The ability to easily exchange and digest massive amounts of information on every kind of topic around the globe has led to millions of individuals far and wide taking back their own education and mental development by using the great web at their fingertips.
There has been a wide resurgence of interest in philosophy and the discipline of Logic as the method for using language to understand and speak about reality. With the vast swathes of information to pick apart and process which are available through a simple Google search or a site like Wikipedia, there are now many individuals out there who, at the very least, understand basic fallacies and even have a cursory understanding of the Law of Non-contradiction.
Yet in all the flow of conversation among this epic returning of Critical Thought, I have seen many well-intentioned and self-made Wiki-philosophers and Google-logicians fall into a rather heinous mental trap (for what it's worth, I use terms like "wiki-philosopher" affectionately, not derogatorily).
This mental hole which is stumbled into, is more of an oversight than anything. It is the oversight of what I call The Most Dreaded Fallacy of All. The newbie to Critical Thought has overlooked the fact that an argument for a certain truth can be a poor argument (a fallacious one, that is) and that has no bearing on whether the claim made is true or false. The well-meaning thinker points to the fallacious reasoning of the argument as a reason to entirely dismiss the claim or conclusion the arguer came to, and in so doing has fallen by the wayside on the search for actual truth.
This, my friends, is the Fallacy Fallacy. It is the act of saying that someone who makes a fallacious argument for a claim must be wrong about the claim. But the search for truth is never just about the arguments themselves, since an individual who seeks truth understands that whatever is true or not must be true outside of someone's ability to use language to argue for it.
This why I can say that:
If it is not a true debate where the direct aim of the conversation is to present a sound argument (premise, supporting points, conclusion), then it is irrelevant in the quest for truth to point out every fallacy the opposition might make. The arguer might present a truth claim, and then on the road to defending it espouse some fallacious reasoning in poor defense. Proceeding to then shout “Aha, fallacy!” is not equivalent to “Aha, you are wrong!”
To presume the other person’s assertion of a fact or truth must be wrong because they argued badly (fallaciously) for it fails to keep TRUTH in sight as the real goal, and irrationally makes it about the arguer themselves as though they are the source of the truth.
As a simple example:
A person may make an assertion that the earth is not round, and then attempt to defend it as such:
“I conclude the earth is not round, because it was from a fortune cookie that I heard it was round, and fortune cookies can’t be trusted.”
I could say that this is a bad argument, and commits the Genetic Fallacy of assuming that the source of the claim has any bearing on the truth of the claim.
However, it would commit the Fallacy Fallacy for me to say,
"That’s a genetic fallacy and therefore you are absolutely wrong.” It would still be incumbent upon me, if I am interested in the truth, to attempt to demonstrate that the assertion--that the earth is not round--is either true or false, regardless of the fallacy made by the other party.
The only real question is, and always will be:
Is the claim made true or isn’t it?
The questions is not:
Did you commit a fallacy while arguing for it, or didn’t you?
A thing is either true or it is not, independent of the one who is speaking about it.
I would assert that if your focus is always on how the other person argues for their claim, and how many fallacies they are making, your focus is not really on what is or is not true, and you are very likely disingenuous in your pretense of caring for truth.
If you indeed desire to know what is true, you will openly review all potential data/evidence from all sides and actively attack and attempt to destroy your own view.
You will overlook the bad arguments others have and go after the good ones yourself, and pursue real evidence that exists wherever you can find it, and it whatever form.
Use your own mental faculties to weigh as much evidence as you can.
If you are waiting for a decent arguer to come to you and present to you a flawless argument, you aren’t really interested in any rigorous assessment of reality.
earth is light, and light has no shape
So it follows that earth has no shape?
for me, earth is my physical experience of now, and nothing else beyond that, as I stick to what I know is true
light has no shape, but I can define the light to have a shape, or a speed, and believe in it, like a religion
All things exist out side of you take religion. Religions have shapes just as reall as the cross, star of David, or yinyang. The fact that you can compare religions to each shows that they have shape. I can believe that I died to save Jesus from his sins but it not Christianity. I can believe that I should indulge all worldly desires but that's not Buddhism
I know now is real, and I have no beliefs. For instance, now I see words on my computer screen that entertain me, and that's all they are, just words on a screen.
Well it depends whether the point of the debate is to establish the truth or to win, to prove you are right. It can be a subtle art in convincingly arguing for something you do not believe in.
But fallacies dismiss a particular argument, not what is being debated.
Argument A comes, you need to combat it. It can either be with a counterargument or by proving the argument is a fallacy. Either way works. Last argument standing wins.
Not really, in the end 90% debates (figure comes form a poll of 3 people i conducted myself) end with participants convinced they one and the others are morons.
Oh, absolutely. The aim of the conversation matters for sure. Arguing for something you don't believe in, otherwise called "Devil's Advocate" argumentation, is a great art in trying to see if you can really find flaws in opposing views, but I think the intention of the person is sometimes portrayed as a desire for the truth when it in fact is a desire to be against the grain just for the sake of it.
I for one think that there is more value in having the aim always be pointed at "is this really true or not?" rather than pointing it at "can I find all my opponent's fallacies and point them out?"
And yes, fallacies SHOULD be recognized in order to dismiss a particular argument, not WHAT is being debated, that is the proper approach I think, and yet people fall into the pit of COMPLETELY forgetting the goal (to figure out WHAT is true or not), in the aim of appearing to be the "more right" one.
Fallacies and their identification were bound to be popular once people started making memes of them. I -am- pleased with the general tendency of people to at least -know- what a fallacy is, in the last ten years or so.
I noticed that! My own way of dealing with it is to interpret a logically-fallacious argument as an opinion rather than a falsity. Case in point: someone who uses the "slippery slope fallacy" is really expressing an opinion that a slippery-slope situation exists. He or she is also making a forecast based on that opinion. The forecast - eg., allowing same-sex marriage would encourage a push to legalize polygamy - might be wrong, but it might be right. Since it's based upon an opinion, it should be treated skeptically - but it should not be dismissed out of hand.
For what it's worth, the favorite fallacy of the "Wiki-philosophers and Google-logicians" - in my opinion - is the Genetic Fallacy, dressed up in ostensibly practical-minded clothes. Cases in point:
...and so on. I'm sure someone can adduce similar examples of the genetic fallacy from the other side of the aisle.
"What is my intention in engaging in this discussion/debate?" is something we ought always ask ourselves, I believe. If my intention is to look smart by embarrassing someone else, at least I should be honest about it in my own head.
I admit it, there are times I think someone is such a douche for the arrogant way he frequently bullies and mocks others that I will jump into the fray just to shut him up. And that can be a lot of fun! :-)
But in the end, sincerely, I just want Truth. Period.
After all these years I have examined-and-dropped SO many beliefs that acknowledging my errors is easier and easier to do; I am less emotionally threatened by them. In fact, since everyone should want to be right, the quickest way to get back to "right" is to admit a mistake, an error, and adjust accordingly. Like admitting that you just engaged in the Fallacy Fallacy if you did.
Ever since I found out about the Trivium Method of Critical Thinking I have worked hard to remove my inherent contradictions. Getting caught in the fallacy fallacy is easy if someone doesn't accept new grammar and adjust their logic. Funny enough though, seven days ago I called someone out for it. I do not see this fallacy committed often though so it is fun to call others on it.
I agree. All the focus on finding flaws in argumentation is a blunt weapon rhetorically used against unwanted ideology and dogma. It's typically used by people who have been fooled once afraid of being fooled again.
Definitely agree with this. One of the reasons I got dissatisfied with the university system was just how far being a stylish writer could get you, and how knowing the 'tricks' of academic writing was often a substitute for genuine insight. And, since I left academia, some of the biggest influences on my thinking have been pretty bad writers, whose ideas have been brilliant.
OMG, you aren't lying. When I was in college, I received good grades on my papers. But I read some essays by classmates that blew mine out of the water, well thought out, informative and though-provoking, that got bad grades just because they made a mistake in the APA formatting. It's a sad thing that forward thinkers are always beaten own by someone who finds a small reason to do so!!!
Lol, the most interesting thing about this post, is that I used to point fallacies out like that, and then just dismiss the entire thing, up until very recently.
I made somewhat of a post about it, not long ago. Explaining how I simply stopped "asking why", because I stopped having any interest in knowing the truth. And had just put my mind up to me being omnipotent.
Great post, Amanda. ^_^
It is amazing how many tricks we have for dismissing other folks out of hand, isn't it? Strangely, high achievers are often skilled at that art - I suppose because it lets them stay focused. It is true that many of them are careful listeners once they achieve leadership roles, but it's built of a base of figuring out who to listen carefully to - and who to dismiss out of hand. It's a funny world we live in :)
I wasn't even a high achiever, I just stopped being interested in what others had to say.
But yeah. It's amazing how that work, and how easy it is to get into a "negative" state of mind. While it's so damn difficult to turn it around again.
Bible and atheism comes to mind.
-I'm an atheist
-Why?
-Because the bible is full of shit
Good example.
The world is small place to a narrow mind.
There are many Truths. My Truth may not be your Truth and that is ok. Can there ever be one objectively stated Truth, or only individually expressed subjectively experienced variations on Truth?
For example, 4 people stand at North, West, East, and South points of the compass and look at an object at their center point. Who has the "Truest" view?
This is why, for example, police will take as many statements form witnesses of an accident as they can. Why? Surely if 20 people witness an accident some would say, they have all had the same sensory experiences - that is, they saw, heard, and felt the same thing happening.
But this is obviously not "True", though Logic would tell us it should be. Truth is illusive. Try to grasp it and it is like air.
Oh bullshit. There are many true things, if some cant grasp them, that is their problem. Claiming truth is illusive is pseudo-philosophy empty of meaning. The world exists outside of individual perception.
At least, we THINK it does, although we can't be certain, since we can't perceive anything outside of our perception. But the math seems to work out.
I find it hard to believe though that the world does not exist outside my sorry ass ...
I call "assumption" on this statement.
I have to agree with @davidbrogan, and would like to add:
There are two types, or qualities of truth, as I see it:
1.) there's a relative "truth" that requires dividing out a subject from an objective world, or accepting that there exists subjectivity, as distinct from objectivity (an assumption as a basis point to start speaking of "truth"). Here, for instance, we can both agree that the sky is blue.
2.) there's an absolute "Truth" that requires dropping all sensory information, because either or both (the senses and the information that they perceive) can, themselves, be faulty/ illusory (think about how many things you can prove to be true during a coma-dream that lasts years - what have you really proven? It's a dream. It's not reality. They were only proofs relative to that dreamworld.). Here, I can see a "me" and a "you" and an apparent sky that's separate from these two "subjects" and, to my sight, it appears to be blue, but I can't be 100% certain that any of it has a solid reality. It could all just be a dream, or something else that I can't fathom.
1 + 1 = 2
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. - Socrates
In other words "Do you." :)
Thank you for another great writing!
I think we're on similar wavelengths. My post today concerns the efficacy of arguing in a meaningful way:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@thebiglunchkin/criticize-with-kindness
Truth is a noble pursuit. Logic is a useful tool. Reality is beyond both. I'm working on it.
Also known as... The Jan Irvin Fallacy...