IMO the most important part of learning fallacies is not to call them by name while debating. It’s to smell the bullshit from a distance. Both in the others’ reasoning and your own.
That’s what those Reddit kids are missing. This shit is not an “I won!” card. It’s a reasoning framework.
(Sometimes I do still call them out by name. But that’s usually a sign I’m already losing my patience with the muppet in question, and considering to block them [online] / turn 180° [offline] while saying “I’m not wasting my time further with you and your dumb shit”.
I don’t debate religion any more, though; unlike in my later teens + early twenties. Zealots get mentally tagged “irrational harmful avoid”, and the sort of person who believes with the brain but not the liver isn’t usually a problem.)
I feel like, if anyone calls out a fallacy and acts like it’s an “I won” card, you should just pull out the Fallacy Fallacy and uno reverse that shit. Then fuck their dad as a victory lap.
i call out specific logical fallacies when my dad is going off on some bullshit and i want him to set aside his gen x jaded cynicism and actually listen to what I have to say. usually works pretty well but thats because he has critical thinking skills, which one would expect to be a prerequisite for a debate or even a stimulating dicussion but oh well.
My personal preference is to always respond first in good faith, even if the shit clearly stinks. Sometimes they just worded things poorly or misunderstood something. However, if their stench becomes apparent, it’s then much easier to humiliate them and dip by the second response.
To go a step further, arguments are healthier if they’re pictured as a way to field test your beliefs to see if they hold up to scrutiny.
If you go into an argument trying to get the other person to change their mind, you’ll often be met with failure even if your points were valid simply because people hate changing their mind, and you don’t want to be tempted to use bad-faith arguments of your own just to secure that “win.”
Instead, just give your argument; if the other person has a good point, see if yours can hold up to it, and change your outlook if you find that it can’t. And if it feels like the other person is just saying whatever they think will “win,” leave, because their argument wouldn’t make a good field test anyway.
In a similar vein, I also try to see it as an opportunity to make my conversation partner smarter (if I happen to be right, of course).
For “winning”, it’s enough to prove that what they’re saying is wrong. But for making them smarter, you need to point out what’s correct and why that makes sense.
Well, and in general, it’s a whole different way of formulating, i.e. less hostile, more helpful.
In the vast majority of cases, that makes all the difference for actually convincing them.
And it certainly hones your own mind much better, too, when you actually give the explanation rather than just pointing out fallacies.
And if you did change their mind, they probably aren’t going to tell you. Or maybe you planted a seed in their mind that helps to change it years and years down the road. You don’t know! That’s the crazy thing. But people just get frustrated and give up because they had an unreasonable expectation about the argument in the first place.
Calling out fallacies isn’t done for the benefit of the muppet. It’s done for the benefit of onlookers who might otherwise fall for the muppet’s bullshit.
Problem is that simply calling out the fallacies won’t convince most onlookers. They don’t get convinced by reason, but by emotive appeal. Doing it like in the OP, and saying “I banged your dad”, is often more effective.
I tend to call them as a second-to-last resource mostly as a final warning. “Stop saying dumb shit if you feel entitled to my attention”.
It’s the liver as the source of willpower, like the ancients believed. Roughly: "they claim to believe in it, they find rational excuses to believe in it, but they never act on their belief, and it makes no practical difference to their daily lives. This sort of religious person is not really a problem; they won’t try to convert you, they won’t bug you for not following their [IMO outdated] morals, etc.
I think I got this from Huxley? Frankly I was half-asleep when I wrote the comment you’re replying to.
IMO the most important part of learning fallacies is not to call them by name while debating. It’s to smell the bullshit from a distance. Both in the others’ reasoning and your own.
That’s what those Reddit kids are missing. This shit is not an “I won!” card. It’s a reasoning framework.
(Sometimes I do still call them out by name. But that’s usually a sign I’m already losing my patience with the muppet in question, and considering to block them [online] / turn 180° [offline] while saying “I’m not wasting my time further with you and your dumb shit”.
I don’t debate religion any more, though; unlike in my later teens + early twenties. Zealots get mentally tagged “irrational harmful avoid”, and the sort of person who believes with the brain but not the liver isn’t usually a problem.)
I feel like, if anyone calls out a fallacy and acts like it’s an “I won” card, you should just pull out the Fallacy Fallacy and uno reverse that shit. Then fuck their dad as a victory lap.
i call out specific logical fallacies when my dad is going off on some bullshit and i want him to set aside his gen x jaded cynicism and actually listen to what I have to say. usually works pretty well but thats because he has critical thinking skills, which one would expect to be a prerequisite for a debate or even a stimulating dicussion but oh well.
My personal preference is to always respond first in good faith, even if the shit clearly stinks. Sometimes they just worded things poorly or misunderstood something. However, if their stench becomes apparent, it’s then much easier to humiliate them and dip by the second response.
Yes, I understand that you have a very compelling argument, but have you considered the fact that I banged your dad ?
yes, but I banged both your parents and every one of your friends, so I can’t complain
To go a step further, arguments are healthier if they’re pictured as a way to field test your beliefs to see if they hold up to scrutiny.
If you go into an argument trying to get the other person to change their mind, you’ll often be met with failure even if your points were valid simply because people hate changing their mind, and you don’t want to be tempted to use bad-faith arguments of your own just to secure that “win.”
Instead, just give your argument; if the other person has a good point, see if yours can hold up to it, and change your outlook if you find that it can’t. And if it feels like the other person is just saying whatever they think will “win,” leave, because their argument wouldn’t make a good field test anyway.
In a similar vein, I also try to see it as an opportunity to make my conversation partner smarter (if I happen to be right, of course).
For “winning”, it’s enough to prove that what they’re saying is wrong. But for making them smarter, you need to point out what’s correct and why that makes sense.
Well, and in general, it’s a whole different way of formulating, i.e. less hostile, more helpful.
In the vast majority of cases, that makes all the difference for actually convincing them.
And it certainly hones your own mind much better, too, when you actually give the explanation rather than just pointing out fallacies.
And if you did change their mind, they probably aren’t going to tell you. Or maybe you planted a seed in their mind that helps to change it years and years down the road. You don’t know! That’s the crazy thing. But people just get frustrated and give up because they had an unreasonable expectation about the argument in the first place.
Calling out fallacies isn’t done for the benefit of the muppet. It’s done for the benefit of onlookers who might otherwise fall for the muppet’s bullshit.
Problem is that simply calling out the fallacies won’t convince most onlookers. They don’t get convinced by reason, but by emotive appeal. Doing it like in the OP, and saying “I banged your dad”, is often more effective.
I tend to call them as a second-to-last resource mostly as a final warning. “Stop saying dumb shit if you feel entitled to my attention”.
Meaning that they’re less likely to spit bile in their defense of religion, or is this a reference to some religious belief?
It’s the liver as the source of willpower, like the ancients believed. Roughly: "they claim to believe in it, they find rational excuses to believe in it, but they never act on their belief, and it makes no practical difference to their daily lives. This sort of religious person is not really a problem; they won’t try to convert you, they won’t bug you for not following their [IMO outdated] morals, etc.
I think I got this from Huxley? Frankly I was half-asleep when I wrote the comment you’re replying to.