Why not just sticky this thread. Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right".

I suppose, in the end, my feelings don't run too deep on this so I'd be willing to give it a shot in spite of my prediction and see what actually happened.

Then what are you actually saying with an argument, if not making the case for the fact of some state-of-affairs? — Harry Hindu

One does that all the time, assuming one's argument is making a truth claim.

The point is the fact of someone making a case (one's argument) is a different fact to what is true or false (the thing someone makes a claim about).

Premises and conclusions are true (or false). Arguments are valid (or invalid). — Michael

And I as I pointed out an argument is only valid if it is logically consistent - that it is not a non sequitur.

So in order for your argument to be valid it must still be logical. An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy.

Why not just sticky this thread. Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right". — Harry Hindu

He's only right because I agree him and wrong otherwise. It's all about me, really. Everyone should bear witness to me, not him. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me...

Unlikely, but that's my point. At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting.

Yes, absolutely.

There are many ways a fallacious argument might be interesting.

It's underlying truth claim might be correct, so it would be a mistake to think everything being said ought to be rejected because of the fallacies.

We might find it interesting for how it might jolt us out of a particular mode of thinking or imagine differently.

The fallacious statement might be an example which shows as something about claims and reasoning, such as examples in his thread, where a fallacious argument is used to show how the presence of fallacies don't address the truth claim of an argument.

At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting. — StreetlightX

Sure, but I would say that "wrangling over fallacies" only occurs because some people don't understand or, even worse, obstinately refuse to accept, that they are indulging in fallacies. And they will never "make it out of the gate of interesting" until they correct that shortcoming.

Having to correct such misguided people may well not be a very interesting thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend much time on the task, but then if the aim is to increase the interestingness of this forum, it is a task which all who are sufficiently interested in that aim should be prepared to share to some degree in the burden of.

Good luck to them.

Unlikely, but that's my point. At the point at which you're wrangling over fallacies, you haven't even made it out of the gate of interesting. — StreetlightX

I'm not overly concerned about what side of your imaginary gate you think I'm on. This imaginary gate of yours is merely a manifestation of your inflated opinion.

There may possibly be gems of insight hiding in nests of fallacy, but who would care to take the trouble to search for and unearth them?

That's very kind of you! (Do you get the non-fallacious double entendre?)

Anyone interested in the insight?

Those who want to discover what is interesting and true in the statement, as opposed to the fallacy obsessed, who are only interested in ignoring or rejecting any such insight to win contest of logical structure.

Do you not see the irresponsibility of suggesting we not be bothered with insight just because someone built a nest of fallacies? Is insight or truth not a good enough reason for bother? How could rejecting this interest in truth or insight ever square with genuine philosophical interest?

It's a terrible prejudice, build from motivation of trying to tear down an argument, rather than understand what is true.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. If I'm in a discussion with someone, and they make a claim which I doubt, and I ask them if they can present an argument in support of this claim, and they say yes, and then they present a fallacious argument, then it is wrong of me to identify the fallacy, explain why it is a fallacy, and urge them to understand that they need to try again in a different way? That's not philosophically interesting, I'm wrangling over something I shouldn't be, I'm overlooking gems, I'm not trying to ascertain whether there's any truth to their claim, I'm being obnoxious, childish, patronising, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow, and all the rest of it?

Yes (unless your topic was the fallacies in the argument, rather than a truth claim). You should just cut the bullshit and address the claim. Put aside the fallacies and consider whether you have a reason to deny the truth claim they are making.

The point at stake isn't whether they've reasoned perfectly, it's whether they understand what is true. You have a responsibility to care what is true, to reject their truth claim for good reason, rather than just because their argument had some fallacies. You can't just be lazy and reject their claim is true because they haven't followed a particular rule of logical inference.

(this also means Burden Of Proof is out as an objection, as someone failing to present evidence or show a truth in their argument doesn't actually give us a reason to think their claim is false).

Do you not see the irresponsibility of suggesting we not be bothered with insight just because someone built a nest of fallacies? — TheWillowOfDarkness

By all means praise them for their insights if there are any. If someone produces a nest of fallacies, though, whatever insights may be there may only be discovered by diligent reading. Who has time to read many pages of fallacious rubbish just in order to discover whether there are any gems hidden there?

That's not philosophically interesting, I'm wrangling over something I shouldn't be, I'm overlooking gems, I'm not trying to ascertain whether there's any truth to their claim, I'm being obnoxious, childish, patronising, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow, and all the rest of it? — S

No! It could all be valuable philosophical work. Of course you could still do this work in an obnoxious, childish, patronizing, overbearing, stupid, middlebrow and all the rest of it" way, but then the good part of your work might be wasted. The "obnoxious, etc, etc......" is more a matter of style than substance.

Are you a brick wall? Because I feel like I'm talking to one.

I began with my doubt of their claim, which your advice seems to forget. That suggests that I already have a reason not to accept their claim. Hence I asked for one, and that resulted in them committing a fallacy. Given the aforementioned, why would it be wrong of me to identify the fallacy, explain why it is a fallacy, and urge them to understand that they need to try again in a different way?

Why would all of those frankly ludicrous accusations (which I admittedly took out of context) apply to me in that scenario, as you've just suggested by answering with a "Yes"?

The point at stake isn't whether they've reasoned perfectly, it's whether they understand what is true. You have a responsibility to care what is true, to reject their truth claim for good reason, rather than just because their argument failed to follow some rules. You can't just be lazy and reject their claim is true because they haven't followed a particular rule of logical inference.

(this also means Burden Of Proof is out as an objection, as someone failing to present evidence or show a truth in their argument doesn't actually give us a reason to think their claim is false). — TheWillowOfDarkness

You seem quite oblivious and you don't make much sense. Sorry.

Anyone does! For the presence of fallacies is no measure of the truth claim or insight in question. One just ignores it and jumps straight to what is being claimed (like whether there is a fruit shop in my street, in my example) or what might be insightful (say a funny combination of things we never thought might occur together).

I always follow the herd so I disagree too.

Prominently pinning the basics may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and could offer better and more interesting content), signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

Doubt is the problem, it's no reason for taking any position.

If I say: "But how to I know this is true? Give a reason to think it's true" I haven't given myself no reason to reject the given claim. The idea it is false isn't justified be the act of doubting. If I am only doubting, I have no justification in rejecting a claim. I need to know how it is false to justify rejecting its true.

I always follow the herd so I disagree too. — praxis

I'm a contrarian, so I disagree with your disagreement.

Prominently pinning the basics may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and could offer better and more interesting content), signaling to them that they should go elsewhere. — praxis

Okay, then on that note, let's unpin the guidelines. After all, it may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and can behave in an appropriate manner without having to be guided) signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

Doubt is the problem, it's no reason for taking any position. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Reasonable doubt. Not just doubt for doubt's sake. :roll:

This presupposes that the proposed additional guidelines would be so prominent, so overbearing, as to render everything else on the site more or less invisible.

I don't know about you, but I don't even have time to read everything I want to read, let alone spend time sifting through garbage hoping to uncover something of value. If something of value jumps right out of a pile of garbage, then for sure, acknowledge that, and then, if you think you can, and you feel you can be bothered, try to educate the author as to how they might more coherently and consistently present their valuable insight.

That's not really doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" is actually an evidence/knowledge based claim. If we take the concept of "reasonable doubt" in law, for example, it is actually based on the expectation that if someone performed a crime, it amounts to empirical states which we can observe and investigate. It actually rejects someone committed a crime on the basis we know empirical states we would expect from the crime haven't occurred.

This is a red-herring because the garbage of it being fallacious is unrelated to its truth claim. In this respect, it's no more difficult to sort through whether to read it than anything else.

Now, if it's garbage in terms of its truth claim, that's a different story. Few want to waste their time reading pages of falsehoods, which is totally understandable.

Also, how great of a word is enthymeme? — StreetlightX

It reminds me of urethra for some reason. Spoils it a touch for me. — fdrake

@fdrake perhaps you are thinking of eurythmics or eurythmy?

let's unpin the guidelines — S

:up:

This presupposes that the proposed additional guidelines would be so prominent, so overbearing, as to render everything else on the site more or less invisible. — Janus

No, just a small sign or impression.

It cannot be both fallacious and true in its entirety. If it is mostly fallacious and yet contains a nugget of truth, then the nugget of truth should be valued and acknowledged. But your argument assumes that the nugget of truth is immediately obvious, whereas as the scenario I have outlined is one where the nugget is not immediately obvious and one would have to read through a pile of fallacious garbage in order to discover a nugget that may not even be there.

So, I haven't committed the "red herring" fallacy here, rather it is the case that you have committed the "strawman fallacy".

Is clusterfuck a fallacy?