The Geek Social Fallacies article exists to let you feel a sense of smug superiority
It serves no other purpose
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
When you're presented with an argument, whether you agree or disagree with it, the proper response is not to begin listing logical fallacies as if finding enough of them or finding the right one will provide a good comeback. Logical fallacies are the structure of a problem with many arguments but they are not the content of the problem. The actual content of a problem with an argument is the reason why the logical fallacy in this case makes the argument break down.
Given this, then, once you've found the fallacy, you would still need to explain why the fallacy is, in this specific case, an instance of fallacious reasoning.
This two step process is redundant and unhelpful - instead of first identifying the fallacy and only later explaining why the fallacy is an instance of fallacious reasoning, you should train yourself to hone in on the fallacious reasoning directly.
Let's just go with a simple example:
You argue that it would be wrong to stab my neighbor and take all their stuff. I reply that you have an ugly face. I commit the "ad hominem" fallacy because I'm attacking you, not your argument. So one thing you could do is yell "OI, AD HOMINEM, NOT COOL."
Does that solve anything? No, actually. You've just thrown Latin at me. There's probably a name for the fallacy you've just committed, or maybe there isn't, who gives a shit. What you need to do is go one step more and say "the ugliness of my face has no bearing on moral judgments about whether it is okay to stab your neighbor."
But notice you could've just said that without yelling "ad hominem" first! In fact, that's how all fallacies work. If someone has actually committed a fallacy, you can just point out their mistake directly without being a pedant and finding a pat little name for all of their logical reasoning problems.
If you talk to genuine philosophers (particularly good ones) for a while, you'll basically never hear them talk about the names of fallacies. The only one I think I've ever heard people use is "affirming the consequent," and that's just when they're talking about simple mistakes undergraduates make. Real people who work with arguments are interested in the actual argument, not cool sounding labels you can use to dismiss your interlocutor.
No matter how fallacious someone's reasoning is, I encourage you, in the future, you take on arguments as genuine arguments, not as opportunities to list a bunch of fallacies and then peace out as if you've done anything useful or interesting or smart.
like the "fallacies" in the article aren't even really logical fallacies, just dodgy assumptions that can make your social life a headache needlessly
i'm with calica on this one