Print

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

[Reelya]

> straw man

There can be a fine line between the straw man argument, which is fallacious, and Reductio ad absurdum, which is a legitimate argument (when applied logically).

Inevitably, there will be meta-arguments about the validity of arguments whether or not they're legitimately formulated, terms like Straw Man and Godwin will abound.

[MagmaMcFry]

How'd you figure? If you follow Rule 2, Rule 1 will eventually lead to both parties being at least as correct as before (having agreed on at least an optimal hybrid of both points of view). If your goal is solely to convince the other person of your own beliefs, then the discussion will necessarily lead nowhere.

A hybrid point of view on creationism/evolution is wrong. For factual debates, like on global warming, evolution, and religion, there is NO middle ground or optimal hybrid.

I'm not saying that an optimal hybrid has to include parts of both views; in a creationism/evolution debate, an optimal hybrid would (disclaimer: in my current worldview) be exactly evolution.

[Loud Whispers]

Aumann's Agreement Theorem says you actually always eventually agree, if you argue long enough. Obviously perfect agreement is nigh unachievable in this sense, but having perfect agreement as the goal means that even short discussions lead to at least some enlightenment, usually even quite a lot.

It takes the assumption that all possible issues that can be argued upon can be rationally divided into optimal answers providing they are argued for as long as possible, excluding the possibility that multiple interpretations are possible under a rational mindframe.

I already refuted your argument in the previous sentence; that was just additional clarification in case you had that particular alternative goal in mind, because that is usually the goal people have in mind when debating.

See the above. Since the goal is not to argue a viewpoint on a practical sense neither side will pursue their beliefs with vigour and zeal; the arguing and the beliefs themselves are not the issue here, it is upon the validation of those beliefs that the importance of the argument rests on. Your goal could lead to both parties arguing and finding both of them wrong by the conclusion of the argument.

[Angle]

That rule 1 might be better stated as

1) Your single goal in the discussion is to end up with both you and your opponent having the most accurate beliefs possible to you at that moment regarding the subject.

That said, I'm pretty sure that his Rule 2 precludes silly compromises that make no sense.

My own basics;
-snip-

Those are really good. I might well replace mine with them wholesale.

And just wanted to touch on this;

1. Arguments should be impersonal. This is about ideas, not people.

This falls into the civility and tone argument problem. A lot of topics are directly personal for some. A lot of arguments that are dispassionate and academic for one side are direct attacks on the person of the other.

I've seen people make dispassionate arguments that a certain type of person doesn't deserve to live who then dismiss people who fit into that category because they got angry and emotional.

And yeah, I can understand that. But it doesn't help your arguments, at least not in my opinion. I myself am an atheist, and whenever I read the arguments of other atheists who take <whatever> as a personal attack, it makes me cringe. Not to say that it's not understandable, or that they don't have the right to feel that way, but it just doesn't seem like the best way to do things...

That's before noting that the best writing for actually convincing people is emotional. Ignoring that and trying to pretend we are all beings of pure logic is to ignore the way the world works. I've also notice a lot of people who don't recognize that their own arguments are based on emotional responses but are willing to call out other people's as such when they need to dismiss them.

Is it really? I myself much prefer logical arguments, at least in my opinion. I'll pay more attention to that kind of thing though, and see if it changes my understanding.

[MagmaMcFry]

That rule 1 might be better stated as

1) Your single goal in the discussion is to end up with both you and your opponent having the most accurate beliefs possible to you at that moment regarding the subject.

Isn't that just a reformulation of Rule 2? My version of Rule 1 is there solely to encourage and permit information exchange. With your Rule 1, the discussion can end at any point, and there is no reason to actually tell anything of value to the other person, therefore also no internal reason except previously assessed trustworthiness to actually believe that the opponent believes he is telling the truth. For example, I could tell you "The earth is flat" five thousand times without either of us violating your Rule 1.

EDIT: Forgot about this.

Aumann's Agreement Theorem says you actually always eventually agree, if you argue long enough. Obviously perfect agreement is nigh unachievable in this sense, but having perfect agreement as the goal means that even short discussions lead to at least some enlightenment, usually even quite a lot.

It takes the assumption that all possible issues that can be argued upon can be rationally divided into optimal answers providing they are argued for as long as possible, excluding the possibility that multiple interpretations are possible under a rational mindframe.

Ah, now you have misconceptions about rationality: If multiple interpretations are possible, then it is obviously irrational to believe in only one of those. The rational answer to this dilemma is to accept the disjunction of all those interpretations and wait until distinguishing evidence arrives to be able to make a decision between these interpretations.

[Reelya]

Virtually all belief is faith-based "appeal to authority" but we all like to think it's "rational belief". Yeah I believe in evolution, but I don't claim to have proof: I'm trusting that the scientists involved in the studies are telling the truth and there isn't a massive conspiracy going on. "most scientists say" or "almost all scientists agree" are still appeals to authority, regardless of how many authorities you're appealing to.

Personally checking the data isn't much better in a debate: "i checked out their numbers and they were right" is now an anecdote, and if someone accepts that without personally checking, they're now committing an appeal to authority themselves.

So, a rationally held belief totally depends on your starting knowledge about the world. newton for example states things we now know are wrong due to relativity theory, but we don't hold him to be irrational since he could not have had access to the data we have.

Effectively, it comes down to which sources you trust: is it more rrational to trust physicists than to trust priests for example. Most people are going off faith either way.

[WealthyRadish]

My own basics;

This covered almost exactly my thought process when posting, or at least the standards I try for. Ultimately I think we're all here out of a desire to learn, discuss, or share, and even if I think a debate/discussion I joined in 'fails', I find that so long as I stuck to these points it was well worth it. Still do sometimes end up regretting the rare impulse posts though.

[Jelle]

A hybrid point of view on creationism/evolution is wrong. For factual debates, like on global warming, evolution, and religion, there is NO middle ground or optimal hybrid.

Indeed. It depends entirely on what you're discussing. If you're discussing factual matters, like evolution (and pretty much anything regarding science) meeting in the middle is just plain stupid. If you're discussing opinions and beliefs, you certainly can meet in the middle although I don't see why this should be imperative, or why different opinions absolutely have to clash in the first place. Live and let live and all that.

I don't even know why you'd argue beliefs at all. There really isn't much to be argued when you forego the burden of proof, apart from pointing out logical fallacies in someones belief.

[Juncoph]

reductio ad Hitlerum should be a rule as well

[Loud Whispers]

reductio ad Hitlerum should be a rule as well

That sounds like a rule the Nazis would enforce

[misko27]

That's all nice and logical, but logic is useful in debates exclusively to the degree that it holds some value in your intended audience. Any established rules of debate would be useful only as far as it is recognized as worthy of respect by the listeners. If listeners believe it is bad to make fallacy A, then one arguer being able to demonstrate the other is in violation has an affect; if they don't care, doesn't matter.


Also I'd appreciate if we can just skip to the inevitable "everything is relative , humans are fallible, only personal experience matters" point and move on. No, I haven't personally met Napoleon, I can't know for sure he existed, and so on. Stick an Occam's Razor in it now huh? Its just boring.

[LordBucket]

There's a desperate need for Debating and Logic courses in school.

My experience has generally been that these courses do not improve the quality of discussion of which a person is capable. They more often simply change the character of the bad arguments they use. For example, "your argument is stupid" becomes "your argument is a strawman." Even when it's not.

It's kind of like when people who are bad at acting take acting classes and start emphasizing every sentence by looking up and raising one open hand to the sky. It's still bad acting. It's simply formalized bad acting.


I would rather people learn to listen. In general when people "debate" for the purpose of convincing each other of something, nothing is accomplished. Logic and evidence are not effective means of changing opinions. Let me repeat that:

Logic and evidence are not effective means of changing opinion.

That might be an unpopular view, but I think if you look at real life, you'll find that it's generally true. So teaching people how to "more effectively argue" is fairly pointless except as sport. Take all the logic and debate courses you want, and then go out into the real world and try to convince anyone to change their beliefs about something. You may find it illuminating.But if people learn to listen to each other, occasionally people might hear and understand perspectives they might choose to accept for themselves.

[Juncoph]

reductio ad Hitlerum should be a rule as well

That sounds like a rule the Nazis would enforce

reductio ad hitlerum is an informal fallacy that basically means you can't reduce an argument to "lol ur worse than hitler"

it's less a nazi thing and more of a "don't be an idiot" rule

[BFEL]

Speaking of Poe's Law (another term for your "reduction ad Hitlerum") I have a question regarding that.

Its...well what if its not used as "lol ur worse den hitler" and used as an actual salient point?

Specifically, I often find myself supporting the argument that just because something is a law, doesn't necessarily make it moral or correct.
An absolutely perfect example to back this up can be found in Nazi Germany, where the law caused the genocide of millions upon millions, but because of Poe's Law, this argument tends to just be shunted into "you're just slandering your opponents" territory despite its actual relevance.

[Juncoph]

Speaking of Poe's Law (another term for your "reduction ad Hitlerum") I have a question regarding that.

Its...well what if its not used as "lol ur worse den hitler" and used as an actual salient point?

Specifically, I often find myself supporting the argument that just because something is a law, doesn't necessarily make it moral or correct.
An absolutely perfect example to back this up can be found in Nazi Germany, where the law caused the genocide of millions upon millions, but because of Poe's Law, this argument tends to just be shunted into "you're just slandering your opponents" territory despite its actual relevance.

reduction ad hitlerum doesn't apply if it's genuine comparison and not just morons taking advantage of hitler's good side to refute others with

example:

guy 1: man, i really want to have some prime rib right now 
guy 2: hitler was really modest with what he ate you're literally worse than hitler