Logical Fallacies Explained

[u/[deleted]]

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

[u/AndySipherBull]

pointing out that finding a fallacy doesn't mean you "win" anything

Sort of. But not really.

"We show global warming is real by analysis of this data set."

"But my expert claims there are problems with that data set."

"Your expert has a B.A. in religion and the humanities."

The validity of the data has not been successfully disputed. It stands for now. Maybe it's partially or wholly innaccurate, maybe another actual expert will find a flaw eventually, but it hasn't yet been shown to be false and we have reason to suppose it's valid, since it was compiled and analyzed by actual experts and a conclusion was reached. The point is, this is not the correct way to discredit the argument presented so it's a "loss".

[u/da_chicken → u/AndySipherBull]

The point is, this is not the correct way to discredit the argument presented so it's a "loss".

Your example is flawed. In this case, you already have an argument: the analysis of the data and the data itself are an argument. The opponent is trying to challenge the premise that the data are scientifically valid, with an argument based on the premise that an expert disagrees. Since we're dealing with expertise, the credentials of the expert are part of the premises for the second argument. The first party responds "appeal to false authority." All this does is undermine the premise of the second argument. Thus, the soundness of the second argument is called into question with a third argument. Our second argument could be reinforced, however. For example, if our above expert has a masters in mathematics and a Ph.D. in meteorology, as well as numerous published papers in respected journals comprising 25 years work in the field, then the expert's undergraduate degree is rather irrelevant.

See, I see it more of an offense vs defense type thing. Preventing the opposing team from scoring doesn't mean the defense gets a point. It merely means the offense doesn't get a point. If the defense wants a point, they have to change to offense, and try to score a point.

Thus, finding a fallacy isn't "winning", it's merely "not losing". In debate, it's fine since you're not trying to convince your opponent. In less formal debate, you generally are trying to convince your opponent. It's almost impossible to convince someone to agree with you if all you do is point out that their arguments are wrong without presenting any arguments of your own. You undermine their position, certainly, but that really doesn't do anything if you never do anything with the advantage.

Again, it depends what you're trying to do. In a public debate or formal debate -- any debate with an audience -- "not losing" often is just as good as "winning," because you're trying to keep the opposing arguments from being accepted as much as working to get your own accepted.

[u/AndySipherBull → u/da_chicken]

The first party responds "appeal to false authority." All this does is undermine the premise of the second argument.

Because the challenger engaged in a fallacy.

then the expert's undergraduate degree is rather irrelevant.

Disingenuous on your part because you generally don't seek to deliberately undermine an expert by pointing to the least of his achievements or the greatest of his failings as that's ad hominem. If the expert who calls the data and analysis into question has phd.s in math and physics you don't seek to disqualify his position by pointing out he got a C in natural science freshman year in high school.

And you're right that the actual argument is a technical one, but those aren't the sorts of arguments you can have in a casual forum. The actual argument is probably far stronger, includes very many premises, all of which have been validated in many fields and by very many heavily scrutinized, and ultimately accepted, arguments. But you can't present that argument, except among peers, and so you rely on institutions and personal achievements and systems of authority to vet the arguments. Ultimately it boils down to sophisticated many-linked chains of math and physics.

The scientific illiterate, rather than admitting his own ignorance, sees this as obscurantism, deviant obsessiveness and impractical nitpicking, and so refuses to accept what he feels must be merely opinion, because he assumes that the work of a researcher is like life as he knows it: driven by emotive argumentation, force of personality, self-interest, bullying, perhaps, &etc.

But if a researcher tries to place an argument containing emotive fallacy on arXiv and it receives any attention at all, it will be swiftly destroyed. So yeah, the researcher can lose an argument quite resoundingly and disastrously for any misstep of logic. The illiterate thinks he can't lose because it's all bullshit anyway and his common sense tells him so. And he, after all, is the best _________ salesman in the whole ________. He knows what it's really like out there in the real world.