While I like the basic set, I have mixed feelings about the fallacies. I don’t know which 25 you’re using, but many of the so-called “logical fallacies”, while fallacious for deductive syllogisms, are nonetheless correct Bayesian inferences when working inductively in the real world.
I don’t see many syllogisms in LessWrong comments. We’ve moved past that. Being able to slap down good arguments for technicalities that don’t even apply in that context seems like a problem.
For example, on priors, you are better off trusting experts in their field than laymen. But this is called the “argument from authority fallacy”. The correct counter is Argument Screens Off Authority, which needs a more specific situation to work.
Another example, if I’m debating the existence of God with a theist, and point out that the Bible was written by ignorant goat herders who were deeply confused about reality, he might counter that I’ve committed “the genetic fallacy” and the provenance of his evidence has no logical bearing on the merits of his claim. And yet, for evidence to count, it must be entangled, by links of cause and effect to what it is evidence of.
But I also like the idea of quick feedback so we don’t need to re-hash points of broad agreement, both for newcomers and to hone our reasoning skills.
I’m not sure what to do about this. There may be certain LessWrong memes or concepts we could catalogue like this to serve a similar function—to point out obvious missteps.
While I like the basic set, I have mixed feelings about the fallacies. I don’t know which 25 you’re using, but many of the so-called “logical fallacies”, while fallacious for deductive syllogisms, are nonetheless correct Bayesian inferences when working inductively in the real world.
I don’t see many syllogisms in LessWrong comments. We’ve moved past that. Being able to slap down good arguments for technicalities that don’t even apply in that context seems like a problem.
For example, on priors, you are better off trusting experts in their field than laymen. But this is called the “argument from authority fallacy”. The correct counter is Argument Screens Off Authority, which needs a more specific situation to work.
Another example, if I’m debating the existence of God with a theist, and point out that the Bible was written by ignorant goat herders who were deeply confused about reality, he might counter that I’ve committed “the genetic fallacy” and the provenance of his evidence has no logical bearing on the merits of his claim. And yet, for evidence to count, it must be entangled, by links of cause and effect to what it is evidence of.
But I also like the idea of quick feedback so we don’t need to re-hash points of broad agreement, both for newcomers and to hone our reasoning skills.
I’m not sure what to do about this. There may be certain LessWrong memes or concepts we could catalogue like this to serve a similar function—to point out obvious missteps.
Good point!