A New Argumentative Fallacy Proposal

Here is a list of Fallacies from Wikipedia: Wikipedia: List of Fallacies

There should be another argumentative fallacy that involves how using argumentative fallacies to avoid addressing the valid issues presented alongside a fallacy is not coherent to good discussion.

For example, in a discussion on Facebook, I presented the following YouTube video in which several valid claims were made, but those claims have neither been observed or analyzed as of yet. How can we have good discussions when the whole discussion is about shutting down discussion?



Okay - I can give you the run-down of how a liberal would use manipulative tactics to avoid discussing the issue. First of all, they would attack the video for using Fox News as a source (which is in itself a fallacy - Wikipedia: Ad Hominem).

And then somehow they would avoid discussing any of the issues by using a mixture of p.c. (political correctness), and shutting down opposing opinions by asking for sources and then invalidating sources after they are given - or basically a lot of nonsense that is all about avoiding discussing the core issues given, and inherently incoherent in itself.

It gets to the point where presenting a valid argument to a liberal for them to consider comes with so much red tape that by the time it comes ready to hand over, it will only be considered if it is liberal in nature.

My proposal would be that the ethical way to handle opposing arguments would not be to shut them down entirely if they had valid pieces but some fallacies, but instead, would be to take the valid pieces into consideration and then offer a counter-proposal declaring which pieces are not valid, and how come -

In addition, there would have to be a quick examination done to ensure that fixing the argument was possible in the current political climate.

For example, if Climate Change scientists were currently suppressing research showing global cooling, then it would obviously be harder to get empirical data than if they were not.

-----

Oh, what else do I have to say about this topic while I'm already ruining my reputation by bringing it up - suppressing valid opposing arguments is unhealthy for one's own faction because it is only through engaging in discussion with the opposition that one can sort out bugs in their own thinking.

Also, avoiding discussion between factions results in polarization and also - perhaps more importantly - if people on the opposition (let's say conservatives, in this case) are not allowed to engage in discourse,

Then they will take their views underground, which can be entirely more dangerous than having them out in the open, especially if they also become polarized.

This is the kind of situation where someone will agree in person and then form a secret society that goes behind the scenes to sabotage things. All negative, imo.

Anyway - the reader can see in my signature the following: "Criticism is important to me, as I do not want to hold inaccurate ideas."

I have that in my signature so that it is stamped on every single post I make. If I present a new idea, the way I learn from making a mistake is if someone engages me in discussion.

However - if people refuse to engage me in discussion, that will result not in me making less mistakes, but more - I will continue to think, however, I will not have the advantage of having others to engage me in discussion and weed out fallacies and inaccuracies.

To think this is not the case with others besides me is silly. So, in the end, if you have a society where most people hold inaccurate views due to lack of discussion - it follows that it becomes highly likely that policy could be flawed, and then highly likely after that that the political situation could become unstable.

Except that in traditional logical debate one fallacy makes an argument invalid or weak (depending on if it is deductive or inductive).

Definition of Fallacy

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1][2] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form.[3] Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious

Keep in mind that the last sentence says that an argument can be valid with an informal fallacy, but validity only says that it has good logical form.

So if you use a fallacy your argument is just wrong.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


What happens if the majority of people in a Democracy do not have the education to make formal arguments, but still want to have a voice?

Also, thanks for the information there. Having good arguments and valid arguments is a good goal to have, in my opinion.

I was expressing how a ruling faction could use argumentative fallacies as a power mechanism that would result in a net decrease in good arguments being made, as well as a net decrease in diverse empirical studies, and a net decrease in discourse.

-----

Another thing I'm saying - empirically studies should be allowed on all sides, even sides that one does not agree with, as a way to provide more enlightened and comprehensive data.

Let us take an example where someone really does not like the idea that climate change does not exist. Therefore, they should allow studies to be done on global cooling because they should not be afraid of the results.

The results from the studies would be just as useful to show that global cooling does not exist, if the studies fail.

I'm using climate change as an example because it is fairly straight-forward and somewhat dry, not because I really care about climate change arguments.

-----

Another thing I'm saying - freedom of speech should be allowed, even when someone doesn't like what another person is saying.

Our current political climate is such that no one really has the freedom to say what is truly on their mind because they are afraid that someone else will find it offensive, and that that will result in retaliation.

Are we really ever going to live in a society where there is an occasion when one says something on their mind, and there will not be a single other person who is offended?

Who loses in a society where no one is allowed to be offended? Everyone.

Even today, I experience repercussions and see repercussions issued by both liberal atheists and conservative religious fanatics against people speaking what is on their mind.

Is this really what we want? And is this really conducive to making good arguments happen? In my opinion, not at all, whatsoever. It should result in a net decrease of good anything.

darkbake
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

What happens if the majority of people in a Democracy do not have the education to make formal arguments, but still want to have a voice?

What's this democracy you speak of? You mean like the middle east before we terrorized them?
Anyway what formal arguments are needed in a real democracy? It's collective thought, what we need in society is reflected in it already.

reply to post by ScottProphhit


Yeah, Democracy is collective thought, exactly - so formal arguments could potentially clog it up. In a Democracy, I would guess that people would express their viewpoints to their representatives, who would represent them in congress. I would also guess that freedom of speech would be encouraged, not discouraged.

About the Middle East, I was against the Iraq war when Bush was in office due to lack of evidence to support his claim, oddly enough.

I think the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated, although, I also think they might have a decent chance of being more significant than the U.S. in world politics -

They have more economic stability, after all, with oil sales, and they also have more cultural integrity, so I think that puts them on a much more solid foundation than the U.S. - especially if they have military support from Russia. That covers all their bases, and also gives them a lot of advantages the U.S. does not have.

-----

I could see the United States deteriorating into different regional factions and having to withdraw from world politics to deal with internal issues for a while. I think we are really out of our element if we think that we have the internal integrity to give us the time to deal with other country's problems at the moment.

We have had 50 states in our country for decades, and a few less than that since 1776, but I don't think anyone thought much of it after Lincoln, because they assumed that state's rights were out of the question.

However now, we are in a situation where I think that having 50 different states will suddenly become relevant as each state is suddenly expressing an interest in forming its own identity.

Managing 50 different states with different laws on everything from drug use, to marriage, to business, to education, to taxes and infrastructure, etc. - that's FIFTY. The Euro Zone has only 17 different member states. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the O.P. -

But I guess that State's Rights would be a natural progression I could see happening from a clogged Democratic system that doesn't take all perspectives into account. And in a lot of ways, it could help, localizing issues to geographical locations and providing more specific and relevant solutions to each region.

reply to post by darkbake


Liberals love this garbage. These argumentative fallacies really only work when the exchange is non-fluid like say online. And we all know liberals love online arguments, where else could a 110 lb. liberal arts major Starbucks barista talk smack? Other popular liberal catchphrases include, "did you forget your meds" and "mouth breather"

It's almost like it's a required class at liberal arts schools.

reply to post by darkbake

Dear darkbake,

Maybe I should go back to bed, I'm interpreting your OP differently, it seems, from the rest of the responders.

I thought you were saying that arguments by conservatives (to continue your example) are treated as one thing and not as a collection of several observations, thoughts, and ideas. As the conservatives are seen as "opponents," the liberals believe there is nothing worthwhile in the conservative thoughts so they must be destroyed completely.

Since very few arguments are completely wrong, the liberals have to avoid attacking each part of the argument (since some parts are right). But that only leaves things like attacking the speaker, choice of terms, and other relatively irrelevant objections, which ignore the pieces of truth which might be in the opponent's argument.

You seem to be suggesting that a more reasonable approach is one focused on finding the truth and good answers, and not so much the destruction of the other side.

If that is the case, I call you "brother" proudly.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by darkbake


It is a fallacy to propose a fallacy against fallacies!

But you're right. Fallacies are not absolute truth nor are they etched in stone. But I assume they are used to govern the art of debate, and therefore necessary in that particular arena.

You have to realize that the medium you are using for your discussion is not conducive to engaged debate.

Its like being upset that you can't order a steak dinner from Mcdonalds drive-thru. Its just not offered.

If you cannot condense your argument into sentences rather than lengthy paragraphs or hour long Youtube videos you will not hold people's attention.

reply to post by charles1952


Ah Charles, you are correct, that is what I was trying to say, you have just said it far more clearly than I. Thank you. You really did a great job, when I tried to explain it, I wasn't able to get it to come out right.

The problem with this attitude is that I think it is going to result in a conservative party and liberal party that have no communication between each other in order to argue and come to a consensus that is closer to the truth, so they are going to polarize.

Polarized politicians tend to be very totalitarian - we have communism on the one hand, and fascism on the other. I would not be surprised if we saw a genuine fascist movement come up in the next year, or now, for example.