older, you’ll understand,” or, “I’ve been doing X for 30 years and let me tell you...”? For the record, these are not arguments. Maybe a person will change his mind with age, maybe someone’s experiences can inform another’s opinion. However, appealing to age or experience as the sole basis of validity is the polite equivalent of “you’re stupid.”

Put simply, people don’t know how to argue.

[Rarick]

A starting point?

1. Though shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument itself. (“Ad hominem”)

Example:  Dave listens to Marilyn Manson, therefore his arguments against certain parts of religion are worthless. After all, would you trust someone who listens to that devil worshiper?


2. Though shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (“Straw Man Fallacy”)

Example:  After Jimmy said that we should put more money into health and education, Steve responded by saying that he was surprised that Jimmy hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.


3. Though shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (“Hasty Generalization”)

Example:  Climate Change Deniers take a small sample set of data to demonstrate that the Earth is cooling, not warming. They do this by zooming in on 10 years of data, ignoring the trend that is present in the entire data set which spans a century.(OH I laugh at this one! if you zoom further out to thousands of years you find a cycle.....)

4. Though shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (“Begging the Question”)

Example:

Sheldon: “God must exist.”
Wilbert: “How do you know?”
Sheldon: “Because the Bible says so.”
Wilbert: “Why should I believe the Bible?”
Sheldon: “Because the Bible was written by God.”
Wilbert: “WTF?”


5. Though shall not claim that because something occurred before, but must be the cause. (“Post Hoc/False Cause”).  This can also be read as “correlation does not imply causation”.


6. Though shall not reduce the argument down to only two possibilities when there is a clear middle ground. (“False Dichotomy”)

Example:  You’re either with me, or against me. Being neutral is not an option.


7. Though shall not argue that because of our ignorance, the claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”).

Example:  95% of unidentified flying objects have been explained. 5% have not. Therefore, the 5% that are unexplained prove that aliens exist.


8. Though shall not lay the burn of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”).

Example:  Marcy claims she sees the ghosts of dead people, then challenges you to prove her wrong. The burden of proof is on Marcy, not you, since Marcy made the extraordinary claim.


9. Though shall not assume that “this” follows “that”, when “it” has no logical connection. (“Non Sequitur”).

Similar, but the difference between the post hoc and non sequitur fallacies is that, whereas the post hoc fallacy is due to lack of a causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of a logical connection.

Example: If you do not buy this Vitamin X supplements for your infant, you are neglecting her.


10. Though shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore, it must be true. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”).

Example: Just because a celebrity like Dr. Oz endorses a product, it doesn’t make it any more legitimate.

 

[jamie]

good post Rarick. Only where is appeal to authority?

I have found that that this seldom works because people can't reason. A communist for example. Or any number of other isms.

[Rarick]

Reality always speaks for itself.  Logic gets people there, people do not want to accept the answer when it says hello however........especially when it violates preconception.

[Tahn L.]

I believe this was posted on the forum years ago.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

A good summary of the many types of logical fallacies.

[mi6a2lm]

I believe this was posted on the forum years ago.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

A good summary of the many types of logical fallacies.

And before that, posted on Usenet.  QED.   

Edit:  I apologize.  Thought you were referring to the Santa physics post.

[A Patriot]

New ones, (like me) have to figure out the reason nothing new is posted, is because the subject has probably been discussed already. lol 

[DiabloLoco]

New ones, (like me) have to figure out the reason nothing new is posted, is because the subject has probably been discussed already. lol 

Bumping an old thread like this is fine though. If you have something to add, go for it! I don't mind zombie threads.

[knobster]

Unfortunately the majority of people out there who hate liberty aren't interested in hearing 'your side'.  If you start calmly bringing up such topics they scream obscenities or start chanting some drivel.  Even my in-laws (who would line up and take bullets for any politician with a (D) by their name) refuse to discuss anything related to true freedom.  The tactic they often use is a quick subject change or, "well, I just don't care to debate that."