Re: Is this a fallacy?
- From: "Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Apr 2005 16:10:04 -0500
"Tron" <tronfuru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
><shepherdmoon@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i melding
>
>Pardon me for butting in.
>I work for the same Company as mr. A. Diagnostics, but in the Word
>Maintenance Section,
And as janitor I get to meet everybody!
>An example of theo-hierocratic
>muddle would be the oracle in Delphi, where, according to the manufacturers,
>Apollo spoke directly to humanity, although only to Pythia, and this had to
>be decoded by the College of High Priests, who also handled the financial
>side of it.
So the figure-head oracle with a brain burned out from
drug-sniffing said a lot of cryptic things, and the "advisors"
made the decisions and got rich? Sounds familiar. This goes back
about 3,000 years, right?
>Which brings us to debating techniques.
What a segue!
>The ultimate goal of exchanging
>views is to further the truth by pooling ideas.
A necessary way to find missing logic or facts in my argument,
i.e. errors in my reasoning.
<snip>
>Emotional issues can be things like living in a personal hell. As we all
>know, people who have lost a leg don't want it back, they want everyone else
>to lose one, too. Whenever people hurt you, know that they try to hurt you.
>They try to evoke the ill feeling they are cursed with, so that they be not
>alone. Imagine the hurt they must carry around, of which the hurt they seek
>to induce in you is the exact mirror image.
A fine and moving piece of explanation for my quote book.
They are way overrepresented in religion, likely in
Shepherdmoon's creationism group too. Careful as you peel off
those layers as you might not like what's inside. Reprogramming
is a lot safer than deprogramming. Much easier too, and more
productive in most cases.
>Write a reply where you focus on the issue, the facts and proper reasoning.
>Write a separate post about what you think of the poster's argument, how
>stupid they are, his style, etc.
>Write a third post about what you think about the poster himself, his
>background, his parents and lineage, etc.
>Send the first one first. Wait for a long time. Throw the two others away.
Excellent advice. I call it the "three day rule" and observe it
in business when I can. The parents, lineage, etc., are always
off-limits.
Regarding #2, I think it's perfectly justified to flame
pretentious dorks. But you have to have the gift. <g>
>The tactical guys are in it for the win per fas et nefas (by means good or
Great list of nefarious tactics, snipping most for reply...
>- Accept no methodology for finding truth
This one is most problematic for me. The corruption of process is
not always evident until you become invested. It often starts out
as an interesting-sounding point-of-view or theory. Often, when
you realize it, you also realize that the person has spent
enormous time and effort to creating an obscure device to
make anything they say ultimately unfalsifiable.
>- In fact, aything support is Good, be it data, theory, anecdote, aphorism,
>joke, statistics, quotes, murals ...
>- Conversely, anything unsupportive is The Work of The Devil, or merely
>data, theory, anecdote, aphorism, joke, statistics, quotes, murals ...
Hehe! Well put.
>- Opponent's speaking time is merely Me Being On Hold. Don't listen, prepare
>your next oration.
I call it the "responsive and explanatory" rule. It's probably
the best test I've found to separate serious posters from
kooks/trolls.
>Here it is up to you to first establish your purpose. Do you look for truth?
I think you must acknowledge that the truth is outside of
yourself and the others, try to maintain an objective POV. You
must examine yourself as well as others in relevant contexts. If
the others are not looking for truth (small t), immediately bump
context up a level, and discuss or at least analyze on that level
- no more analysis in original context. If they are not looking
for truth there, bump it up again. But always include yourself in
the analysis, looking in from the outside. If you are not
laughing at yourself at least a little, you're not doing it.
> ... Do you enjoy games of Strategy, like Fight the Invaders?
Arguing to win (debate) vs. arguing to learn (cooperative
dialog). I enjoy both, prefer the latter. Winning is sometimes
noble and important in life.
>(Normally I would then advocate staying away, but on Usenet, you can count
>on a good audience of lurkers, at best even an audience of good lurkers.)
For 10,000 years too. Use search words that super-intelligent
beings from the distant future will like! <g>
Including contemporary super-intelligent beings, I imagine them
as the best judges or arguers I know, and argue to them. The
"What would s/he say?" step in analyzing a position, repeated for
each good arguer you know as you run through each step
(well-known author's editing trick too). Thus, the more good
arguers you come to know well, the better it works. When the
older people you respect pass on, it still works.
<snip>
>That is all there is to it (in the 5 minute school; more at
>http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/ , the supreme antidote to
>infectants - cheap, and fun too!!!!!!).
You should be shot for posting that!
"This is beyond me." ROFL! Boy that hits close to home!
"Applies in theory, not in practice" OUCH! This guy's got me
pegged!
"Bewilder opponet by mere bombast." A sure sign of
pretentious dorkdom! For fun I try to think up an original
defense each time. I must have 20 or 30 by now. I like the
slow-torture ones best. <g>
"Argument from Authority" should include "Go read a book,"
a time-honored Usenet tradition.
I didn't find "Incredulity." - "I'm totally flabbergasted that
anyone could possibly assert what I know to be such obvious
nonsense! It just blows me away that you could think such a
trivial thing would be worth arguing!"
There's only one I've found to have no clear defense. But I'm not
tellin'. Surely you know it anyway. Oxford is part of the usual
story. It can usually be defeated, but it's a lot of damn work.
I'd like to add that some of those things are common in
cooperative good-faith dialog too. Once a dialog is known to
be such, they shouldn't cause any concern as they are
tongue-in-cheek, just used for emphasis, attempts to relieve
a possibly boring response, etc., and both parties are aware of
that. This is in the sense of subtle parody among experts. But
you should let the other person know if you find it annoying or
counter-productive in particular cases.
Larry
.
- References:
- Re: Is this a fallacy?
- From: Tron
- Re: Is this a fallacy?
- Prev by Date: Re: basic binary functions
- Next by Date: Re: Constructivists' stance on cardinality
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this a fallacy?
- Next by thread: Question about the Kleene Normal Form Thrm.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
