Damage done by use of logical fallacies

[OzSpen]

You do not explane your self to me

reba,

Please help me to understand how I don't explain and where I could do it better. I want to learn from my conversation with you. If I'm zooming past you with the language I use, I have to reduce it to more manageable terms.

Can you give an example where you didn't understand what I said?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You are saying a fallacy is an intent to change the subject... interesting . All this talk of fallacy comes back to some one thinking for the other guy.. Again think like me or it is a fallacy

reba,

The changing of the topic is not a general fallacy. It's a red herring fallacy and it relates to the kind of reasoning used (changing topic) and not to different ways of thinking.

Oz

 

[reba]

I do understand condescending

 

[reba]

reba,

The changing of the topic is not a general fallacy. It's a red herring fallacy and it relates to the kind of reasoning used (changing topic) and not to different ways of thinking.

Oz

What ever you wish to call it you tend to interrupt many discussion with it..

 

[Mike]

Oz, for someone who whips out the "red herring fallacy" so much, you really don't have a grasp of the concept. Maybe you did at one point, but I think you've misused it so much, you've forgotten what it actually is.

From Wikipedia:
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion."

In literature, a red herring is a device used by the writer (or an orator) to intentionally and carefully distract the reader (or listener) from something s/he doesn't want the reader to discover yet.

The second woman sounded a little self absorbed, maybe very self absorbed, wanting to talk about her own husband rather than the bloke Reba was talking about. This is nothing of a red herring, unless perhaps she was having a scandalous affair with the bloke behind her husband's back and didn't want Reba to continue discussing him.

Before marching out the red herring, you must first establish that the statement was intentional with the primary goal being to get you off topic. It loses its efficacy when you pull it out too much, like the boy who cried wolf.

Now, to the point made by reba, what are the damages inflicted upon you in the thread you linked in your OP? Have you evidence of said damages that are quantifiable and measurable? You'd probably get a pay day if you presented your case to an American jury. They hand out unwarranted awards all the time, but you'll have a hard time convincing rational people that you were damaged.

 

[OzSpen]

I've found a short list of logical fallacies with brief descriptions from Fallacy Detective. Some of you may find it helpful.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I do understand condescending

That's an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, for someone who whips out the "red herring fallacy" so much, you really don't have a grasp of the concept. Maybe you did at one point, but I think you've misused it so much, you've forgotten what it actually is.

From Wikipedia:
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion."

In literature, a red herring is a device used by the writer (or an orator) to intentionally and carefully distract the reader (or listener) from something s/he doesn't want the reader to discover yet.

The second woman sounded a little self absorbed, maybe very self absorbed, wanting to talk about her own husband rather than the bloke Reba was talking about. This is nothing of a red herring, unless perhaps she was having a scandalous affair with the bloke behind her husband's back and didn't want Reba to continue discussing him.

Before marching out the red herring, you must first establish that the statement was intentional with the primary goal being to get you off topic. It loses its efficacy when you pull it out too much, like the boy who cried wolf.

Now, to the point made by reba, what are the damages inflicted upon you in the thread you linked in your OP? Have you evidence of said damages that are quantifiable and measurable? You'd probably get a pay day if you presented your case to an American jury. They hand out unwarranted awards all the time, but you'll have a hard time convincing rational people that you were damaged.

Mike,

To the contrary:

In the example I gave, when Reba was talking about one husband and Joan came in with talk about another husband, without any indication from Reba that this was the direction in the conversation she wanted to go, Joan committed a red herring fallacy.

That's in agreement with the copy and paste you gave from Wikipedia.

The Logically Fallacious website provides this definition of a red herring fallacy:

'Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument' (source: www.logicallyfallacious.com)​

Many times on this forum it is done without any evil intent but it is done nevertheless.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Ones manor of speaking is also incorrect Bible teaching?

Do you mean 'manner of speaking'?

 

[OzSpen]

I think i am beginning to understand ...all this talk of red herrings and fallacies in the posts through out the threads are just red herrings and fallacies them selves . changing the topic with the intent to change it.

reba,

I still don't think you are demonstrating an understanding of logical fallacies. When you speak about 'red herrings and fallacies' it demonstrates that you don't understand because red herrings are logical fallacies. To speak of 'red herring fallacies and fallacies' does not make sense.

Oz

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

If I can weigh in Oz? I think there's a point or two that needs to be addressed.

Point one: debates and conversations don't follow the same rules, and such can almost be thought of as different languages. Rules in debates are made for a fair debate, and fallacies are the points of error in the points even if th points are correct they made outside of the rules and are a fallacy. They work well enough in a debate, where two points or two arguments battle head to head. They lose focus when there are more then two arguments in play. Rules in a conversation are largely unwritten rules, and don't nessassirly follow a stable point.

There are simularities though. The TOS says no personal attacks. This isn't for the sake of debates, but debates are included in this rule. Though I don't think there's a TOS rule for staying on topic, there is an unwritten rule for these conversations. This too isn't for the sake of debates but, well you get the point. The rules governing conversations, and debates overlap.

Conversations though are much looser with a topic then a debate is. Going off topic briefly for even not coming back to the previous topic are ok and natural in most conversations. Online forums are different in that aspect but in general it's still ok to go off point here and there. On that note there's a phrase hour staying on point (the same point) too much. Calling it "beating a dead horse. Humor is valid in a conversation because it's not there to make a point. The point is assumed when humor is used, and unfortunately this means making a point through humor doesn't need logic to sustain the point. As long as the humor isn't degrading though I'd wager that there is no damage that can't be rectified by stating the facts of how things are. That said humorous points and intelectual based points both have damaging errors.

One ignores correction, the other has the tendency to be condescending and disruptive on it's own right. (Well both can ignore correction but that's different.). If a person doesn't follow the rules of debate a fallacy flag can be pulled up disturbing the point meant to be made. If the same person doesn't go out of their way to follow these rules it becomes condencending to their points and their conversation. In a way this causes it's own fallacy simular in context to your ridicule fallacy towards the person.

Meanwhile a person may have good points but redirects the subject (red herring possibly) to make it. Nathan a prophet correcting King David used this very method to show David's sin. If you use a fallacy flag too often it might mean one of two things. A) the person using the fallacy isn't going to change or B) the person raising the fallacy flag doesn't hear or understand what the first person is trying to say.

 

[Jim Parker]

What your posts say to me is if i dont think like you, my thoughts are fallacy .

That's not it at all.
He is trying to point out some of the common errors that people make in their thought processes without realizing it.
Logic has rules which prevent people from coming to a false conclusion much like mathematics does.
Some of us don't do math well.
Very few people are taught logic in public schools and, as a result, are easily misled by the use of logical fallacies.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

debates and conversations don't follow the same rules

If persons in a debate or in a conversation do not employ logic in presenting their point of view then they employ gibberish. They do not debate or converse without logic but, rather, they merely babble. (Which is perfectly acceptable in many situations. Politicians and Social Science Professors make a career of it.) If our conversations are illogical then they differ very little from two patients in a mental hospital arguing about which of them is really Napoleon Bonaparte.


iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

If I can weigh in Oz? I think there's a point or two that needs to be addressed.

Point one: debates and conversations don't follow the same rules, and such can almost be thought of as different languages. Rules in debates are made for a fair debate, and fallacies are the points of error in the points even if th points are correct they made outside of the rules and are a fallacy. They work well enough in a debate, where two points or two arguments battle head to head. They lose focus when there are more then two arguments in play. Rules in a conversation are largely unwritten rules, and don't nessassirly follow a stable point.

There are simularities though. The TOS says no personal attacks. This isn't for the sake of debates, but debates are included in this rule. Though I don't think there's a TOS rule for staying on topic, there is an unwritten rule for these conversations. This too isn't for the sake of debates but, well you get the point. The rules governing conversations, and debates overlap.

Conversations though are much looser with a topic then a debate is. Going off topic briefly for even not coming back to the previous topic are ok and natural in most conversations. Online forums are different in that aspect but in general it's still ok to go off point here and there. On that note there's a phrase hour staying on point (the same point) too much. Calling it "beating a dead horse. Humor is valid in a conversation because it's not there to make a point. The point is assumed when humor is used, and unfortunately this means making a point through humor doesn't need logic to sustain the point. As long as the humor isn't degrading though I'd wager that there is no damage that can't be rectified by stating the facts of how things are. That said humorous points and intelectual based points both have damaging errors.

One ignores correction, the other has the tendency to be condescending and disruptive on it's own right. (Well both can ignore correction but that's different.). If a person doesn't follow the rules of debate a fallacy flag can be pulled up disturbing the point meant to be made. If the same person doesn't go out of their way to follow these rules it becomes condencending to their points and their conversation. In a way this causes it's own fallacy simular in context to your ridicule fallacy towards the person.

Meanwhile a person may have good points but redirects the subject (red herring possibly) to make it. Nathan a prophet correcting King David used this very method to show David's sin. If you use a fallacy flag too often it might mean one of two things. A) the person using the fallacy isn't going to change or B) the person raising the fallacy flag doesn't hear or understand what the first person is trying to say.

A significant percentage of the directories on this forum allow for debate so your point is moot.

 

[Mike]

From your source:

the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument'

I find this in agreement with my understanding of a red herring but at odds with how you've used it here in the OP and in many other discussions. Even your definition you sourced stresses the significance of this being an intentional tactic by person A purposed specifically to shift the focus of the person B.

In your own hypothetical example, there is no reason to believe Joan is motivated to get Reba's attention off the bloke. As is too often the case, people are bent on saying what they want to say, so they go with that which is important to them. To heck with the aspect the other person wanted to explore. That's selfish and self-centered, by Joan, but it was not purposely put out there with the goal to prevent reba from talking about the bloke. With that, it was not a red herring.

As for discourse here on CFnet, it's not a red herring fallacy when someone presents the other side of the argument or introduces an additional factor in the discussion. I rarely see red herrings here on CFnet as defined by both if our sources. What I see are accusations of them when someone's view is in disagreement.

A significant percentage of the directories on this forum allow for debate so your point is moot.

Ironically, you've argued that CFnet has way too few forums where debate is permitted. You've argued at length that the list of forums that do should be broadened. I'm unmooting Not_Now.Soon's point.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Show me the damage done ?
In my mind you did not understand your own example of the 2 women talking about husbands

In the example given Oz 'assumes' they had not been talking about Joan's husband John all along but wihout context that is/can be a false assumption.

 

[civilwarbuff]

They are based on errors of reasoning in what you say or state.

But that claim is based upon a person's own reasoning which may also be in error; so it becomes a subjective perspective based on one's beliefs, experiences, knowledge, background, culture and context.

 

[OzSpen]

As for discourse here on CFnet, it's not a red herring fallacy when someone presents the other side of the argument or introduces an additional factor in the discussion.Not_Now.Soon's point.

I have not defined a red herring that way.

 

[OzSpen]

But that claim is based upon a person's own reasoning which may also be in error; so it becomes a subjective perspective based on one's beliefs, experiences, knowledge, background, culture and context.

civil,

No, it's not a subjective perspective but an error of logic. When any tactic, intentional or non-intentional, is used to divert attention away from providing evidence in support of a statement, it is fallacious reasoning. It is not logical. Logic has nothing to do with subjective perspectives but with whether we want to be logical or garbled in our conversations.

Oz

 

[reba]

Having read this thread i see the whole of this as thought control... think like me or your not being logical .. We have a world full of 'snowflakes' .
Sure it is subjective OzSpen , you made that point clear with your example of the 2 women..