I came across a wonderful poster image by a talented artist, Michele Rosenthal, which depicts a robot debate:
Granted, these aren't all the logical fallacies that exist, but it covers the most obvious, and most abused ones. But why are they important?
We currently live in an age where we have access to more information that at any other point in history, and yet somehow we still think that arguing from emotion, or with our cognitive dissonance blinders on, is both right and acceptable: it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. Postmodernism may have a place, but not here. Yes, you absolutely are allowed to feel they way you want to, but debates are places for facts and ideas that need to be scrutinised rigorously, not with playground threats and character assassinations.
"I feel" is not an argument that belongs in a debate - your feelings are valid for you, yes, but you can not simply refute the evidence-based assertion of vaccinations work with the statement "I feel like they are poison, and anyone against me is a Big Pharma shill". Let's take a look at why:
Starting with "I feel they are poison": On what basis? What proof or evidence are you making such a claim? With this particular example, there are lives on the line, livelihoods at stake, and quite possibly the fate of humanity on the line. Evidence is needed to backup a claim for it to be taken seriously. This is the "Begging the Claim" Fallacy
"...and anyone against me is a Big Pharma shill" As well as being another example of "Begging the Claim", this is also and Ad Hominem attack: attacking the person rather than the argument. Debating is about the idea(s) or topic, not about the people engaged in the debate. In this example, not only have they offered no evidence that the opponent is a shill (or explained why that would be a problem), but are attempting to attack the opponent and their credibility. The only use of such a statement is to shutdown debate.
You might think that this is a ludicrous example to demonstrate a point. I would like to say that this assertion were true, however I have come up against it innumerable times in various discussions (I would also like to point out that I am still awaiting my shill payments from whichever Big Pharma/Technology/Agri/Power etc. I belong to at any given time). Now, not everyone you come across and engage in conversation with will instantly attempt to shutdown any response by replying with an absurdity like the one above. If you do, I recommend walking away - you will get nothing from the debate, your opponent already has their ideas fixed and isn't interested in entertaining any other notion. And that is the purpose of debate, it is to examine ideas, see their value, if they have any, expand your knowledge base and your viewpoint. For that to happen, there need to be certain agreed upon rules, to make sure that you are actually debating the issue you intend, nothing is being misled or misrepresented, and an honest examination of a topic can take place. That is why logical fallacies matter - they are the antithesis of honesty.
We currently live in an age where we have access to more information that at any other point in history, and yet somehow we still think that arguing from emotion, or with our cognitive dissonance blinders on, is both right and acceptable: it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. Postmodernism may have a place, but not here. Yes, you absolutely are allowed to feel they way you want to, but debates are places for facts and ideas that need to be scrutinised rigorously, not with playground threats and character assassinations.
"I feel" is not an argument that belongs in a debate - your feelings are valid for you, yes, but you can not simply refute the evidence-based assertion of vaccinations work with the statement "I feel like they are poison, and anyone against me is a Big Pharma shill". Let's take a look at why:
Starting with "I feel they are poison": On what basis? What proof or evidence are you making such a claim? With this particular example, there are lives on the line, livelihoods at stake, and quite possibly the fate of humanity on the line. Evidence is needed to backup a claim for it to be taken seriously. This is the "Begging the Claim" Fallacy
"...and anyone against me is a Big Pharma shill" As well as being another example of "Begging the Claim", this is also and Ad Hominem attack: attacking the person rather than the argument. Debating is about the idea(s) or topic, not about the people engaged in the debate. In this example, not only have they offered no evidence that the opponent is a shill (or explained why that would be a problem), but are attempting to attack the opponent and their credibility. The only use of such a statement is to shutdown debate.
You might think that this is a ludicrous example to demonstrate a point. I would like to say that this assertion were true, however I have come up against it innumerable times in various discussions (I would also like to point out that I am still awaiting my shill payments from whichever Big Pharma/Technology/Agri/Power etc. I belong to at any given time). Now, not everyone you come across and engage in conversation with will instantly attempt to shutdown any response by replying with an absurdity like the one above. If you do, I recommend walking away - you will get nothing from the debate, your opponent already has their ideas fixed and isn't interested in entertaining any other notion. And that is the purpose of debate, it is to examine ideas, see their value, if they have any, expand your knowledge base and your viewpoint. For that to happen, there need to be certain agreed upon rules, to make sure that you are actually debating the issue you intend, nothing is being misled or misrepresented, and an honest examination of a topic can take place. That is why logical fallacies matter - they are the antithesis of honesty.
Comments
Post a Comment