Humans typically communicate in a way that resists shallow logical analysis. In a real conversation, people use words rather than terms, make utterances rather than sentences, and employ a wider variety of inference methods than modus ponens. A great deal of what is communicated and inferred in a conversation depends on context; the speakers and audience, their history, their shared knowledge and confidences, the feelers they lay out to establish mutual trust and rapport. Poking into this with your ad hominem stick betrays an ignorance of the way people actually communicate, and ignorance in general.
Well said. And it's a lack of awareness of this point that often frustrates me about discussions here on HN. I understand that most of us try to be mostly rational, most of the time, and that we want a high level of discourse here. But too often, you see people acting like every discussion is high-school debate-club practice, and they start slinging "ad hominem" and "fallacy of the excluded middle" around like a high-school kid with a brand new super-soaker, eager to spray anyone in range.
But not everything that is said here needs to be treated like it was uttered as part of a debate. Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.
Logical fallacies can be misused. They can be applied incorrectly, or used to shut down discussion. I therefore sympathise with the point that the OP is trying to make. However, does it then follow that logical errors should be given a pass? Does this somehow make muddled thinking valid or persuasive?
The correct course of action is to raise standards on all sides. If a logical fallacy is incorrectly used, then the criticism should be criticized. Mutual progress comes from refining thought on both sides, not allowing errors to go unchecked.
One of the core points of the article and the parent comment is that many instances of "muddled thinking" are actually mis-communication due to the nuances of real human language, or interpreting sentences too literally.
A sentence "all skeptics are assholes" does not mean that the speaker literally asserts that the conditional statement "you are a skeptic → you are an asshole" is true. Someone saying "you are an idiot" to me does not mean that they literally assert that I have been medically diagnosed with IQ less than 30.
In both cases, it is more likely that the true meaning of the sentence is an subjective expression of frustration at some behaviour they experienced.
There is no useful place for pointing out logical fallacies by name in a real discussion among people. Instead of rejecting "arguments", a good discussion requires asking questions to understand each others' viewpoints, empathising with each others' concerns, trying to convince the other party of your viewpoints in a persuasive way, and being open to changing your own viewpoint. Pointing out a logical fallacy by name will not persuade the other party, any other readers/listeners, nor help you learn anything about their actual views.
If somebody says "you are an idiot", the interesting topics of discussion are: what did I do, and whether what I did was wrong. Debating the logical truth of the literal sentence is completely pointless, because the literal interpretation of the sentence is wrong.
I agree with your points, but since this discussion has tended towards behavior on internet forums (like HN) the difference between spoken conversation and published written word come into play.
I'm guilty of not thinking before I speak most of the time, but when I post on HN or Reddit, or even Facebook, I take care to say what I mean. On the otherhand, interpretation of intent and meaning can be much more difficult from written word, especially when you don't have a prior relationship with your conversation partner.
No, it simply means know what you're talking about. If you disagree with someone, argue and debate, don't resort to (GP, come on) shitty debate tactics of someone with their back against the wall --- it happens here, on reddit, in real life. If you're adamant about your position and the other person can't formulate a coherent or relevant response then you should be prepared to be accused of "being madbro." or have "Ad hominem" or "Straw man!!!" shouted at you as the other person uses that to "win" and exit the conversation.
>>But not everything that is said here needs to be treated like it was uttered as part of a debate. Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.
True! But I also think that the intent to immediately jump to logical fallacies is a sign of weakness. If you can't dispute the premises (or even understand them) you can jump right to an area that allows a) total victory, he used a fallacy somehow somewhere! or b) the argument breaks down into a subjective analysis of whether someone committed a fallacy thus allowing the argument to continue without having to face the other persons argument.
Maybe it is just me, but I find that even the (few) people without any critical thinking skills don't really commit classical logical fallacies. The problem isn't the surface argument but rather the evidence or the premises that is usually the issue.
I've rarely seen well articulated, highly subjective opinions teared into pieces, at least on HN. Usually the provocative, flaming comments get the predictable "you're wrong by definition" responses.
Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.
Opinions are opinions. They should be stated and treated as such. If your "opinion" is stated in the form "x is y," then maybe you are the one who should be more conscious of the way people communicate. Sure, it's just an opinion; that's fine. Just don't expect anyone else to take it as a fact or agree that it's at all meaningful outside of your own head.
I don't agree with this assessment of the problem. Some people want to participate in discussions about how things are or how things work or why things were done or what actually happened -- discussions of fact and logic -- yet they want to inject anecdotes, generalizations, metaphors, analogies, and other abstractions.
It's irritating and intellectually backwards. But it's not going to stop, because most people less interested in what a discussion is about than they are about making sure people pay attention to their contribution, whether it's valuable, on topic, or other.
I used to start a lot of my sentences with "I think...", "In my opinion...", or "To me it looks like..." and I noticed my emails would commonly go unresponded to, or worse: the conversation would go directly opposite of the point I was trying to make.
Lately I've been experimenting with just saying "x is y" or "x is broken the fix is y". Things seem to be working out better for me that way. It keeps my emails from getting cluttered and the words are obviously my own perspective and opinions, which I will sometimes make explicit at the end.
It is irritating that facts and opinions and everything else can't be kept separate from technical discussions, but that's just how many people communicate and there's not a lot that can be done if you want to include them in the conversation.
To be ironic means to speak in contrast to what you really mean. Usually, people are expected to pick up on it by tone of voice.
Irony is what most people think is called sarcasm. It is a form of intentional wordplay, derived from the behavior of the Eiron, a feature of greek theater. (Sarcasm is irony which is meant to hurt feelings.)
Irony is not what Nelson from The Simpsons would laugh at, and is never unintentional.
If a safety worker botches the installation of a safety device which later gets them killed, that is not irony. When someone leans over the rail and yells "good job keeping people safe," that is irony (and since it's mean, it's also sarcasm.)
Opinions are opinions. They should be stated and treated as such.
Let's not generalize and remind to ourselves that there's a difference between a well-formed opinion and an uninformed opinion and those two are not equal just because they are opinions.
> If your "opinion" is stated in the form "x is y," then maybe you are the one who should be more conscious of the way people communicate.
I don't think that's true. Some examples:
"That place smells bad."
"Red is too bright a color for a car."
"Lost is a terrible TV show."
Those are all opinions and it's obvious that they're opinions. You could prepend "In my opinion" to each one and no one would complain, but it's unnecessary, and people say stuff like this all the time with full knowledge that they're opinions. Their status as opinions isn't contingent on anyone stating that they are; they're just opinions because they're value judgements or statements of preference.
I've found that it's generally easy to separate opinions from statements of fact, and so it's not required that anyone be the "that's just your opinion!" police. Of course it's their opinion; that's why they said it. The weird thing about complaining that opinions should be explicitly demarcated is that is suggests that either a) you have trouble telling the difference between fact and opinion or b) you assume the person saying them doesn't know the difference. Both of those are bad.
I agree completely with what you're saying, but I think you're being far too generous in your interpretation of the author's point.
Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.
At the same time, some people employ logical fallacies to push an agenda and make it effectively impossible to respond without dismantling their entire argument... by pointing out the logical fallacies. Hmmm.
Unsurprisingly, the author of this piece is a dishonest shill who wants free reign to use logical fallacies to advance his agenda.
When I clicked the link, I was certain the author would find a way to push his radical, post-modern feminism. As @realtalker has pointed out, the author almost certainly wrote this in response to the stinging criticism he received for this piece the Islamaphobia section in particular):
http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia
Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. As I said, the only way to respond to inherently dishonest arguments like that is to point how the arguments are dishonest.
The author wants full immunity.
[And to be abundantly clear, by "author" I don't mean @mindcrime. I mean the author of the linked piece.]
Nope. I certainly used ad hominem, but it wasn't central to my argument. To ignore the rest of my post would be an example of the following:
> they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.
>Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies.
What evidence do you have the author is post-modern? I looked around on the authors blog and didn't see anything post-modern.
You are dismissing a large number of thinkers, this is all radical post-modern feminists, out of hand. I don't understand why or what that has to do with your other claims.
hacker789 previous comments have an anti-feminist bent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573103) so I would suggest that it is coloring hacker789's judgement of this piece. This is probably why hacker789 talks about the authors motivations or secret intentions (similar to what I am doing to hacker789 now).
"Feminist" is such a broad brush that labeling something "anti-feminist" isn't very useful.
But you're still right—like anyone, my biases can color my judgement of things, often causing me to prejudge a written piece based on its author. This time, I was right; often, I am not.
I firmly feel there's nothing wrong with asking someone in an elevator whether they'd like to get coffee.
That said, to answer your question, my answer is no. Someone responding to "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" with "fair enough" doesn't remotely make someone a radical, post-modern feminist.
Nice. Feminist bullies use the same tactics and insults that kids use in middle school.
What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears. Is it because you think women will cower in terror because they're an enclosed box with a man?
> What's so wrong with asking someone in an elevator? I'm all ears.
If the request makes them uncomfortable, the closed nature of the space makes it difficult for them to make a polite exit. The same applies to other locations where someone is temporarily unable to leave.
This also isn't really so much about dating or gender. Equally inappropriate would be uninvited political or religious commentary, bleak comedy, reference to recent very sad topics (violence, disease, natural disaster, abuse scandal,) or other topics with an unusual likelihood of creating distress.
The general idea is, just wait for the elevator to open, and ask once they have stepped outside; thirty seconds isn't going to kill you.
There's nothing insulting about having a mental illness. However, having such blatant disregard for others' feelings and established societal norms can land you in jail. While you may be incapable of empathy on your own, therapy can help you find ways to make the effects of empathy beneficial to you (usually by some form of quantification of results based on emulation of empathy).
You've both diagnosed me with autism and insinuated it could land me in jail if left untreated? You're lovely.
I'll ask you again. What's so wrong with calmly asking someone in an elevator for coffee? I remember these discussions after Rebecca Watson publicly complained about it—the vast majority of people felt she was vastly overreacting. So it's definitely not an "established societal norm".
Despite their rhetoric, radical feminists love infantilizing women. They treat women as fragile, triggerable, sensitive creatures who won't feel safe unless they're handled with kid gloves.
Would you feel uncomfortable if a fat, ugly woman with an annoying nasal voice opened conversation at the beginning of a 30-floor elevator ride by asking you out for coffee?
"Can I get a coffee with you mister? You're so handsome."
"Er, no, sorry, I'm busy."
45 seconds of lift going up in embarrassed silence
I'm sure anyone can handle it, but it's definitely uncomfortable.
Now imagine if this happened every day, because if it's socially acceptable and you are handsome and working in a tall building, it probably will.
That would be an uncomfortable question to ask at the beginning of a long elevator ride, but it's no more uncomfortable than the following common and socially acceptable situation:
I'm at a fairly small club downtown. A woman is walking toward me, so I make eye contact and say "hi!".
She sits down next to me, and we begin to talk. She's very nice, but after a few minutes of conversation, I'm not attracted to her at all, and it's clear we have very little in common.
"Hacker789, you have a really cute smile. I'd love to get your number."
"Ah..."
I look down, and out of the corner of my eye, I see her nervously twisting her hair in her fingers.
I cringe just thinking about that, because it's happened to me before! But I would never shame her for asking me, and I would never charge her with making me feel "unsafe". That would make me into a villain.
And let's be clear—it can be dreadfully awkward to leave the table at a small club, often taking more than a minute to politely finish the task without hurting the other person's feelings too badly. It's even worse if your friend is at the table, happily talking to an acquaintance of the person you just rejected!
At least in an elevator, you're automatically free after the doors open.
Would I ever ask someone at the beginning of a long elevator ride a question that might make them uncomfortable? No, not if I could avoid it. In fact, I wouldn't ask anyone an uncomfortable question at the beginning of a long bus or train ride, either. But not every situation that has the potential to create discomfort is socially unacceptable; part of being a social creature is to take minor discomfort in stride, giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.
And the more frequently an uncomfortable situation happens to you, the better you get at handling it.
Well said. And it's a lack of awareness of this point that often frustrates me about discussions here on HN. I understand that most of us try to be mostly rational, most of the time, and that we want a high level of discourse here. But too often, you see people acting like every discussion is high-school debate-club practice, and they start slinging "ad hominem" and "fallacy of the excluded middle" around like a high-school kid with a brand new super-soaker, eager to spray anyone in range.
But not everything that is said here needs to be treated like it was uttered as part of a debate. Sometimes opinions are just opinions, sometimes anecdotes are enlightening, and sometimes generalizations, metaphors, analogies and other abstractions come into play.