Bill Hoyt's "Call to Arms"

[Clancie]

I saw this post in the "Mod and Admin" forum, but feel it also raises issues about "General Skepticism".
Posted by Bill Hoyt (the reparagraphing is mine, for emphasis.)

A Call to Arms

Upon Hal's leaving, I have taken a step back and tried to look at this forum from an outsider's perspective.

I frankly cannot see much intelligent discussion here. The most recent example, and the one that has pushed me over the edge was Wu's board spamming. Yes, it was spam, but at least Winston Wu had arrived and had opened up the potential for an intelligent discussion of skepticism and his bizarre "de-bunking" article.

Now I know Wu usually runs away from such discussions, preferring a hit-and-run style, so I wasn't expecting an intelligent conversation from him. But, foolish me, I was expecting a discussion amongst forum posters of Wu's assertions about skepticism.

Like nearly every other discussion here, there were some sharp, dismissive counters to his article, some of which contained excellent points for further discussion.

This could have been an excellent opportunity for skeptics to analyze Wu's article and explain why it is so horridly flawed. Instead, though, the woo games-players derailed the thread the moment they found it. I posted this in response:


quoting himself:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,

It has been over twenty-four hours (27 Feb, 3:00 am) since max weighed in with this gem:

“I found the article to be fascinating and I shall have a good read at it later when I have more time.”

It has been nearly twenty-four hours (27 Feb 8:52 am) since Ian weighed in with his:

“Hmmm, I haven't read either of the 2 articles. Too much stuff to read. I'm wanting to read Irwin's textbook on parapsychology and this other book on the philosophy of science and other stuff. I'll probably get round to reading the 2 articles eventually though.”

Neither woo’s read Wu, but both woos knew Wu had the poo on woo voodoo. Nothing new. Few woos would be so stu as to poo-poo the skeptic’s view with nary a read of a Wu line or two, but then there’s these two. These two woos so stu as to spew and spew and spew against the skeptic’s view with nary a read or two of a Wu line or a few.

This doesn’t even merit the “sophomoric” label, folks. This is kiddy playpen stuff. This is Dr. Seuss’ The Woo who Stews. This board and these woos have become a waste of time. When will JREF take action to raise the level of intelligence here and to not see some of its best people, like Hal, driven off the board by this smarmy swarm of disingenuous woo flies? end quote
________________________

(Hoyt's post continues....)


Yes, it really happened. Again. Two posters, neither of whom read the material, sniping at skeptics. And yes, one was you-know-who, ever intent on derailing discussions. And derailed the thread has become.

How can we claim it [the JREF] is educational when we go around in the same circles with infantile minds intent on derailing discussions? *

People whose belief systems are so fragile they can't even be bothered to read the material being presented?

Here are the questions plaguing me about spending time and money on all of this:

Are we getting anywhere with this forum?

Is this forum educating anybody about skepticism? About rationality? About science and logic?

Are we having the intended effect here or just serving as
yet another outpost for woos to blather on? Don't they have enough fora all over the net?

Can we not re-shape this forum with different moderator roles or responsibilities so that we can nudge it in the right direction? If so, how?*

Ignoring the unbelievable irony of the above, a "Call to Arms" (especially coming from Bill ) seemed quite chilling. (And there's no evidence, Bill, that "woowoos" are responsible for Hal's departure. Although It figures you would dishonestly create a scapegoat, and try to spread that rumor. :rolleyes: ).

Considering this idea comes from you, Bill, (someone who seems more bent on "derailing" discussion himself with various non-sequiters and insults) I can't help wondering what new "right direction" for this board you have in mind with your "Call to Arms" ? :confused:


*edited to add I added the bolding and list formatting

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It's not a good idea to ban people for being stupid.

Again, I reiterate my suggestion to perform a scientific experiment: namely, we put Ian on Ignore, and see how long it takes him to leave the boards.

[Pyrrho]

I know this subject relates to General Skepticism, but could we keep the discussion in the original thread? Just a suggestion, as it would be easier for everyone to follow.

[Dancing David]

So someone is sceptical of scepticism . whoopee!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It's not a good idea to ban people for being stupid.



I know. We don't want to diminish the number of skeptics contributing here.

[TLN]

The original thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36239&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

[max]

Many moons ago I pointed out that, no one had, had the courtesy to reply to one of my posts. Boy did I get a quick reaction to that. I was told in no uncertain terms that this is a forum not a chatline and if I didn't like that I could go and find any number of chatlines on the net. I personally have been really busy during the past day. I am also getting ready to go out for the evening. The WWu's web has an enormous amount of points on it and a hell of a lot of reading to do. I can't even see me getting around to reading it for some days. Even then, I am not obliged to do a posting on my thoughts. I don't know why Billyhoyt gets so upset and bossy. It is not up to him or anyone else here to tell me when and what to reply to. I do truly find the subject of WWu's fascinating (I scan read some) That is no reason to be singled out on here and referred to as a woo woo. Why is there a board for paranormal discussion on a 'sceptics' forum? Why would sceptics even want to discuss what they don't believe in? Is it here to attract the 'woo woos' then? Is that all it is for? It maybe I don't agree ultimately with WWu's points but time will tell. I'd like to read it at my own pace if you don't mind Billy. and also I'd like to feel free as to whether I comment on it or not without attracting your childish comments.

[JRB]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I know. We don't want to diminish the number of skeptics contributing here.


Actually, encouraging the stupid posters would be far more likely to reduce the number of skeptics than banning them. There's nothing quite like the frustration of trying to break through an impenetrable wall of woowoo idiocy to cause a thinking man to flee for his sanity's sake. :D

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by max
(snipped) . The WWu's web has an enormous amount of points on it and a hell of a lot of reading to do. I can't even see me getting around to reading it for some days.(snipped)

I read Wwu's article on my 1/2 lunch break.

[max]

Sue..wow are you an alien. And lucky you getting a lunch break.
My mistake I was talking about his web site:D I still haven't bothered to read it all.

[Sundog]

Sorry, I just feel more comfortable posting in a Clancie thread than a Bill thread. Kind of like how I'd rather have coffee with friends than go to the dentist.

And, she's absolutely right. This points up a very basic problem with the skeptical outlook that even the most brilliant mind can fall into. It seems terribly hard for people to be skeptical about themselves.

Yes, Clancie, the irony is unbelievable. This is where we test the old adage "A word to the wise is sufficient". Either you get the irony and the terribly important lesson involved, or you don't.

[iain]

On the particular issue that Max refers to, I'm pretty much with Max. I can't think of any reason why people should be thought any less of, or be considered to have conceded an argument, just because they haven't had time to read something, consider their opinions and formulate a sensible post in a given period of time.

People do have lives outside this forum and sometimes people have nothing new to say (there are several threads going now which are being kept alive by people essentially reposting the same message repeatedly - if people didn't post unless they had something new to add, the threads would die).

If Max read the website and came back in five years time with his responses, it wouldn't make his opinions any less valid, nor his detractors any more correct. One of the problems of the Internet is we want instant responses without giving people the time to think things through; and maybe we are too ready to give our instant opinions, which are sometimes not as well-thought-out as they should be.

Edited to add : Most sceptics on these boards are more than happy to criticise paranormal reports, alternative therapies and so on without having a detailed knowledge of the story behind each. This is actually OK because the sceptics are judging on the information they have vs their prior knowledge. However, to then criticise "believers" for taking a similar approach seems somewhat disingenuous.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by max
Sue..wow are you an alien. And lucky you getting a lunch break.
My mistake I was talking about his web site:D I still haven't bothered to read it all.

So I've been called. Does it help that I read it in the 20 minutes left over from the half hour lunch break I had last week?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by iain
On the particular issue that Max refers to, I'm pretty much with Max. I can't think of any reason why people should be thought any less of, or be considered to have conceded an argument, just because they haven't had time to read something, consider their opinions and formulate a sensible post in a given period of time.

(snipped)
Edited to add : Most sceptics on these boards are more than happy to criticise paranormal reports, alternative therapies and so on without having a detailed knowledge of the story behind each. This is actually OK because the sceptics are judging on the information they have vs their prior knowledge. However, to then criticise "believers" for taking a similar approach seems somewhat disingenuous.

It's one thing to post an opinion. It's another to post an opinion about an article that one hasn't even bothered to read.

[iain]

Originally posted by Suezoled
It's one thing to post an opinion. It's another to post an opinion about an article that one hasn't even bothered to read. True, but I've gone back to look at the thread and that's not what Max did. He initially skim read it and said he found it facinating and would read it in more detail later. Bill Hoyt then starting attacking Max for not having read it and responded quickly enough.

[voidx]

Originally posted by iain
True, but I've gone back to look at the thread and that's not what Max did. He initially skim read it and said he found it facinating and would read it in more detail later. Bill Hoyt then starting attacking Max for not having read it and responded quickly enough.
To be fair, most people's problem with Max's reply wasn't that he admitted to skimming it, but that based on that skimming he was quick to dismiss it for various reasons we didn't think were valid. One being his dislike of the definitions of logical fallacies being included in the article and that the author was patronizing. Several attempts were made to try and make Max understand why the definitions were there and why they were valid, and valuable and yet he despite those efforts continued to dismiss the article. So Bill Hoyt attack aside, I think Max received many valid criticisms against his reasons for dismissing the article.


On the particular issue that Max refers to, I'm pretty much with Max. I can't think of any reason why people should be thought any less of, or be considered to have conceded an argument, just because they haven't had time to read something, consider their opinions and formulate a sensible post in a given period of time.

They shouldn't be thought less of, or said to have conceded, but they should expect criticism. I try not to comment on anything I've not read. If I do, and I make false generalizations then I expect to be taken to task for it. It just looks again to me we're concentrating on the negative aspect of threads. You think Hoyt's reply was out of line, thats all fine and good, but at least give credit to the valid questions and criticisms that were brought up concerning Max's opinion of the article based on a skimmed reading.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by iain
True, but I've gone back to look at the thread and that's not what Max did. He initially skim read it and said he found it facinating and would read it in more detail later. Bill Hoyt then starting attacking Max for not having read it and responded quickly enough.

Billhoyt was perhaps a bit aggressive. But his questions and points were valid. Max once again dismissed arguments based on a paper he admitted to only skimming in the first place, and then defended himself with references to his education and his personal experience.

The fact that Billhoyt is an aggressive poster does not make his arguments invalid. The fact Max skimmed the article does not mean he has to answer. But when either do post, they can expect to be treated fairly based on their words.

Edited to say: nevermind. Voidx got it

[iain]

Originally posted by voidx
They shouldn't be thought less of, or said to have conceded, but they should expect criticism. I try not to comment on anything I've not read. If I do, and I make false generalizations then I expect to be taken to task for it. It just looks again to me we're concentrating on the negative aspect of threads. You think Hoyt's reply was out of line, thats all fine and good, but at least give credit to the valid questions and criticisms that were brought up concerning Max's opinion of the article based on a skimmed reading. Absolutely; but remember that this thread is about the suggestion that "woo-woos", who are considered by some to be less intelligent that the sceptics, should be controlled in some way to encourage more intelligent debate. I happen to think that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons; but that aside, this issue is a little bit more than just giving credit to valid criticisms. Sure, some criticism of Max may be valid in this case; I'm sure that all of us deserve criticism from time to time. I don't think we need a whole thread to do that though.

[Suezoled]

Good question, though, Billhoyt points out: are we educating and exercising critical thinking, or just bickering?

[iain]

If people are fed up with "woo-woo" threads that go round in circles; try accepting that posting essentially the same thing 30 times is no more likely to convince Winston, Interesting Ian and Max any more than posting it five times is. If you don't want these threads, post what you have to say and then post something like "I still don't accept your argument, but have nothing more to add right now."

If you want to understand why these threads don't get resolved, it might be better to try to understand what it is that prevents the two sides from seeing each other's viewpoint rather than each side just accusing the other of being stupid. This might also be a good exercise in seeing how to encourage sceptical thought in the wider population.

Edited to add : I don't know the answers, but I am aware that sceptics (and I am proud to consider myself a sceptic) can on occasion be exceptionally arrogant and convinced of our own rightness. Sometimes this is probably correct, other times maybe not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
[B]If people are fed up with "woo-woo" threads that go round in circles; try accepting that posting essentially the same thing 30 times is no more likely to convince Winston, Interesting Ian and Max any more than posting it five times is. If you don't want these threads, post what you have to say and then post something like "I still don't accept your argument, but have nothing more to add right now."

If you want to understand why these threads don't get resolved, it might be better to try to understand what it is that prevents the two sides from seeing each other's viewpoint rather than each side just accusing the other of being stupid.



But it's more fun to do the latter :(

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But it's more fun to do the latter :(

Finally you admit your raison d'etre. :D

[apoger]

While Mr. Hoyt was obviously a bit stressed when he wrote the original essay, I would agree that his basic premise is sound. It's perfectly natural to question the value of the forums. What can you expect from skeptics if not a probing for value?

Addressing his points:

Are we getting anywhere with this forum?

The forum is not about a destination, it's about the journey.


Is this forum educating anybody about skepticism? About rationality? About science and logic?

It has helped me. I believe it has also helped others. This is the real benefit of the forums. While some threads certainly stray from the path, as a whole I think the endeavor is important and worthwhile.



Are we having the intended effect here or just serving as yet another outpost for woos to blather on?

I think it's having the intended effect. While it does offer the "woos" a home to blather on, at least they are challenged here. At the very least they offer ideas that are worth debating.




Can we not re-shape this forum with different moderator roles or responsibilities so that we can nudge it in the right direction? If so, how?

This is tall order but I understand the need. On one hand we don't want to stifle debate, on the other we don't want to allow the truely dysfunctional to derail everyone else's discussions.

What I would propose is setting up one additional forum where a moderator, or panel of moderators, enforce strict rules concerning issues such as staying on topic, logical fallacies, Ad Hominems, rude behavior, and trolling.

Also it might be interesting to have a moderated debate forum such as can be found at Internet Infidels.


[please excuse the cross-posting, this topic now seems to span two threads in two forums]

[iain]

apoger,

I agree with your comments, except for the last.

Originally posted by apoger
This is tall order but I understand the need. On one hand we don't want to stifle debate, on the other we don't want to allow the truely dysfunctional to derail everyone else's discussions.

What I would propose is setting up one additional forum where a moderator, or panel of moderators, enforce strict rules concerning issues such as staying on topic, logical fallacies, Ad Hominems, rude behavior, and trolling.We already have the tools and ability to do much of this. There's an ignore function so you don't even have to see the posts of people you don't want to. No one forces people to feed the trolls; but some people choose to do so (it can be fun ;))

I think that the relatively unmoderated character of these forums is key to making them what they are - for better or, occasionally, for worse.

[max]

Let me try and resolve this arguement.
1........My first post was regarding WWu's web site. I read the list of headings referring to the subject matter and to me the subjects seemed to be interesting and fascinating. I was stuck for time at that point but thought I would read the whole thing later.
2........I didn't get the time to read the web. but I did look in the forum from time to time.
3.........RichardR suggest I read the 'rebuttal' I looked up the 'rebuttal' I didn't agree/like the list of logical fallacies at the head of the piece, this is just my opinion, but I found it to be a 'brainwashing' exercise for newbie sceptics who may look in. I said as much on a post.
4.........I had not at this point read WWu's web.
5........By now I'm getting hounded for not reading it, by Billhoyt.
6........I managed to read some of WWU's web and left my comments on another post.
7..........It seems the last few posters are accusing me of 'criticising an ARTICLE that I have not read.' I have not done that. I criticised a LIST of logical fallacies, not the article. How is it remotely possible to criticise something I haven't read?
8.........I made it clear, or tried to, to RichardR that I was indeed educated and could well understand the 'logical fallacies' because he seemed to think that I couldn't grasp what was going on.
9...........I fully understand all the logical fallacies but my arguement mainly, was why use them? Why not use ones own terminology? I had never seen such a list but suddenly it became clear to me that those terms had been used so often on this forum, to myself included, to criticise and to put down a believer.

[apoger]

We already have the tools and ability to do much of this.

Some tools yes. I'd like to see and area with a bit more moderator control, but I don't feel it's critical. I'm just tossing out ideas in response to Mr. Hoyts query.


There's an ignore function so you don't even have to see the posts of people you don't want to.

I use it.

I wish this function removed all mention of the target. Instead it leaves a line that informs you that there is a post hidden from you "right here". Looking at a thead that is riddled with "you can't read this" notations is frustrating and hard to "ignore".



No one forces people to feed the trolls; but some people choose to do so (it can be fun )

I have been guilty of this myself.



I think that the relatively unmoderated character of these forums is key to making them what they are - for better or, occasionally, for worse.

It's one of the aspects i enjoy as well. I would not advocate giving it up. I was suggesting adding more options, not removing those we already have.

What do you think of the idea of a moderated debate forum where two people debate without interference (as per the Internet Infidels example)?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by max
(snipped)
7..........It seems the last few posters are accusing me of 'criticising an ARTICLE that I have not read.' I have not done that. I criticised a LIST of logical fallacies, not the article. How is it remotely possible to criticise something I haven't read?
(snipped)
9...........I fully understand all the logical fallacies but my arguement mainly, was why use them? Why not use ones own terminology? I had never seen such a list but suddenly it became clear to me that those terms had been used so often on this forum, to myself included, to criticise and to put down a believer.
reply to 7: you were criticizing fallacies being criticized in the paper, and without even reading the article you attempted to address the fallacies in the article.

reply to 9: can't please everyone all the time, Max. One person wants a unifying usage of these terms, others are not and they wnt people to use their own terms. However, the disadvantage of using a person's own terms is that terms are then distortered or scattered, and can mean anything the individual person wants them to. To use an agreed upon definition allows a reader and a poster to commonly reference a definition, even if they don't agree if the definition is appropirate.

[apoger]

I fully understand all the logical fallacies but my arguement mainly, was why use them? Why not use ones own terminology?


For the same reason that we use ANY terminology. To facilitate communication.

The logical fallacies are complex arguments. Rather than explain them every single time one is committed we simply refer to them as the reason why the argument is flawed.


...to put down a believer.

Logical fallacies are not refered to in order "to put down a believer" but rather to inform a believer as to the flaw in their logic. You are seeing a personal attack where there is none.

[max]

Sue
this is why there is such confusion here.......I did not read the rebuttal. the list at the top of it put me off reading further. I came back in the thread immediately to tell RichardR I didn't like/agree with the list. I have still NOT read the rebuttal.
I have only read a small amount of WWU's web.....I got bored with it

We can agree to disagree on the logical fallacies, hopefully

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by apoger

For the same reason that we use ANY terminology. To facilitate communication.

The logical fallacies are complex arguments. Rather than explain them every single time one is committed we simply refer to them as the reason why the argument is flawed.



Complex?? Well I guess people here must think that since they continually make them :rolleyes:




Logical fallacies are not refered to in order "to put down a believer" but rather to inform a believer as to the flaw in their logic. You are seeing a personal attack where there is none. [/B]

Right, that's fine. Not patronising at all :rolleyes: So how would you feel if I supplied a full list of logical fallacies at the top of each and every one of my posts. Should be useful since skeptics continually make them.

[voidx]

Originally posted by iain
Absolutely; but remember that this thread is about the suggestion that "woo-woos", who are considered by some to be less intelligent that the sceptics, should be controlled in some way to encourage more intelligent debate. I happen to think that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons; but that aside, this issue is a little bit more than just giving credit to valid criticisms. Sure, some criticism of Max may be valid in this case; I'm sure that all of us deserve criticism from time to time. I don't think we need a whole thread to do that though.
I quite agree. I'm just trying to be careful because there has been a trend in my opinion for people to focus too much on negative behaviours and posts from the "skeptic" community of late and ignoring the positive ones. The whole thread regarding TwoShanks and his weekend conversion to Christianity comes to mind. The problem is people often insert "skeptics" into these threads that really pertain more to certain posters, than to us as a community as a whole. Since I myself try not to participate in such tactics, and consider myself a skeptic, some of the things we get stereotyped with is at times grating. Although I agree some skeptics do fit these profiles.

I agree with apoger in his sentiment that this forum is indeed worthwhile, but perhaps not in the way many people think. Many of these threads are inconclusive. They repeat over and over, and since as is human nature, people have such an aversion to admitting to being wrong and the like, we never really convince the majority of people that our view is more valid. Where its helpful is learning and putting ones own worldview through the wringer. I've had to do extensive reading and learning about what my own views are as there were many things I just assumed, or didn't really know much about. Valid or not, people questioning those points forces me to look at them and see if they do hold water. I like to think I do this as objectively as possible. Not everyone does, skeptics and believers both, but I don't think there's too much we can do about that.

[max]

Apoger said
{qote}Logical fallacies are not refered to in order "to put down a believer" but rather to inform a believer as to the flaw in their logic. You are seeing a personal attack where there is none. {quote}
...............................

As I keep saying.....'in my opinion'

.....................................
Apoger said


{Quote} For the same reason that we use ANY terminology. To facilitate communication.

The logical fallacies are complex arguments. Rather than explain them every single time one is committed we simply refer to them as the reason why the argument is flawed.{quote}

Why 'Appeal to Pity' then? Why does one have to know that term? The logical fallacies are archaic, and Latin certainly is.
In my opinion they are there to make the sceptic sound educated and a 'one upmanship' attitude. I didn't know there was a set terminology for sceptics to use until I happened on the list. My first reaction was one of anger that it was so patronising and then I laughed my head off at all the posters on here who used them.
As I said, a theatre critic doesn't list theatrical terms at the head of one of his/her reviews so that his readers can understand what he is saying..........and there at a lot of 'in' terms luvvy

[voidx]

Originally posted by max
3.........RichardR suggest I read the 'rebuttal' I looked up the 'rebuttal' I didn't agree/like the list of logical fallacies at the head of the piece, this is just my opinion, but I found it to be a 'brainwashing' exercise for newbie sceptics who may look in. I said as much on a post.

Yes and because you didn't agree with it you refused to read the rest of the rebuttal. It may have used those logical fallacies properly, it may have had content of worth, but you'll never know because you refused to continue reading it, based on to us, a rather silly objection about him listing definitions at the head of the article.


7..........It seems the last few posters are accusing me of 'criticising an ARTICLE that I have not read.' I have not done that. I criticised a LIST of logical fallacies, not the article. How is it remotely possible to criticise something I haven't read?

What seemed more the question was how could you refuse to read the rest of the article just because you found the definitions at the start pretentious? That's what had us confused. We couldn't see much of a rational reason for doing so.


9...........I fully understand all the logical fallacies but my arguement mainly, was why use them? Why not use ones own terminology? I had never seen such a list but suddenly it became clear to me that those terms had been used so often on this forum, to myself included, to criticise and to put down a believer.
You make my point admirably for me. Because you've seen a skeptic at one time, or as you say often, use logical fallacies to merely put down a believer, you assume they have no value and that we should use normal language instead. You look at the poor examples and ignore good examples of where logical fallacies are pointed out correctly. Like in the rebuttal. Ian sits there and goes on about us making logical fallacies all the time, so obviously its not just a skeptics-only tool. But you try and give the impression that it is. And that it is only ever used for derogatory means, which I would argue is rather decidely untrue.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by max
(snipped)

The logical fallacies are complex arguments. Rather than explain them every single time one is committed we simply refer to them as the reason why the argument is flawed.{quote}

Why 'Appeal to Pity' then? Why does one have to know that term? The logical fallacies are archaic, and Latin certainly is.
In my opinion they are there to make the sceptic sound educated and a 'one upmanship' attitude. I didn't know there was a set terminology for sceptics to use until I happened on the list. My first reaction was one of anger that it was so patronising and then I laughed my head off at all the posters on here who used them.
As I said, a theatre critic doesn't list theatrical terms at the head of one of his/her reviews so that his readers can understand what he is saying..........and there at a lot of 'in' terms luvvy

Actually, I appreciate the listing. It's such as when I see a subtitled movie and the producers/ editors are kind enough to explain beforehand what certain terms might be in reference to, and what they mean. Just because you understand it, Max, doesn't mean everyone does. Again, can't make everyone happy. And as I said before, why use personal definitions when agreed-upon statements can be used? Not everyone uses the terms to impress and put down others, nor are they intended for that purpose. It makes clear what another person is saying when they refer to an agreed upon reference.

[T'ai Chi]

I always enjoy how Hoyt trolls but no one really calls him on it (because of their own belief system and Bill being in their own clique).

For example, when Bill responded by quoting me one time, he used 'T'ai Chi ejaculated...', not to mention him calling me an "a'ss h'ole", with no one saying anything or editing it, even after I appealed to a higher moderator (and didn't even get a response).

I'll chalk it up to group mentality.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I always enjoy how Hoyt trolls but no one really calls him on it (because of their own belief system and Bill being in their own clique).

For example, when Bill responded by quoting me one time, he used 'T'ai Chi ejaculated...', not to mention him calling me an "a'ss h'ole", with no one saying anything or editing it, even after I appealed to a higher moderator (and didn't even get a response).

I'll chalk it up to group mentality.

I don't know what forum you're reading. I see plenty of people calling him on it. Finally.

Don't make the silly mistake of generalizing to that extent.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I always enjoy how Hoyt trolls but no one really calls him on it (because of their own belief system and Bill being in their own clique).

For example, when Bill responded by quoting me one time, he used 'T'ai Chi ejaculated...', not to mention him calling me an "a'ss h'ole", with no one saying anything or editing it, even after I appealed to a higher moderator (and didn't even get a response).

I'll chalk it up to group mentality.

nevermind

[max]

Sue said



{Quote} Just because you understand it, Max, doesn't mean everyone does. Again, can't make everyone happy. And as I said before, why use personal definitions when agreed-upon statements can be used? {unquote}

______________________________________

Exactly, not everyone would understand the logical fallacies especially the terms in Latin. That is my whole point. Sceptics on here mainly use them to talk to each other in a thread. i.e.......'He's appealing to pity and using ad hominen' As I said it is archaic, and more fitting to the snobbery of the English Public Schools If one gets stuck for words the is a dictionary.

[Garrette]

If that's your objection, Max, then it could be resolved by adding an additional identifier to the labels.

For example: Argument from Popularity could be called Fallacy A, and Appeal to Authority could be called Fallacy B, and
tu quoque could be called Fallacy C.

It would still require, though, that people first study the fallacies so they know what they refer to.

The labels are only shortcuts, as has been said, to prevent having to constantly explain and explain again the details of a fallacy.

To insist that one need not learn what the fallacies are--regardless what you call them--is to be intellectually lazy and to lose credibility in a discussion. It is akin to saying:

I don't know how logic works, I haven't studied it, and I don't like the words you use because I can't be bothered to take the time to learn them, but I expect you to not mind when I make the same mistakes that thousands before me have made and which have been demonstrated to be mistakes. In short, I want special consideration because I'm lazy.

Or more succinctly: I don't know what that means so it's wrong.

Or to analogize, it is equivalent to objecting when at a job interview you are asked to explain your experience with technical terminology X and you respond by saying "That's simply elitism to use terms like that; it's unfair to expect me to learn those things simply because it's necessary for the job."

[max]

Garrette
I still say the terms are elitist. Take Ad Hominem, why not just say......he/she is being personal.
The job analogy you gave has no bearing on my point of using plain Englsh on here. If the job entails technical know how, then obviously one can expect technical terminology in the interview.
On this forum there is a cross section of people. Scepticism isn't an art or a profession, neither is anyone applying for a job. We are discussing different topics. I still say the terms are unneccessary and in the main used as put downs. Again I will say I have qualifications in both English Lit and English Lang. I was a journalist for quite some years. Yes I used terminology then and obscure words but fashions change and the trend today is to make oneself clear without all the elitist bumf. You infer that it may be laziness in not bothering to learn the terms, boy did I study till I was blue in the face to perfect my Eng Lang, only to find a couple of decades later that it was elitist and out dated to be so grammatically correct and one should use a simple word rather than a whole terminology. How annoying was that to me? Having worked hard. In fact if I'm not mistaken the idea of dumbing down came from the USA. The downward trend started as well when we in the UK decided there would be no more Grammar Schools, only Comprehensive so that no child need feel inferior. i.e. lets dumb everyone down to the thickest child's intellect What I was studying at 11 years old at grammar school, is being taught to 16 year olds today.

[iain]

I tend not to like the excessive use of the logical fallacy labels in posts. The problem I find is that the terms are not in common usage (for example, I can't recall the last time I heard one used outside this forum). Because of this, I tend to forget what they are. I think "strawman" is the only one I refer to on a regular basis (and I did study logic and philosophy at university so, although it was a few years ago, I'm not completely ignorant on the subject).

Use of the labels can also be used to obscure an argument. People often dismiss a whole post saying that it is logical fallacy X, but forget to say why it is. It's then left as a exercise for the reader to figure out why. Sometimes this is OK, but I'm not sure why I should have to put lots of extra work into understanding a post just so the poster can save a bit of time when writing.

One way to look at it is in terms of popular science vs. papers in journals. A good popular science book does not assume the reader has prior knowledge of obscure scientific terms and concepts; they are explained in the text. A scientific paper will make stricter assumptions about the knowledge of the reader. Posting with lots of jargon is like writing a scientific paper, then blaming the layman reader for not fully understanding it.

[Garrette]

Max,

It seems you're complaining that dumbing down happens and simultaneously complaining that we're not dumbing down.

(for the record, I can't dispute that the US is the origin of dumbing education down)

For the rest, it then seems that it is only the labels themselves to which you object, and not to the fallacies to which they refer. So I repeat my implied question: Would you drop your objection if the labels were kept but 'dumbed down?' If so, what do you propose for each of them?

Finally, in regard to your objection to the job analogy, I stand by it (the analogy). What you seem to be demonstrating here is the common misperception that logic and debate are not technical. They are. The rules aren't arbitrary, nor are they self-evident. Education is required to think and debate legitimately and logically. Accepting less is "dumbing it down."

[max]

well, Garrette I went along with the trend and decided that using obscure words and esoteric terminologies just wasn't for me. I guess we should agree to disagree on this one.

[Garrette]

iain,

I think you and I are close to agreeing. I think labels have been misused and misapplied here. I'm probably guilty of it myself, though I don't refer to them much. And the labels are archaic. But they are not obscure nor difficult to learn.

Your analogy about scientific journals is incomplete; you are analogizing to individual discussions here, but this is a forum.

I would like the logical fallacies to the FAQs on websites.

If this were a forum to teach logic, then perhaps we should expect everyone to always identify, prior to each discussion, all the terms they might likely us.

As it is not such a forum, I think referring to them as somehow faulty in and of themselves is a poor criticism.

While there are exceptions, I think for the most part that when someone asks someone else what such-and-such a term means, they get an answer, even if it's frequently in the form of a link.

The labels are simply shorthand. That's it.

[Garrette]

No problem, Max.

[iain]

Originally posted by Garrette
iain,

I think you and I are close to agreeing. I think labels have been misused and misapplied here. I'm probably guilty of it myself, though I don't refer to them much. And the labels are archaic. But they are not obscure nor difficult to learn. Probably not too far apart.

If you look at a typical debate :

Person A : Well I think such-and-such.
Person B : That's logical fallacy X so you're wrong.

What's happened here. First, person B is not helping person A understand why they are wrong. To understand, person A has to go away, read up on the logical fallacy, understand it, apply it to their own statement and figure out why it applies (and of course, person B might be mistaken). As a debating tool, the effect of using logical fallacies is not to persuade the other person they are mistaken, but to demonstrate to onlookers one's own (alleged) superior intellect.

As I've said before, it's also lazy because it puts the onus on the reader to understand the meaning behind what the author has written, rather than having the argument presented clearly up front.

There is a place for using the proper labels for logical fallacies. Having them in an FAQ on the site is a good idea. Using them indiscriminately to put down others and present arguments which are not easily understandable to the lay reader is not a good thing, is lazy and increases the chances of misunderstanding.

edited to add : and shouldn't you be getting some sleep about now, Garrette? ;)

[Garrette]

No sleep. Second day off, sort of, which are phenomenally rare for me and which explains why I've posted so much. I've also gone jogging in the Green Zone, which I haven't been able to do with any consistency. And I'm 3 hours later than GMT.

For the substance of your post, though, the minor disagreements I have are not sufficient to warrant further argument. And if I could think of an appropriate label right now, I'd accuse you of it...

Edited to add: And I karaoke'd last night! Yes, folks, the cultural conquest has begun! There is karaoke in Baghdad!

[iain]

Originally posted by Garrette
. And if I could think of an appropriate label right now, I'd accuse you of it...Go on, you know you want to :D

[voidx]

Originally posted by iain
[B]Probably not too far apart.

If you look at a typical debate :

Person A : Well I think such-and-such.
Person B : That's logical fallacy X so you're wrong.

What's happened here. First, person B is not helping person A understand why they are wrong. To understand, person A has to go away, read up on the logical fallacy, understand it, apply it to their own statement and figure out why it applies (and of course, person B might be mistaken). As a debating tool, the effect of using logical fallacies is not to persuade the other person they are mistaken, but to demonstrate to onlookers one's own (alleged) superior intellect.

I agree here mostly. I see this happen fairly often on here and it is indeed frustrating. Its hard for anyone to see the error in their logic without some pointing in the right direction. To simply toss out the logical fallacy term often does nothing to further the discussion. However, I can see why it happens. I have on the other hand seen people try and attempt to explain why something someone is saying is a logical fallacy, and they simply just do not understand, or do not wish to understand because it would involved admitting they were perhaps wrong. One doesn't understand, or doesn't want to, the other see's this but feels they must make every attempt to expose the fallacy to the person committing it. And as usual, this devolves into a pretty useless conversation at this point.


As I've said before, it's also lazy because it puts the onus on the reader to understand the meaning behind what the author has written, rather than having the argument presented clearly up front.

I think if everyone had a good grasp of the logical fallacies, it would be a good starting point for discussion, in a perfect world of course. You could name the fallacy committed, and then start be describing where and how it was committed. The person committing the fallacy also being familiar with the term could also start to look at where they committed it, with the other persons help, and then agree or disagree, or clarify/restate their comment.


There is a place for using the proper labels for logical fallacies. Having them in an FAQ on the site is a good idea. Using them indiscriminately to put down others and present arguments which are not easily understandable to the lay reader is not a good thing, is lazy and increases the chances of misunderstanding.

The other issue though sometimes is that those that are familiar with the terms, and are familiar with arguing issues of logic, the fallacy seems clear as day, and so sometimes it is a case of, "well that's obviously this fallacy, how can you not see that?". That doesn't make it ok, but again I see why it happens. I don't believe all cases are malicious.