Spot the Bad Argument

Raise your hand if you want a hint.

Post 21

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 11:55am

Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

EDIT: I see James already referred to argument from tradition and got shot down. Simple strawman I'd say applies too, and certainly works for the Oist factional battles as well.

(Edited by Aaron
on 4/15, 12:10pm)

Post 22

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 1:36pm

Nobody wants a hint?

(Sob...I feel so unappreciated...)

Post 23

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 2:37pm

Jezuz! What's the damn hint???

Post 24

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:17pm

Okay, here's the HINT (three of them, actually): Consider all the various threads which have gotten heated between Objectivists and run over a hundred posts, perhaps (on this list, on solop, noodlefood, and even going back some years.) And review in your memory a few of the really bad or over the top or intellectually disreputable posts in particular.

1. In the -majority- of the more angry or contemptuous posts, this logical error is committed.
2. This type of error is -central- to many of the bad posts or bad exchanges on those threads. In fact, it is repeated over and over by many posters on both sides of the foodfight exchanges in particular. And no one seems to slow down and get that they are committing it.
3. No, it is not incivility or name-calling or ad hominem. (It can't be, because those errors are not also committed in the China censorship quote cited originally).

--This is a hard and tricky (but enormously revealing) question--

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 4/15, 4:24pm)

Post 25

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:35pm

OK here's another guess--Is it assumptions?

Post 26

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:39pm

Argument From Intimidation. Implying that someone is somehow deficient or a bad person if they don't agree with or accept your argument.

Jim

Post 27

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:50pm

Hmmm, well, before OWL there was that other list, I can't remember the name of it, but there were _huge_ arguments over Russian Radical, some gal who wrote a book about sex, an old Hollywood director up for a lifetime Academy Award who refused to give up names of "Communists" during the UnAmerican Activities hearings, along with technical arguments. Those are the one's I distinctly remember.

On OWL, there was (and who can forget?) "The Beauty Controversy," "Animal Rights," and a bunch of very very technical stuff I didn't understand.

On SoloHQ it was the Branden stuff. On SoloP it's still the Branden stuff. On RoR it's technical stuff and the Altruism/Rights issues.

The one thing that stands out to me is that both sides accused the other of being overtly "dishonest," when that's not necessarily the case at all.

Does it have to do with making assumptions?

Post 28

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:14pm

It seems far too obvious to be right, but is it a simple case of misuse of pronouns and the usually gentle (But often vigorous) throwing round of strawmen? Just seems the only word really out of place in that sentence is the word "us"; So often misused which ends of creating almost an argument where it's Team X vs. Team Y, resulting in the collective rights fallacy, highlighted by Rand?

Goodness me, that post was all over the place. Phillip and his devilish brain will know if I'm right, grammar regardless!

As soon as you let out the answer into the open, I hope to be intellectually stunned at your brilliance.

;-)

Andy (Night all)

Post 29

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:23pm

Jim's answer sounds right to me. There sure is a lot of Argument from Intimidation that goes on!

Post 30

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 6:16pm

Jim and Teresa, how does Google CEO Schmidt's single sentence constitute an argument from intimidation? Refresh my memory if the definition of AFI is -not- the same thing as the logic text fallacy of ATA - Appeal to Authority - it's right because X says so, where X is God, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Phil Coates [...actually that last one is not too bad.]

> The one thing that stands out to me is that both sides accused the other of being overtly "dishonest,"

Remember the fallacy has to be made by both the Google CEO's statement and the foodfighters.

> Does it have to do with making assumptions?

That's a bit vague. What do you mean and what is the assumption? Isn't it sometimes okay to make assumptions which have some basis?

> As soon as you let out the answer into the open, I hope to be intellectually stunned at your brilliance. [Andrew]

Well, I don't know about that. Maybe instead you'll just be pissed off at me for stringing this out for so long :-)

Post 31

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 6:24pm

More than likely....

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 7:01pm

Jumping to conclusions not based on sound logic.

Post 33

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 7:13pm

Remember the fallacy has to be made by both the Google CEO's statement and the foodfighters.

Uuuuuuh....

"I think it's arrogant of us..."
"Campbell should be dismissed!" (paraphrasing)
"RR is a worthless book..." (paraphrasing)
"Mazza is a Randoid" (paraphrasing)
"Campbell is misrepresenting me" (paraphrasing)
"Enemy(ies) of Objectivism" (paraphrasing)

I got nuthin. Okay, I give up.

Post 34

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 9:04pm

Emotions are not tools of cognition. The fact that Schmidt thinks it's arrogant (emotional connotation: you're a jerk if you stand up for rights.) has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. Similarly, it makes no difference to the truth of an intellectual argument whether it is put forward with emotion or not. Similarly on many heated threads, people raise the level of passion and emotion when they want to win arguments. Having passion is important to being a successful advocate of ideas, but more passion should not substitute for more evidence or rational argument. Often when arguments are complex, more passion hinders understanding.

Jim

Post 35

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 9:38pm

Get your final guesses and wagers in. Answer tomorrow!

(Schmidt's error is not basically related to emotionality or passion.)

Post 36

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:20pm

The argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that Google is just beginning to do business in China that it can't set the terms on which it does business.

Jim

Post 37

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:42pm

Tell it to the king, Jim......

Post 38

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:54pm

One last try, but I don't know if there's a name for it or not:

Putting one'self or others into the argument, instead of isolating just the ideas.

That's all I got.

Post 39

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 11:09pm