*HTML is OFF *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WHarpyrSo I was thinking that perhaps if we had some guidelines of proper debating technique that perhaps we would make some more headway towards understanding eachother's viewpoints and raise the vibration abit around here. Of course I've seen debates in these parts far less friendly than they have been of late. *pats self and everyone else on the back* We've really been pretty nice to one another for the most part lately. That makes me happy. And yet.. I think we all tend to fall into some of these 'Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric' as adapted from Carl Sagan's book, _The Demon Haunted World_. Haven't actually read it but I've been hangin out with some scientific types who referred me to this site, where I got this. Wanted to share with y'all. Enjoy! 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 "unfavourable" 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"). *This is my favorite example* 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. Straw man - 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" TINKGod Bless you Harpyr! This is very much needed. A well-mannered, ladylike debate is a hard thing to find these days.And God Bless Carl Sagan, too! I fell in love with him years ago when I was just a little girl and Mom would let me stay up late to watch "Cosmos". thankstinkHarpyrYou're welcome, TINK. Harpyr*bump*i find regular review of these is helpful. very often it seems that what is passed off as debate around here is often fallacy number one- ad hominem.hey.. even I'm guilty of it sometimes.. nobody's perfect. EleanoreYes, I agree on this, as well. I also enjoyed the thread that Isis began about debate:Global Unity - How To Achieve It Through DebateI hope more people visit this thread on their own because I think it might be misconstrued to recommend it to someone, even if you think it would help him/her/them. ------------------"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GhandiozonefillerI have to confess Harpyr(and be the first one to do so),I think that maybe even I should start with observing THOSE guidelines,but their will come those times that these guidelines would be too hard to follow,but at least we try to keep the arguements on the topic and NOT on the person,maybe ...sometimes!Distantdrummergreat listing harpyr,but maybe its inappropriate. i can see a list for respecting others working very well.dos and donts.for example, objectivity to keep it impersonal if there is a topic that might arouse you. a Do profanity, insults, and simple put downs. Donts. im not the one to create this list of dos and donts, but i think that the list above is more appropriate for a school of debate. it seems strict to me. like im supposed to be disciplined now in everything i write. i can feel the headache growing in my brain.also, there are really good writers around this forum. two of which include you harpyr and eleanor.i have to rack my brain and grind my teeth just to be able to respond to that kind of word craft. especially eleanor. ive just started posting and responding with eleanor and she writes conplete essays when she posts. its awesome of course andthe challenge is very arousing, but i think i will explode if there is a guideline structure as demanding as the one above.EleanoreOh, dear, Distantdrummer, I am sorry if I cause you any headaches with my responses. I just really try to be thorough and make an effort to be non-offensive (though perhaps I don't always succeed on that last one) because I really don't like misunderstandings and coming to inappropriate conclusions. Plus, I really enjoy writing and reading as well. Thanks for the compliments, and also thanks for making the effort of reading and responding to my posts ... I find your posts mentally stimulating as well.------------------"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
And God Bless Carl Sagan, too! I fell in love with him years ago when I was just a little girl and Mom would let me stay up late to watch "Cosmos".
thankstink
i find regular review of these is helpful. very often it seems that what is passed off as debate around here is often fallacy number one- ad hominem.
hey.. even I'm guilty of it sometimes.. nobody's perfect.
Global Unity - How To Achieve It Through Debate
I hope more people visit this thread on their own because I think it might be misconstrued to recommend it to someone, even if you think it would help him/her/them.
------------------"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi
but maybe its inappropriate. i can see a list for respecting others working very well.
dos and donts.
for example, objectivity to keep it impersonal if there is a topic that might arouse you. a Do
profanity, insults, and simple put downs. Donts.
im not the one to create this list of dos and donts, but i think that the list above is more appropriate for a school of debate. it seems strict to me. like im supposed to be disciplined now in everything i write. i can feel the headache growing in my brain.
also, there are really good writers around this forum. two of which include you harpyr and eleanor.i have to rack my brain and grind my teeth just to be able to respond to that kind of word craft. especially eleanor. ive just started posting and responding with eleanor and she writes conplete essays when she posts. its awesome of course andthe challenge is very arousing, but i think i will explode if there is a guideline structure as demanding as the one above.
Copyright 2000-2024 Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a