Debate ethics: Is there ever a valid time to use logical fallacies?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Suppose you are engaged in a debate with one, or more, people. It is a non-adjudicated debate and there may, or may not, be an audience of one, or more, third-parties. You have presented evidence supporting your side of the debate and you have shown their evidence to be in question as well as pointing out numerous logical fallacies they have committed. They refuse to acknowledge either that the fallacies are fallacies, or that things like logical fallacies exists or are relevent. You do not yet wish to step away from the discussion as a whole.

Is it appropriate to start using logical fallacies against their fallacies in an attempt to communicate in a manner consistent with their thinking?

[Anacoluthon64]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Is it appropriate to start using logical fallacies against their fallacies in an attempt to communicate in a manner consistent with their thinking?

Unreservedly never. Even if there is no audience. It speaks to an intellectual integrity that, once compromised, will long after remain the worse for wear and in violation of the very principles a sceptic has by association chosen to uphold. If it is noticed by one's opponent or audience it is likely to become part of the opponents' armoury on top of diminishing one's credibility. I refer here to deliberate use of such subterfuge, but do not preclude the possibility that one may inadvertently commit such an error. The integrity can be preserved by acknowledging the error when it is pointed out, or, better yet, when one discovers it oneself upon further reflection.

'Luthon64

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Is it appropriate to start using logical fallacies against their fallacies in an attempt to communicate in a manner consistent with their thinking?

Absolutely. The skepticwiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org) has an extensive section on logic and fallacies (much of it written by myself), and discusses this point extensively.

There are several reasons to use fallacies, of which the most important is that fallacious arguments are not necessarily wrong.. (To assert otherwise it to commit "the Fallacist's Fallacy" oneself.) All of science, in strict terms, is simply an extended instance of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy, since we have no actual proof that, for instance, the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning or that we won't read on tonight's news that all of the gold in the universe has suddenly turned back into gingerbread. "Affirming the consequent" is often a pretty good and convincing argument -- if you didn't commit the murder, then how did your fingerprints get on the gun, and how did your shoes track bloody footprints across the kitchen?

It can also be useful to use fallacies as instructive stalking horses -- suggest a particular fallacious argument, to be rejected, and then point out the similarity between the argument they have rejected and the argument they themselves offer.

The point of an argument is to convince. A fallacious argument can still be justifiably convining. How else were you going to persuade me that my wedding ring isn't going to turn into gingerbread?

[Anacoluthon64]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

They refuse to acknowledge either that the fallacies are fallacies, or that things like logical fallacies exists or are relevent. You do not yet wish to step away from the discussion as a whole.

Without more specifics, it's difficult to suggest an approach that could work.

Nevertheless, in many cases such as these I try to find analogies that show the absurdity of maintaining the fallacy. For example, when faced with the response, "That's just your opinion" to a factual assertion I have made, I usually reply:

* So is your assessment of the matter, but consider:
* It is my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow;
* It is also my opinion that Arnold Schwarzenegger deserves an Oscar for his portrayals of a killing machine;
* My opinion about the sun deals with verifiable facts, while the one about Arnie deals with an unverifiable subjective appraisal and can only find validation through consensus;
* The matter we differ on is decided by facts, not consensus.

Another way of showing up such absurdity is to apply the fallacy to an extreme case or to take it to its logical extreme.

It's also worth noting that true believers often keep returning to the same line of argument. Pointing this habit out, together with the fact that you have already shown the argument to be weak or flawed sometimes works.

I hope this helps a little.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Absolutely.
...snip...

You speak, of course, in terms of strict formal logic, rather than the honest practice of day-to-day debate, which is where Arkan_Wolfshade was heading, I suspect. On strict logical terms, no assertion about the world as it is experienced can be considered either true or false, merely probable or improbable. On those same strict terms, every such argument is fraught with fallacy. I think it would be intellectually dishonest and counterproductive to misrepresent data (other than possibly for instructive purposes, as you point out) in response to one's opponent doing so.

'Luthon64

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Suppose you are engaged in a debate with one, or more, people. It is a non-adjudicated debate and there may, or may not, be an audience of one, or more, third-parties. You have presented evidence supporting your side of the debate and you have shown their evidence to be in question as well as pointing out numerous logical fallacies they have committed. They refuse to acknowledge either that the fallacies are fallacies, or that things like logical fallacies exists or are relevent. You do not yet wish to step away from the discussion as a whole.

Is it appropriate to start using logical fallacies against their fallacies in an attempt to communicate in a manner consistent with their thinking?

Yeah, I figure at this point, you have to rewind a bit and assess your purpose for being in such a situation. If there's no audience, and it seems like the opponents are unshakeable, then your attention may be best directed elsewhere.

In my opinion, the strategy should be to persuade reasonable people, and leave the doinks to themselves. Skepticism is an appeal to common-sense, and if your opponent doesn't have any, my advice is to move along to the low-hanging fruit that is represented by the sensible general public.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am afraid I must disagree with you drkitten. Science is not a hasty generalization. We have every reason to belive the sun will rise tomorrow. It is consistent with our understanding of gravity, pyshics, and astronomy. There is no evidence of any kind to refute it. There's nothing hasty about science. Scientific conclusions are drawn for arduous labor, and exhaustively anlyized data, then vetted by peers, and rigorously examined by others. Even small changes to established theories take incredible amounts of work. That doesn't make those conclusions infallible, but it hardly makes them hasty.

It's my opinion that a logical fallacy is never appropriate, under any circumcumstances, in a debate. As soon as you resort to them, the discussion becomes an argument. Arguments aren't about who is right, or what the facts are, arguments about winning at any cost. Insults, backbitting, traps, rhetoric, appeals to authority, all of these are fair game in an arguement. Debates ought to be about the facts, and free of logical fallacies. If you can't make your point without resorting to a logical fallacy, maybe you don't actually have a point to make.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks all for the responses. As I suspected there are many interesting points of quality for me to consider.


And, at the end of the day it boils down to, do I bother continuing my efforts on the LC forum, or just let them play in the their little psychotic sandbox and hope it doesn't spill over into the world at large.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Thanks all for the responses. As I suspected there are many interesting points of quality for me to consider.


And, at the end of the day it boils down to, do I bother continuing my efforts on the LC forum, or just let them play in the their little psychotic sandbox and hope it doesn't spill over into the world at large.

I'm sure there are lurkers and skeptics in the LC forum who appreciate it when to you stick to the facts, and avoid stooping to the level of the Loosers. When I was allowed to issue a short rebuttal to a ID proponent in a live speach, I stuck to my guns, avoided logical fallcies, and adhered strictly to the facts. When I had finished, one young man slipped a piece of paper into my hand thanking me for showing how a person can debate such a controvertial subject in a respectful manner. That's the kind of person I try to reach when I debate, not the people who are swayed by specious reasoning and logical fallacies. That little slip of paper was more rewarding than a standing ovation won with bad debate tactics. I don't find anything rewarding about playing with loaded dice.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I'm sure there are lurkers, and skeptics in the LC forum who appreciate it when to stick to the facts, and avoid stooping to the level of the Loosers.When I was allowed to issue a short rebuttal to a ID proponent in a live speach, I stuck to my guns, avoided logical fallcies, and adhered strictly to the facts. When I had finished, one young man slipped a piece of paper into my hand thanking me for showing how a person can debate such a controvertial subject in a respectful manner. That's the kind of person I try to reach when I debate, not the people who are swayed by specious reasoning and logical fallacies. That little slip of paper was more rewarding than a standing ovation won with bad debate tactics. I don't find anything rewarding about playing with loaded dice.

Still, it is tempting at times. Especially considering how much better you can load the dice if you understand how the loading works.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Still, it is tempting at times. Especially considering how much better you can load the dice if you understand how the loading works.

It's also tempting to hit them in the gut, but that's not an effective debate tactic either.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I am afraid I must disagree with you drkitten. Science is not a hasty generalization. We have every reason to belive the sun will rise tomorrow. It is consistent with our understanding of gravity, pyshics, and astronomy. There is no evidence of any kind to refute it. There's nothing hasty about science. Scientific conclusions are drawn for arduous labor, and exhaustively anlyized data, then vetted by peers, and rigorously examined by others. Even small changes to established theories take incredible amounts of work. That doesn't make those conclusions infallible, but it hardly makes them hasty.

Even so, science uses inductive logic, which is formally a fallacy (unless of course it is mathematical induction).

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Robin

Even so, science uses inductive logic, which is formally a fallacy (unless of course it is mathematical induction).

Please demonstrate how science uses inductive logic. When a person devises a hypothesis, that hypothesis is vigorously tested, even attacked by experimentation and observation. One does not simply guess. Everything possible is done in an attempt to disprove all hypothesies.

[Robin]

But of course we should never use fallacious arguments because:

1. Once we make one fallacious argument we get onto a slippery slope that leads to all arguments being fallacious
2. Bertrand Russell said we should never use fallacious arguments
3. Adolph Hitler used fallacious arguments and it would make us like Adolph Hitler
4. Most people would not agree with using fallacious arguments
5. Are you saying that we should always use fallacies?
6. No true Scotsman would use a fallacy
7. Abraham Lincoln employed a logical fallacy and the next day he was shot, so logical fallacies are fatal

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Please demonstrate how science uses inductive logic. When a person devises a hypothesis, that hypothesis is vigorously tested, even attacked by experimentation and observation. One does not simply guess. Everything possible is done in an attempt to disprove all hypothesies.

I think it's pretty well established that science is an inductive endeavour.



Deductive:

If A then B
A
therefore B

(corrollary: ~B, therefore ~A)



Inductive:

If A then probably B
A
therefore probably B

(corrollary: ~B, therefore probably ~A, therefore the utility of hypothetico/deduction aka Popper's conjecture/refutation epistemology rule)



Science uses induction. There's no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the probability assigned is so high as to be one of the closest things to 'true' that you can think of. (because of one of science's underlying, unprovable, assumptions: uniformitarianism)

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Please demonstrate how science uses inductive logic.

I thought it was pretty generally accepted, but OK, I will find you an article on it and get back to you.

Quote:

When a person devises a hypothesis, that hypothesis is vigorously tested, even attacked by experimentation and observation. One does not simply guess.

Inductive logic does not mean "simply guessing". But inductive logic is still inductive logic no matter how rigorously it is tested.

Quote:

Everything possible is done in an attempt to disprove all hypothesies.

Well let's look at an example. Rigorous and exhaustive study is done of the lesser swamp greeble and in every case the greeble nurtures their young for one year and then abandons them. No instance is ever found where the greeble abandons their young before one year or to nurture them after one year.

Let's say this is studied 24 hours a day for 20 years. Let's say 20 teams of competing scientists attempt to find an exception and can't. Scientists will very reasonably conclude that the lesser swamp greeble nurtures their young for one year and then abandons them.

But that is still inductive logic however rigorously researched. Because this particular 20 years might be atypical.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I'm sure there are lurkers and skeptics in the LC forum who appreciate it when to you stick to the facts, and avoid stooping to the level of the Loosers. When I was allowed to issue a short rebuttal to a ID proponent in a live speach, I stuck to my guns, avoided logical fallcies, and adhered strictly to the facts. When I had finished, one young man slipped a piece of paper into my hand thanking me for showing how a person can debate such a controvertial subject in a respectful manner. That's the kind of person I try to reach when I debate, not the people who are swayed by specious reasoning and logical fallacies. That little slip of paper was more rewarding than a standing ovation won with bad debate tactics. I don't find anything rewarding about playing with loaded dice.

I completely agree: skepticism is an appeal to common-sense and reasonableness.

People with no common-sense or interest in being reasonable cannot be won over to skepticism, but those are the people we end up debating because they're the ones who feel threatened. My advice is to pick battles to demonstrate skeptics' credibility to an audience, rather than actually expect to convert the opponent. Often, the opponent will hang himself, given the opportunity.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Please demonstrate how science uses inductive logic.

Would you agree that in science we are inferring universal laws from particular observations?

These observations may be rigorous and exhaustive but are still particular and this is inductive logic.

Bertrand Russell argued that inductive logic should be accepted as valid logic or science's conclusions would all be fallacious.

But no mathematical proof would be accepted if it used inductive logic (other, than mathematical induction).

Here is one of the most famous articles on the subject:

http://dieoff.org/page126.htm

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Robin

Would you agree that in science we are inferring universal laws from particular observations?

These observations may be rigorous and exhaustive but are still particular and this is inductive logic.

Bertrand Russell argued that inductive logic should be accepted as valid logic or science's conclusions would all be fallacious.

But no mathematical proof would be accepted if it used inductive logic (other, than mathematical induction).

Here is one of the most famous articles on the subject:

http://dieoff.org/page126.htm

I take my earlier objection back. I was clearly wrong.

[Beerina]

Real power is wielded by people who don't share this sentiment. By adhering to honest argumentation, you've already lost in the realm it most matters in.

Winners write the history books...and the laws. "This is why evil always wins. Because good...is dumb."

[dahduh]

Induction in science from the specific to the general is not really a practical problem as an induction can be made both rigorous and useful by qualifying it with a statement of probability. If 10,000 lesser swamp greebles are observed to nurture their young for one year without exception, a statement to this effect is rigorous. The induction that lesser swamp greebles always nurture their young for one year may be logically fallacious, but highly probable and probably highly useful.

Concerning the use of fallacious argument in debate, I would add only one observation to drkitten's excellent post; that logic is the most powerful weapon in the hands of a debater. Nobody, even those who employ fallacious arguments, will suggest that debate is not a logical exchange, and for this reason, fallacious reasoning can nearly always be exposed and accepted. The hard nuts to crack are not so much fallacious reasoning as the premises at the root of a disagreement, which usually correspond to foundational beliefs. For example, "I believe in God, and God informs my view of the world." If one challenges the existence of God by demanding evidence for God, the answer might be "I don't need evidence, I have faith"; or "God's existence is manifest in the wonder of the Universe." To this person, existence of God is not a conclusion, but a premise.

I think to challenge such a foundational premise head-on is futile, simply because that person may have an enormous amount invested in that belief. At issue is not logic but psychology, so employing fallacious arguments will have no more effect than non-fallacious arguments; worse in fact, since they will compromise the logical integrity of your own debate. If you are really determined on pressing your point, I think the best bet is to explore the area around the foundational belief; like where did you learn the idea? Have you always held this view? Are there others who share it, and is there a common reason for this? Not only is this less confrontational, but it opens the range for a 'meta-argument', for example, an observation that the presence of this belief conforms to a pattern that may be understood in terms of education / sociology / pathology etc. Turning that person's behavior itself into an object of study could be unnerving enough to make them think again.

Of course, one should always think twice before kicking the struts out of someone's life, but the ethics of doing this (or not doing this) is another matter.

Dahduh.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by dahduh

Induction in science from the specific to the general is not really a practical problem as an induction can be made both rigorous and useful by qualifying it with a statement of probability.

I agree that it is not a practical problem. In fact even a probabilistic argument can be turned into a deductive argument by simply making an acceptance level one of the premises. So "we accept the hypothesis at the 90% confidence level" is a perfectly valid deductive argument just so long as it is understood that the confidence level is an undischarged premise.

And any logical argument is simply a way of mapping truth values of the premises to the conclusion so there would be nothing fallacious about this.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I am afraid I must disagree with you drkitten. Science is not a hasty generalization.

Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I take my earlier objection back. I was clearly wrong.

Several of you seemed to have missed it when I said this.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."

In ImaginalDisc's defense, there's hasty generalizations, then there's hasty generalizations. Generalizing from one example is much more difficult to defend than generalizing from a big collection of events.

I like to use an analogy that "there's wrong, wronger, and so not right it's not even wrong". Cosmology exists on a continuum, with crackpottery at both ends, and skepticism bringing up the middle.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

It's also tempting to hit them in the gut, but that's not an effective debate tactic either.

It's also moot now...

Quote:

Arkan_Wolfshade,
Your member account at Loose Change Forum has been temporarily suspended.

Your account will not be functional until Jun 24 2006, 02:31 AM (depending on your timezone). This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.

Board Address: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...orum/index.php

No reason, no indication of what rules were violated, nada.

[DrugFreeAlcoholic]

Originally Posted by drkitten

"Affirming the consequent" is often a pretty good and convincing argument -- if you didn't commit the murder, then how did your fingerprints get on the gun, and how did your shoes track bloody footprints across the kitchen?

This isn't necessarily fallicious, it depends on the context.

If we say:
Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Therefore Bob is the murderer

Then that would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent. But if we instead say:

Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun is consistent with Bob is the murderer.
Therefore Bob is the murderer is corroborated.

That would not be fallicious. We can gather infinately many lines of evidence and it would never prove Bob is the murderer, but we can still be justified in believing Bob is the murderer by finding myriads of evidence that we'd expect to see or expect not to see if he was the murderer.

And then there is that annoying raven paradox...

[slingblade]

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...al%20fallacies

Quote:

Committing your very own logical fallacies:
In general, of course, it's a good idea to avoid logical fallacies if at all possible, because a good debater will almost always catch you. It is especially important to avoid obvious logical fallacies like the one above (argumentum ad populum), because they are vulnerable to such powerful (and persuasive) refutations. But sometimes, a logical fallacy -- or at least an unjustified logical leap -- is unavoidable. And there are some types of argument that are listed as logical fallacies in logic textbooks, but that are perfectly acceptable in the context of the rules of debate. The most important guideline for committing such fallacies yourself is to know when you are doing it, and to be prepared to justify yourself later if the opposition tries to call you down for it. For examples of logical fallacies that can sometimes be acceptable in the context of debate, see ad ignorantiam, ad logicam, complex question, slippery slope, straw man, and tu quoque in the list below.

See article for list.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by slingblade

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...al%20fallacies

See article for list.

Heh, that's one of my favorite bookmarks.

Here are my other relevent ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/c...allacies.shtml
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/...fallacies.html

[Dark Jaguar]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er,....wrong.

Inductive logic is widely recognized to be formally fallacious, under the heading of "hasty generalization." Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. We've obviously got an unrepresentative sample -- since all of our samples are taken from the past.


This problem has been hashed out by some of the greatest philosophers in history, and it's basically insoluble. The solution for scientists is simply to ignore it and move on with our lives.

But you really think that science isn't fallacious, prove to me from first principles that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning, without resorting to the argument that "it always has so far."

Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by DrugFreeAlcoholic

This isn't necessarily fallicious, it depends on the context.

If we say:
Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Therefore Bob is the murderer

Then that would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent. But if we instead say:

Bob is the murderer implies Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun,
Bob's fingerprints on gun is consistent with Bob is the murderer.
Therefore Bob is the murderer is corroborated.

That would not be fallicious. We can gather infinately many lines of evidence and it would never prove Bob is the murderer, but we can still be justified in believing Bob is the murderer by finding myriads of evidence that we'd expect to see or expect not to see if he was the murderer.

And then there is that annoying raven paradox...

Here's how you get around the infinite in logic:

The gun killed the victim
For all A, if A's fingerprints are on a gun, A fired that gun
Bob's fingerprints are on the gun that killed the victim
Therefore Bob is the murderer.

It leaves out details like other people's fingerprints, or that Bob fired the gun before, or after, the murder, but not the exact murder shot, but that's not what you're getting at.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?

Yes!!!

That is not to say it is an unreasonable conclusion to make, but it is a formal fallacy.

This is the problem that led to the introduction of the concept of falsifiability.

Surely Watson and the "central dogma" is a good illustration of why we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that inductive logic is fallacious.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?

Er,.... yes, it is.

[ceo_esq]

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

Prove? Nope, but it can be established that all evidence points to that and none points to the contrary. Is that a logically fallacious conclusion to make?

I'm with Robin and the doctor on this one, I'm afraid.