Jump to content

ktarthan

Members
  • Posts

    1,615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Entries posted by ktarthan

  1. ktarthan
    This is a bit of a departure from the regular theme of this blog as it doesn't exactly address an argument per se, though it often comes up argument adjacent. I'll make it short and sweet:
    Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit.
  2. ktarthan
    Part I
    Analogies can be a good thing. They can be incredibly useful in education; when trying to explain an unfamilliar concept by relating it to something familliar. This is a completely neutral action and I urge you to use them in this manner whenever you wish. You have my blessing.
    Analogies used in an argument are nearly always utter crap. But even when a great analogy is used, it more than likely shouldn't have been. There are many issues, but they all stem from one thing: analogies are not equivalencies. Meaning that even in a great analogy, the situations will always have differences. "Oil is like water" gives you some understanding of what oil is like if you have never seen it, but it doesn't give you the full picture. You would never want to drink oil, for instance, but it is still a "valid" analogy.
    Immediately, we come across what is likely the biggest reason that analogies in arguments are a terrible idea. Right now, in your head, you're probably thinking of all the ways that oil is unlike water, and all of the qualifiers that could be added to the analogy to make it more accurate and "correct". There's nothing wrong with this in itself, for at the moment, you mostly just have concern for the hypothetical person who doesn't know what oil is, and want them to have as clear a picture as possible.
    But now imagine there are two people addressing this poor fellow. One has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is more like water, and the other has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is less like water. We then land ourselves in a death-spiral where both sides offer more and more detailed versions of the analogy that are "more correct" while still supporting their bias. The end result is an analogy so needlessly complex and detailed that it's useless as an analogy; you might as well just be discussing the actual subject directly.
    And yes I realize the humour of using an analogy to elucidate my reasoning on why not to use analogies. The tl;dr:
    Analogies are never perfect, so they are prone to ridiculous bias when used in an argument. They are also prone to pointless back-and-forth revisions to make the analogy "more correct". This makes the analogy useless, as it'd be simpler to discuss the subject directly.
    Part II
    Pretty much everyone sucks at making analogies anyways, so don't even try. Even you, special snowflake, are at the mercy of confirmation bias.
  3. ktarthan
    This isn't exactly addressing a bad argument per se, but I reserve the right to depart from this blog's theme whenever I damn well please. Also it follows along the general theme of elevating the level of discourse.
    I'd just like to speak a bit on a piece of my personal philosophy. It's very simple, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but its implications are wide and honestly it can be more difficult to follow than you'd first imagine.
    Err on the side of caution.
    This is a very useful thing to keep in mind whenever making risky decisions, but I think that it's something that can be viewed as an approach to dealing with the world. Granted, there are going to be situations where haste and risk are necessary, but any good rule has its exceptions, and everything should be met with discretion.
    Another more specific way to say this that relates better to our politics:
    Only makes assumptions to your detriment.
    This is about staying intellectually honest as you disagree with a person, as well as resulting in a much more sound and thoughtful argument. If you can still thoughtfully debate for a point while giving favour to your opponent's viewpoint whenever as assumption is required, then not only can you be sure that you were intellectually honest in presenting your opinion, but also that your point will stand up to far more scrutiny than it would otherwise.
    If you are unable to make an assumption in a way that favours the other viewpoint (it doesn't have to be by much), then you must either find a way to reach your conclusion without the assumption or at the very least be honest about how big the assumption is.
    I got a bit distracted while writing this, so I can't remember if I said everything I wanted to. So as always, if any elaboration is required, please say so.
  4. ktarthan
    I'm a busy man, so this will be a short one. Comment if you require elaboration.
    An argumentum ad hominem, to borrow from wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."
    The specific data point people need to take from this is that an insult is not by default an ad hominem.
    Also something I want to try to mention every time I bring up fallacies: if an argument contains a fallacy, it is not by default wrong.
  5. ktarthan
    Here are some argument techniques that, if you use them, you are literally killing what chance there is left for interesting debate in this game. It's something that I see done by both sides, and some of them done by one side more than the other (and vice-versa)
    Unsubstantiated Claims - If you have an opinion, provide some reasoning. If you have a prediction about the future actions of a third party, provide some reasoning.
    Mind Reading - If you want to directly refute a claim that someone makes that they are an authority on, have a good reason to call them a liar.
    U MAD - It honestly doesn't matter if someone is mad. Taking things seriously isn't inherently a bad thing (despite how funny it can be).
    Name calling - Really, are you 11?
    Disagreement = whining - This is a big offender, as it directly and literally discourages discussion, as opposed to most of the rest of these that discourage it more as a byproduct. Disagreeing is not inherently whining, or crying, or whatever. Plain and simple.
    Changing your mind = hypocrisy - Already wrote a full blog post on this one.
    Words in someone's mouth - It's one thing to paraphrase someone's words to get at their true meaning, but it's entirely another thing to add any sort of emotion or "flavour text" to it.
    This is not a comprehensive list; it's just what I came up with off the top of my head.
    The unfortunate fact is that most of these are incredibly effective for the amount of effort it requires to use them in an argument. This is why they are so prolific, and why I felt like writing a blog post about it. The side effect of them is that it lowers the common denominator when it comes to overall discussion, and arguments become more about winning than trying to have a productive debate or express an opinion. People are fighting the PR war in the dirtiest ways they possibly can, and it's a downward spiral; the only way to effectively deal with it is with more of the same.
    So I urge you, the reader, to take into consideration that when arguments like these are used, it is the intellectual equivalent of drowning a sack full of kittens. You can still have all of your terrible opinions without them, and you can still flap your jaws for pages over trivial !@#$%^&* that nobody cares about. But if enough people make a conscious decision not to stoop to these sorts of low-brow tactics, I assure you the potential for entertaining events will raise dramatically.
    Keep this in mind: Deciding to distance myself from world politics was not a tough decision.
  6. ktarthan
    Yes, I know that this war has been going on for quite some time and people can be forgetful. But I assure all of the alliances currently at war with GOONS that the war is still going!
    Now war is something that constantly happens to GOONS, so at times it can be difficult to differentiate actual warring from "noise" inherent in the system. To measure this we use The RUKUNU Factor. RUKUNU is a low-level rogue that has had three offensive wars on GOONS at every opportunity for more than an entire year. Using this as a baseline, we can determine that any AA with three or less offensive wars against GOONS to not be actively warring us.
    As such, I would like to provide a quick reminder to the following alliances, reminding them that we are, in fact, still at war:
    -CoJ (0)
    -Avalon (0)
    -Invicta (1)
    -Legion (1)
    -64Digits (2)
    -TLR (3)
    -ASU (3)
  7. ktarthan
    Yes I think you all know what I'm talking about here.
    Hypocrisy
    From Wikipedia:
    I see this word being slung around a lot whenever people do... anything. It seems like people feel this is some sort of "magic bullet" for arguments or slandering an action. The crucial point is that being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong by default. When we communicate in such a persistent medium, it seems far too tempting to scrounge for inconsistencies instead of developing a compelling argument.
    Pointing out hypocricy only proves that someone is a hypocrite. It does not by default render anything they said false, and it does not by default make their actions silly or wrong. If they're claiming to never deceive people then you might have a case, but in other situations you need to support your arguments. Many people miss this last step.
    Not to mention when you pull out the "H" card immediately, you are starting an attack instead of discussion, and you lose your chance to gain any real insight from the resulting conversation. All it takes is a simple "In the past you said this, why has your stance changed?"
    Someone changing their mind is not hypocricy. If a person has changed their mind and keeps no pretense of their previous opinion, this is not hypocricy. This ties in with the previous point. When you immediately attack any inconsistencies as hypocricy without allowing for an explanation you are losing your opportunity to find the truth of a situation.
    I do not write this because my associates are currently the target of a lot of this sort of thing. I write this because no matter where I see this word being tossed about carlessly I see a disregard for rational discussion. I see a segment of people who don't care about winning an argument because they are right, as they can be right because they won the argument.
×
×
  • Create New...