On the one hand, I wish there was a polite way of pointing out to people when they're committing a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, if there were, it'd easily consume all my time on social media.

@BrentNewhall on the third hand: fallacy fallacy is a kind of fallacy

you can't win

@moz Well, no, I never said I wanted to point out that anyone's conclusion is false. 🙂 Just wanting to point out faulty reasoning, no matter where it leads, so people realize why their propositions might not be adopted as much as they expect.

But then people *think* you're committing the fallacy fallacy. So yeah, it's tough. 🤷

@BrentNewhall if we're being serious and not internet-irony-poisoned for a second: pointing out faulty reasoning isn't quite as important as pointing out incorrect premises. if premises are bad then reasoning is irrelevant. although yes, bad reasoning processes are still bad

back to the regularly scheduled death by irony poisoning:

fallacy fallacy fallacy is a fallacy fallacy, checkmate atheists

@moz Great point! Faulty premises are more significant, and often lead to faulty logic.

I think faulty premises are a lot harder to tease out effectively, though. People hold on far more tightly to their premises, and don't express them well. People seem more willing to accept when they're using an ineffective tactic like faulty reasoning.

@BrentNewhall this is also why we have to dig past reasoning to premises - socratic method is often abused by "classical liberal" types and concern trolls, but can be useful for teasing out premises through a forest of crap reasoning.

@moz I suppose I just haven't seen "digging past reasoning to premises" done effectively outside of Socrates himself. I've typically seen it used as a bullying tactic, full of its own faulty biases and premises.

So I don't know how to do that effectively. D'you have any pointers?

@BrentNewhall it's contextual as hell. mostly asking prodding questions like "what brings you to hold this belief?" or "what premises do you base your ideas on?" - not hostile, just generic interrogative prodding.

@moz @BrentNewhall

Depends a lot on who you're arguing with and about what, doesn't it?

Often when you're talking to someone in the same 'camp' as you, reasoning is the biggest divider, whereas across major divides premises tend to be more of an issue.

For instance, 2 Marxists or 2 Republicans are likely to share the same premises, but a Marxist and a Republican are unlikely to...?

@BrentNewhall Feel the same. I've spent about 5 years writing a book to make this easier. It's nearly done. Let's see if anyone cares!

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Mastodon instance for tabletop gamers.