And what keeps you from writing it?

I think mods should do it so that it's properly done, not users.
But it seems very few want such a pinned post. Don't know why though, seems people don't want to be reminded that their argument might be flawed :chin: :lol:

And what keeps you from writing it? — tim wood

Not my exceptional talent, that's for sure. :grin:

I don't have the ability to pin what I've written to the top of the front page. I would need a gurantee that it would be pinned to the top of the front page. And why even assume that I would need to write something up to begin with? It doesn't have to be me, and it doesn't have to be written, or at least not all of it. I wouldn't work from scratch. If it were down to me, I would get most of it from an online source, and simply copy and paste. Wikipedia has a list of logical fallacies, for example.

But it seems very few want such a pinned post. Don't know why though... — Christoffer

Yeah, why aren't people speaking up? Speak up, people! Don't just vote and remain silent! Sheesh. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? At present, four of you haven't explained your "Disagree" vote.

Not sure why people are against it? It's just some tips about how to improve an argument and handle a dialectic properly. Weird.

Not sure why people are against it? It's just some tips about how to improve an argument and handle a dialectic properly. Weird. — Christoffer

Maybe because it's me, and I'm like a gadfly. A gadfly that doesn't just sting the horses, but makes fun of them, and speaks bluntly and sarcastically to them, telling 'em how it is. :lol:

If your idea is guilty by association with me, then that'd be a shame, because it's a good idea.

Not sure why people are against it? — Christoffer

It's just not the sort of pinup decent folks want to see. Show me your boobies and I'll show you my phallusies ...
so adolescent. Tut tut!

So there's no good reason not to do this? People are maybe just fucking with me: let's vote "Disagree" just to mess with him!

Okay, very funny, guys. :clap:

Maybe tips on how to improve posts scare those away who just want to express opinions and not do philosophy at all.

People are maybe just fucking with me: let's vote "Disagree" just to mess with him! — S

Are you saying that's not a valid reason? What's the fallacy?

I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need.

:lol:



:up:

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.

I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need. — StreetlightX

It's one more item, and it would be very helpful and relevant. I get the minimalism, but it doesn't have to be so extreme that one more pinned item is unthinkable. That would leave plenty of room for discussions! The whole rest of the page. It would barely have an impact on that at all.

I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We could pin this as an example of what not to do.

I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing. — Hanover

Finally, some criticism worth taking on board. I knew it would come from someone like you. That's possible. Though I think that we could counteract that to some extent with the way that we word it. We'd just need to word it in a sort of "Helpful Tips" way, rather than a "These are the rules of logic you must follow or else!" way.

:lol: :up:

3.3k
I believe the idea is that the less pinned, the better. There's only so much real estate, and we want to save it for discussion. Fallacies and biases would be nice and all, but a bit of a luxury that we don't really need. — StreetlightX

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there?

My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing. — Hanover

The suggestion wasn't really about "rules", but recommendations or a list to have in mind in order to not drift away too much when writing.

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there? — Christoffer

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:scream:
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen you make. Where did you learn philosophy? Logic is the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking itself.

Your post is essentially the outcome of post-truth. I can only imagine all the logical inconsistencies of Trump's that you all pointed out in an effort to show that what he said is false.

Without logic, how do you filter out all of the contradictory and subjective non-sense coming from all directions? How do you determine the truth-value of a claim or statement? The problem with most philosophical questions, isn't the use of logic, it is the misuse of terms.

For anyone to understand anything you write, your words must follow a logical pattern.

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything.
— TheWillowOfDarkness


We could pin this as an example of what not to do. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding towards what a fallacy and bias really is. If we are interested in truth, we cannot arrive there if every post reads like personal opinions and facts mixed in with personal values around those facts.

Keeping fallacies and biases in mind while writing is not limiting, it's focusing.

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one. — Baden

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

https://yourbias.is/

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in anything worthy of sustained discussion.

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one. — Baden

Sounds good! :ok:

Found these two, which are a nice and clear to some fallacies and biases, maybe these links?

Fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Biases
https://yourbias.is/

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in any interesting discussion at all. — StreetlightX

They're foundational for philosophical arguments. I've seen way too many examples on this forum where arguments go nowhere since people just bash opinions and doesn't listen to the other side.

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in any interesting discussion at all. — StreetlightX

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't.

I can't wait to see this idea implemented in the next "God Exists" thread. :rofl:

Haven't people been banned, or have their posts deleted, for not being logically consistent and continually fail to make their case in a logical manner?

@Harry Hindu posted the same. Are you both on commission for fallacy posters? :wink:

Basic idea is OK by me if that's what people want. But no pages with commercial links.

Hahahahaha, didn't see that :rofl:

Maybe just the wikis?

Biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

If you want to learn about logical fallacies, take an introductory course in logic, or do some reading. It's a good idea.

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't. — Harry Hindu

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity.

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful.

Validity: the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct