• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Moderating in the Pit: How to achieve productive fallacy spotting?

 
author
Posts: 9050
21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It seems that - like so many things - policing for arguments with fallacies exists on a spectrum:

At one end we have "no policing for fallacies": This strategy makes you an easy mark and wastes a lot of time.

At the far end you can become a pedant, and needlessly derail well-intended, reasonably logical discussions.

It seems there ought to be some sort of useful 80/20 rules, or rules of thumb for the correct use of fallacy policing.

For example, I'm trying to get skilled at spotting false dichotomies. (e.g. "you're either with us or you're against us"). It seems to me that if I'm watching a debate or reading an article, and the speaker bases his argument on a false dichotomy, I can comfortably move on - no need to waste time. This might be a useful moderation technique, if used compassionately, e.g.:

"Bob, we shut down arguments that are based on false dichotomies, come back and start again when your argument has a solid foundation"
 
If I'd had more time, I would have written a shorter letter. -T.S. Eliot such a short, tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards
https://gardener-gift.com
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic