this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
1106 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
5516 readers
630 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you're educated in the field of fallacies, you're basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you're doing, it's sort of cyclic in nature like that. It's interesting in theoretical thought though, i'll give you that one.
Interestingly enough, I had fallacies as part of my base native language class. Can't remember if it was middle school or high school, but we definitely learned about the most common ones like ad hominem, false dilemma, slippery slope, etc.
Kinda imagined it would be similar elsewhere, but unfortunately not I guess
i think these are probably relatively common somewhere in the lines of writing, but i'm guessing that nobody remembers them because they're all boring.
The thing is, fallacies do matter because they are meant to describe what is not "good faith" argumentation. They are sophistry. It's like, the basis of our modern western philosophy, and our current legal system. How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don't even know if it's logically consistent or argued in good faith? They don't even know what good faith is. Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It's like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world, and then expecting those kids to actually be math literate. You can't do it. You're neglecting fundamental (and I mean that word emphatically) knowledge.
It's like mental gardening. The ability to recognize and respond to fallacies in our own internal thinking helps us stay organized within our own minds and not fall victim to traps or scams.
No, fallacies are not something that you just accuse another person of. An ad hominem attack is a specific thing. A strawman is a specific thing. Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that's okay. It's okay to learn a complicated subject.
Sometimes though, when people don't want to do that hard mental load of learning fallacies (because they'd have to change their own mind regarding many of their own fallacies and heuristics), they dismiss fallacies and say "meh, but I don't wanna!" That doesn't invalidate learning about them.
this is part of what you would learn in philosophy. There are only so many ways to conceptualize things in a productive manner. There are hundreds if not thousands of thought experiments that prove this. Nihilism being a good one. Anti-natalism is another. There may be lines of reasoning that make sense theoretically, or check out in a logical manner, but which do not make sense in a practical applied manner. The age old question of "what is our purpose" is a classic example of this. There is no clear defined answer, and any clear defined answer given is not going to be a very good one. This is also why there are multiple schools of thought, and different frameworks with which to view the world differently, having a comprehensive understanding of these things allows one to conceptualize beyond the normal plane of interactions with other people.
this is actually an interesting point, and i think i broadly agree here. The difference is that we aren't teaching someone math, we're teaching someone how to properly experience the world, and how to carry themselves through that world such that they don't make a fool of themselves for making elementary mistakes such as, fallacy. Obviously teaching people fallacy is the most direct answer to the problem here, but i don't think it's reasonable to teach everyone all of fallacy in order to mitigate this. Just like in math, how we stop after a certain amount of numbers, because otherwise it would literally never end. The math is generally the same beyond this point anyway, so it's redundant trying to cover it.
and this is why i think it's important to start at a place a little more fundamentally relevant to the problem here. In the same way we can't just pick someone up off the street and teach the calculus, the same can be said for fallacy. There is a certain level of relevant information that needs to be known before we can move to fallacy.
for example, i think it would be productive to educate people about the general types of fallacy, and the rough mechanisms they follow, so that they can work to stick outside of the scope of these fallacies, and stay within the range of good faith argumentation. I think similarly to this, you don't need to know fallacy, to call out fallacy. Fallacy is a fundamental failure of reasoning, and if you can point out that failure in reasoning, you can point out the fallacy, it's just not a formal "diagnosis" of fallacy in this sense.
No, I chose my words precisely here:
Define "validity" in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn't understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That's entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it's a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren't right. The fallacies aren't the same either or else we wouldn't define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don't understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren't the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn't so important, what's important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book "Where Mathematics Comes From"
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn't an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It's a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it's a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They're mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
i didn't say we should limit it, i just said it's probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren't the same field, and they don't work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn't pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
to be clear, we're not teaching them that you shouldn't name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We're telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that's a pre req to this whole thing.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it's a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Well, agree to disagree then.
I never stated there was ultimate truth.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
Yes, and that structured, "valid" manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree "philosophy is just a means to an end."
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it's a fallacy. If your parents explained it as "it's not polite," rather than "it's nonsense," that's on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I've been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By 'previous information,' what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It's not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don't make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can't communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you're neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You've spent days arguing against this.
Here's my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Your response:
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn't have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.