Baloney Detection Kit

[Wes]

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan "The Demon Haunted World". The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

(excerpted from The Planetary Society Australian Volunteer Coordinators Prepared by Michael Paine )

From http://www.carlsagan.com/

 

[Zakalwe]

That's a very good source, it makes a lot of very good points. I'll try and stick to some of those

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

Oh my god I have always hated Ad Hominem, and Strawman arguments.

Ad hominem is the worst, and is used far too often by people who don't know how to actually argue with someone. If you attack the person making the point, you admit defeat. It means you cannot hold up a defense against the opponent, and there for must demonize the opponent themselves to garner more support.

"YEah? You know who else breathed air? HITLER! Are you Hitler? You sure sound like it!" This is a classic Ad Hominem simply because Nazi's. If you equate something to Nazi's you lose the argument, end of story.

Then you have strawman arguments. Defelcting someones argument by wording their argument to be weaker and defend a point the opponent actually isn't trying to defend. What sucks is that it can give the impression that the point was disproved and ignorant people will just blindly follow it because "Hurrdurr that makes sense!"

 

[Navian]

Re: 'Ad hominem is the worst'; this is not always the case. Sometimes attacking the person who's arguing is the only thing to do, like when someone comes into a discussion just to stir up trouble. Just because it's an easier shortcut than refuting everything they say doesn't mean it's always wrong, and in some cases there's a good reason you can't hold up a defense against them that has nothing to do with them being right; when they're using the Gish Gallop tactic, for example.

Strawman arguments are a much bigger problem, since they often make it difficult to avoid derailing the topic without implying the caricature was accurate. Sometimes it's necessary to caricature an opponent, though, when they lie about what their real stance is, like in the case of concern trolls. It's difficult to guess what they're really saying, so any attempt to pin them down is likely to end up as a strawman... but if you refuse to prop that thing up, you might end up stuck trying to have a reasonable argument with someone whose goal is to lead you into trap after trap.

It'd be a lot more cut-and-dry if everyone argued honestly, but sometimes it's necessary to fight fire with fire. I prefer fighting fire with water, though. If someone uses dirty tactics, it's better to shut them down than to argue with them--on their terms, or on any others--because the only way to 'win' is by stooping to their level.

In one line, I guess my summary is, don't tell someone they're wrong because they argued wrong, when they use bad tactics. Tell them they're wrong because of what they're trying to do--and if possible, make it clear that the problem isn't strictly with their argument, it's that they're in the wrong, personally.

Too bad it's not easy to judge someone's intent on the internet. (Or even in person, sometimes.)

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

Re: 'Ad hominem is the worst'; this is not always the case. Sometimes attacking the person who's arguing is the only thing to do, like when someone comes into a discussion just to stir up trouble. Just because it's an easier shortcut to refuting everything that they say doesn't mean it's always wrong, and in some cases there's a good reason you can't hold up a defense against them that has nothing to do with them being right; when they're using the Gish Gallop tactic, for example.

Strawman arguments are a much bigger problem, since they often make it difficult to avoid derailing the topic without implying the caricature was accurate. Sometimes it's necessary to caricature an opponent, though, when they lie about what their real stance is, like in the case of concern trolls. It's difficult to guess what they're really saying, so any attempt to pin them down is likely to end up as a strawman... but if you refuse to prop that thing up, you might end up stuck trying to have a reasonable argument with someone whose goal is to lead you into trap after trap.

It'd be a lot more cut-and-dry if everyone argued honestly, but sometimes it's necessary to fight fire with fire. I prefer fighting fire with water, though. If someone uses dirty tactics, it's better to shut them down than to argue with them--on their terms, or on any others; because the only way to 'win' is by stooping to their level.

If they aren't making an argument/are just there to stir up shit then don't waste your effort with arguing with them. Just ignore the person, or force them to come up with an argument by asking questions. Going after the character of a partner is downright lazy and brings you to their level. If you can't fight against their argument, ask questions. If those questions don't get coherent answers, stop wasting your energy.

IF someone uses a strawman, state very clearly what your argument is.

I believe X, however there is Y exception

That is the basic formula for an argument as I understand it. Here is a more detailed example

All Vekimen should follow the basic Physiology of their Clan. However, due to the fact that inbreeding has been rather apperent, and Clans are no longer as important as Families, there can be changes.

Zoia 'Sivaro is a typical Sivaro. She has a very minimal form, ad feminine features are suppressed greatly to imply a frail frame, which is common to the Sivaro Clan.

Zahen Lek'Sivaro however is a mix breed. She won the Genetic Lottery, taking all the good genes of her parents, while her twin Uram Lek'Sivaro took all the lesser ones, while keeping the same name.

If this makes sense. Exceptions are important. Exceptions prove the rule as they say, and there is always an exception.

However, sunlight is always the best disinfectant. If someone has an opinion you don't agree with, and you know you are right, often times the best way to beat them is to just let them talk.

 

[Navian]

It's not very useful to ignore someone unless everyone else also ignores them. Sometimes it's better to drive someone off with hostility. This is a very good reason to ensure that chatroom environments are moderated, so this will never appear to be the best option. I've been in chatrooms before that had no moderation, so the only way to get rid of a troublemaker was to attack them until a consensus was built and they could no longer gain traction, or until someone managed to find a vulnerability and made them lose confidence and/or decide to cut their losses. In the majority of cases, no, this isn't a good tactic! I've seen it go the other way, with the troll becoming part of a community's inner circle because those not involved found them entertaining and useful for asserting their in-group's dominance.

I have to reject the idea that it's wrong to do something that's 'lazy' when an opponent is using tactics that are designed to waste their opponent's time. If you do anything that isn't 'lazy' in such a situation, you're playing right into their hands. 'Don't engage' is a cop-out. If you don't have a response, you're letting them dominate the airspace, and that's not always as meaningless as we'd like it to be. They have to be stopped, somehow. Ennui is not always an effective weapon, nor is entropy. Ideally there's a much easier way to end it than by trying to make them collapse in shame or raging foam, since there's a good chance that'll happen to you, first. An ignore function, a court order, a drink to the face, whatever's appropriate to the circumstances.

In the terrible case that you're stuck with someone that no one else wants to deal with, who is inhabiting an area you can't simply leave because you have investments there that aren't easy to relocate, sometimes fighting dirty is the best option. It's a tragedy. While it's useful to be aware of argument tactics, demonizing them gives another tool to people who don't want to argue in good faith, and it distracts from the real issue. The real issue is what the people involved are trying to do, and why.

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

I think this argument went from "How to have a debate/argument" to "What to do if an asshole takes residence in your space"

Unmoderated places usually aren't a good idea, but again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the chatroom is a good fit for you, the a majority of the chatroom will likely agree with your position. This brings out my "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

If it's not a good fit for you, then this person you do not agree with you will be seen as right by a majority of the group, and by lashing out with insults and attacks on character, you are merely demonizing yourself.

By lashing out and attacking, you are becoming a bully. Plain and simple. Bullies do what they do for various reasons, but in all cases, it is always to elicit a response from someone. Your torment is their game. By taking your tactic, you could be taking someone who is just ignorant and not a troll, and making them feel like shit without actually attempting to teach them. If they refuse to learn/are a troll, removing the prize from them (Your response) is the best course of action.

If they start becoming overly disruptive to the point where it is impossible to ignore them, then the best course of action is to have everyone block/ingore them. Removal of the prize is the best way to deal with an attacker, not play their game.

 

[Navian]

I think it's more that 'how to have an argument' is inextricably tied to 'how to deal with invasive bad behavior'. It's very rare to find people arguing without making at least some effort to abuse their opponent in order to gain an advantage, because most people argue to win and rule, not to find the truth while at risk of finding out they were wrong.

I don't think it's fair to say that someone 'becomes a bully' when they fight dirty against someone. Someone who goes around kicking people in the groin for sheer pleasure is probably a bully, but someone who kicks someone in the groin when they're grabbed and licked by them is using a self-defense tactic. If your social circle is called 'The Blue Hat Club' and someone comes in wearing a red hat, trying to convert everyone, it doesn't make you a bully to ask them to leave, and then when they don't comply, to use physical force to remove them and their hat from the premises, even though grabbing someone and hurling them bodily to exclude and humiliate them is a classic example of bullying, when taken out of context.

***

Your 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' argument makes a lot of assumptions, including an appeal to the silent majority. It's entirely possible for the majority of a chatroom to agree with someone and still want to get rid of them... and likewise it's possible for them to want someone they vehemently disagree with to come in every day. The main reason for this is social dominance motivations. Many people like to prop themselves up at the expense of others, but know it's wrong, and want to have an excuse to do it. Many more are afraid of giving someone else an excuse to use them as a victim, so they stay quiet when a big chest-thumper is around.

Often, the reason why someone 'isn't a good fit' for a community is that there's one person who stands in the way, and everyone else cowers before their wrath. You could try to argue that the fact no one is willing to do anything about it is a sign that the community 'isn't a good fit', but that's somewhat like saying you ought to throw out your soup, because there's a fly in it. There's some other options available.

***

Your comment about someone 'demonizing themself' isn't using the term well, someone who was actually 'demonizing themself' would be trying to make it look like they were inherently evil. What you're describing seems to be 'making themself a target', which is a phrase often used in victim-blaming. If people go after someone for attacking someone else, it might be a rationalization for actual bullying, motivated by a desire to dominate others, especially if they were trying to provoke that attack in the first place, or had otherwise violated the boundaries of the person being unfairly redefined as the aggressor.

If someone actually is the aggressor, or if they are only imagining that their boundaries were being violated and their response to it is unreasonable, the motivation to demonize them might truly be an effort to keep the peace. In that case, turning against them isn't 'bullying' unless the reaction is disproportionate... except in the case that peace can only be maintained by constant dominance games, in which case the whole scene blurs together into a toxic mess, and it's not worth making a distinction between bullying and moderation.

Anyway, it's not an act itself that is or isn't bullying, what counts as bullying depends on the context.

***

If someone who's just ignorant and not a troll reacts the same way a troll would when things escalate, there is no practical difference. Effectively, they're switching gears to troll as a defense mechanism, and worse, they'll try to use their ignorance as a shield. There's a few trolls that show an inversion of this, they set out with the intention of trolling, but have enough empathy to realize what a bad idea it is, a little too late, and try to backpedal. It wouldn't be useful to give them the same treatment, for the same practical reasons.

Sometimes having you retreat from the attacker is their game, and they're better off if you do this than if you confront them. Sometimes, probably just a fraction of the time, but often enough that teaching everyone to do it as a SOP is not a good idea. If it's possible to have everyone block someone, that is a good solution, as the amount of damage they can do by talking to no one is not worth a penny. It's not always possible, though, and sometimes confrontation is a good idea. I've seen it work. It works best when they're not expecting any coherent opposition, which is likely if they've spent a lot of time in places where 'just ignore them' is the stock response to all troublemakers.

***

I'm getting a little tired of nuances myself, but they're there, for anyone who wants to keep track of them all... and those who don't. I would very much prefer to retire the whole arsenal, and it's wonderful to stay in places where it's never required, but my whole reason for responding at all, here, was to try to clarify that even fallacious arguments are still useful tools, and the evil is in how they're used, it's not inherent to them. As far as I've seen, the attitude that using any of the fallacies listed in this thread 'makes someone lose', or otherwise forfeits their position, is itself used to inflict great harm, and shifts the focus away from trying to be right, and toward trying to win, regardless and inconsiderate of the problem.