This is a sometimes-useful heuristic that falls under the strategy of “communicating honestly and effectively”.
If everyone understands well enough what named fallacies actually are (what they describe) to see where they might apply, of course we can save time and continue what we were talking about. Not the case, most of the time, so—right.
It’s not just wasteful that other people will be persuaded by a fancy label: it’s also that it might sidetrack the discussion into what the label refers to. Is X art? Is Y really consciousness?
The question to ask (to yourself as well) when tempted to use a fallacy, “Does referencing this named fallacy resolve disgreement by revealing object-level mistakes?”
This is a sometimes-useful heuristic that falls under the strategy of “communicating honestly and effectively”.
If everyone understands well enough what named fallacies actually are (what they describe) to see where they might apply, of course we can save time and continue what we were talking about. Not the case, most of the time, so—right.
It’s not just wasteful that other people will be persuaded by a fancy label: it’s also that it might sidetrack the discussion into what the label refers to. Is X art? Is Y really consciousness?
The question to ask (to yourself as well) when tempted to use a fallacy, “Does referencing this named fallacy resolve disgreement by revealing object-level mistakes?”