paritybit.ca

Discourse

This page is a work in progress. Please bear with me.

We should disagree in such a way that the outcome of having the disagreement is better than not having it at all.

– Bo Seo, Good Arguments

Debates and discussions are how humans arrive at a consensus over complicated issues. Very few people, however, are good at having them. I hope that by reading this page you’ll learn how to better argue and have good, productive conversations, or at the very least learn how to better deal with those who aren’t interested in that.

Good debate relies on good faith. It requires that all parties treat their opponent with the respect and understanding that they would want themselves.

Arguing Well

The first goal in any discussion should be to determine the subject of the argument. What is each person actually arguing? Without knowing this, participants are doomed to be talking past each other because they’re effectively having different discussions.

However, not every subject is appropriate

Strategies, Ranked

In order of the best kind of arguing to the worst.

  1. High-level generators — Disagreements that remain when everyone understands exactly what’s being argued, and agrees on what all the evidence says, but have vague and hard-to-define reasons for disagreeing.
  2. Operationalizing — Where both parties understand they’re in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they’re arguing about.
  3. Survey of evidence — Not trying to devastate the other person with a mountain of facts and start looking at the studies and arguments on both sides and figuring out what kind of complex picture they paint.
  4. Disputing definitions — Argument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.
  5. Single Studies — Better than scattered facts, proving they at least looked into the issue formally.
  6. Demands for rigor — Attempts to demand that an opposing argument be held to such strict standards that nothing could possibly clear the bar.
  7. Single Facts — One fact, which admittedly does support their argument, but presented as if it solves the debate in and of itself.
  8. Gotchas — Short claims that purport to be devastating proof that one side can’t possibly be right.
  9. Social shaming — A demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of whom deserve to be heard.

Source

It’s possible to salvage a discussion, or turn a bad discussion into a good one with careful wording and a level of trust and good faith on both sides, but there is no recovering from level 9. If someone attempts to shame you socially, harass you, get others to dogpile you, and so on, it’s best to get away from them. There is no recourse.

Fallacies

Fallacies are arguments that are fundamentally flawed in one way or another. They are often frustrating to deal with and can de-rail a conversation past the point of return.

There are two kinds of fallacies: formal and informal. Loosly, formal fallacies are patterns of reasoning based on unsound logic, whereas informal fallacies are patterns of reasoning based on sound logic, but which are incorrect due to their content or context.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies are arguments which are false entirely based on their form. Regardless of the content of the actual argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All formal fallacies are types of non-sequitur—patterns of reasoning that are invalid due to a flaw in their logical structure. An easy way to recognize a formal fallacy is if you can remove the content of the argument and distill it down to simple symbols. For example:

If I am rained on then I will become wet. I am wet. Therefore, I was rained on.

Becomes:

A implies B B is true. Therefore, A is true.

It is easy to see in this form how the argument is objectively invalid. Just because I am wet does not mean I was necessarily rained on.

Also, note that not every formal fallacy has a fancy name. Any kind of conclusion reached by flawed logic is a formal fallacy, and can be called a non-sequitur.

Affirming a Disjunct A is true or B is true. If A is true, then B cannot be true.
  1. Posts that go viral on social media are either very witty or are posted by someone who has a lot of followers.
  2. This viral post is very witty.
  3. Therefore, the person who posted it must not have a lot of followers.
Affirming the Consequent A implies B. B is true, therefore A must be true.
  1. If I am rained on then I will be wet.
  2. I am wet.
  3. Therefore, I was rained on.
Denying the Antecedent. A implies B. A is false, therefore B must be false.
  1. If I am rained on then I will be wet.
  2. I was not rained on.
  3. Therefore, I cannot be wet.
Epistemic Fallacy. A conclusion that may or may not be true in reality, but which is assumed to be true based on the speaker's lack of knowledge.
  1. Lois Lane thinks Superman can fly.
  2. Lois Lane thinks Clark Kent cannot fly.
  4. Therefore, Superman and Clark Kent are not the same person.
Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises When something is assumed to be true based on two negative premises.
  1. No fish are dogs.
  2. No dogs can fly.
  3. Therefore, all fish can fly.
Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises When the premises are all affirmative, it is impossible to reach a negative conclusion.
  1. All colonels are officers.
  2. All officers are soldiers.
  3. Therefore, some soldiers are not colonels.
(While the conclusion is technically true, it does not follow from the premises.)
Exclusive Premises Similar to the above, but the two negative premises are exclusive.
  1. No planets are dogs.
  2. Some dogs are not pets.
  3. Therefore, some pets are not planets.
Fallacy of Four Terms When additional term(s) or meanings are introduced into the argument that were not mentioned or intended by the premises.
  1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
  2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
  3. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
Existential Fallacy Just because a statement is true, does not prove that there exists something that fits that true statement.
  1. All trespassers will be prosecuted.
  2. Therefore, some of those prosecuted will have trespassed.
(The first statement is fallacious, it does not require the existence of any actual trespassers and therefore does not prove that any trespassers exist.)
Illicit Major All A are B. No C are A. Therefore, no C are B.
  1. All dogs are mammals.
  2. No cats are dogs.
  3. Therefore, no cats are mammals.
Illicit Minor All A is B. All C is B. Therefore, all C are A.
  1. All cats are felines.
  2. All cats are mammals.
  3. Therefore, all mammals are felines.
Undistributed Middle All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all C are B.
  1. All students carry backpacks.
  2. My brother carries a backpack.
  3. Therefore, my brother is a student.
Appeal to Probability Taking something for granted because it will or might possibly be the case.
  1. There is a chance P can have outcome X.
  2. Therefore, P will have outcome X.
Argument from Fallacy Arguing that an entire argument is false, simply because it contains a fallacy.
  1. If P, then Q.
  2. P is a fallacious argument.
  3. Therefore, Q is false.
Conjunction Fallacy Assuming that an outcome satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying only a single one. [Example]

This is a non-exhaustive list (though I am exhausted after making it).

Common Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies are arguments which can be false based on their content. These fallacies are trickier to deal with, because they are typically logically sound and can have merit. One of the most common types is the “Slippery Slope” fallacy which can be an unreasonable argument in some circumstances, and the total opposite in others depending on the context of the argument.

These kinds of fallacies are also frequently used to derail conversations, since it’s hard to counter someone who is not making any formal logical errors, yet believes their stance based on faulty reasoning.

Argument from Anecdote Making an argument based solely off of personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. "In my experience, Toshiba hard drives fail far more often than Western Digital ones, I've had 5 of them fail in the last year!"
Slippery Slope The assertion that a relatively small step leads to a chain of related events resulting in a significant effect. "They want to legalize gay marriage. What's next, letting you marry your dog!?"
False Dichotomy/Dilemma/Binary A conclusion is drawn from premises which do not represent the full scope of available options. "If the city were to stop salting the roads during winter, then the roads would be too slippery to use!".
Argument to Moderation Assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.
  1. Person 1: "The sky is blue."
  2. Person 2: "The sky is yellow."
  3. Person 3: "The sky must be green."
Continuum Fallacy/Sorites Paradox Erroneously rejecting a vague claim for the sole reason that it is not as precise as one would like it to be.
  1. Person 1: "How many grains of sand make a heap of sand?"
  2. Person 2: "1,000,000."
  3. Person 1: "If I remove one grain of sand, is it no longer a heap?"
  4. Person 2: "It is no longer a heap."
Suppressed Correlative A type of argument that tries to redefine one of two mutually exclusive things so that one option encompasses the other, making one impossible.
  1. Person 1: "Things are either mysterious or not mysterious. Exactly when an earthquake will strike is still a mystery but how blood circulates in the body is not."
  2. Person 2: "Everything is mysterious. There are still things to be learned about how blood circulates."
Denying the Correlative Attempting to introduce an alternative where none can logically exist.
  1. Judge: "Did you kill him or not?"
  2. Person: "I fought him."
Definist Fallacy/Using Loaded Terms Defining a term in a biased manner, expecting that the listener will accept the provided definition. "Evolution is just faith in something that is nothing more than a theory that is impossible to prove with absolute certainty."
Equivocation Using a term with more than one meaning without specifying which meaning is intended.
Begging the Question Arguing based on premises that assume that the conclusion is true. "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality."
False Attribution Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source to support an argument. [Example]
Appeal to Authority Asserting that a claim must be true because either some or all authorities on the matter say it is true. "Vaccines cause autism because this Doctor published a study that says so!"
False Equivalence Asserting that two or more statements are equal when they are not. "An ocean oil spill is no more harmful to the environment than when you drip some oil on the ground when changing your car's oil."
Kettle Logic Using multiple arguments to defend a point, but those arguments are inconsistent with each other.
  1. "I returned the kettle undamaged."
  2. "The kettle was already damaged when I borrowed it."
  3. "I never borrowed the kettle."
Moving the Goalposts Evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other, usually greater evidence is demanded.
  1. Person 1: "You are not as good at me at football."
  2. Person 2: *demonstrates superior skill at handling the football."
  3. Person 1: "No, I meant that you're not as good because you don't score as many goals."
Ad Hominem Attacking the arguer instead of the argument. This includes Poisoning the well: spreading adverse information about a person to discredit everything they say; Tone policing: focusing on the emotion behind or resulting from a message rather than the message itself; Appeal to motive: dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of the arguer; etc. "You're just inexperienced, you don't know what you're talking about."
Appealing to Emotion Manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement. "This paper isn't plagiarized. If I get a failing grade on this paper then I'll lose my scholarship!"
Association Fallacy Arguing that just becasue there is some relation or property shared by two things that they are the same. "You hang out with a bunch of Marxists, so you must believe the same things they do."
Appeal to the Masses An argument made on the basis that it must be true because many people believe it. The inverse argument is also a fallacy. "There's no way the Flat Earth theory can be false, if it were then the Flat Earth Society wouldn't have so many members!"
Straw Man Misrepresenting an opponent's argument by refuting a weaker version of their argument or changing the scope of their premise(s).
  1. Person 1: "Taking a shower is beneficial."
  2. Person 2: "But hot water may damage your skin."
Tu quoque/Whataboutism Stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act in accordance with it.
  1. Person 1: "You should stop buying from that company, they use child labour."
  2. Person 2: "Sure this company uses child labour, but so does basically every other company so there's no point in trying to avoid it."

This is a non-exhaustive list (though I am even more exhausted after making this one).

Responding to Fallacies

It’s best to not respond to someone arguing fallaciously with “That’s such and such fallacy, therefore your argument is null and void!” That is not a productive way to debate (and is also a logical fallacy in and of itself).

Assuming you’re arguing with someone who is also arguing in good faith, it’s usually sufficient to state that you think their argument is fallacious and explain why. It’s very easy to make fallacious arguments in the heat of a debate, or when it’s hard to explain how one truly feels. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to think through their own reasoning and clarify what they mean, refute the accusation that their argument is really fallacious (e.g. if it’s an informal fallacy that makes sense given the context), come to the conclusion that their argument is invalid, or explain how they feel and that it’s hard to express clearly.

Further Reading

The Wikipedia pages on these fallacies are quite good and provide a much more extensive list of fallacies (especially informal ones): List of fallacies. Many examples and explanations on this page were taken from that source.

An Uncoöperative Opponent

Lots of people want to be heard, very few genuinely want to listen and have productive conversations. Many people will use underhanded tactics to try to get under your skin, to misrepresent what you believe, or to be just plain annoying. Whether intentional or not, these people are trolls: those who seek to de-rail a discussion to their advantage.

Common troll tactics include:

Apologies

Sometimes arguments go bad for “silly” reasons. It’s hard to have debates about emotionally charged topics, when any party is not feeling well, .