Agree that this is a marginal improvement over just naming fallacies, or even (as I’ve sometimes done) naming and giving a link to the definition.
Proposed counterspell to Bulverism—“well, maybe Dr Robotnik is wrong about hedgehogs spreading tuberculosis, and if so, it’s plausible that his hated for one particular hedgehog is clouding his judgement. But you still haven’t actually convinced me that he’s wrong.”
To the fallacy fallacy—“you’re absolutely right that GPT-2′s argument for banning tofu is riddled with fallacies. But you seem to suggest that that means we shouldn’t ban tofu; I still think there are good arguments for doing so”.
Aside, I don’t think any of your “typical examples” (of murder, theft, racism) are actually typical in the sense of common. I would rather say “a prototypical example”, which seems more technically accurate and almost as legible.
Agree that this is a marginal improvement over just naming fallacies, or even (as I’ve sometimes done) naming and giving a link to the definition.
Proposed counterspell to Bulverism—“well, maybe Dr Robotnik is wrong about hedgehogs spreading tuberculosis, and if so, it’s plausible that his hated for one particular hedgehog is clouding his judgement. But you still haven’t actually convinced me that he’s wrong.”
To the fallacy fallacy—“you’re absolutely right that GPT-2′s argument for banning tofu is riddled with fallacies. But you seem to suggest that that means we shouldn’t ban tofu; I still think there are good arguments for doing so”.
Aside, I don’t think any of your “typical examples” (of murder, theft, racism) are actually typical in the sense of common. I would rather say “a prototypical example”, which seems more technically accurate and almost as legible.