How conspiracy threads are derailed:fallacies
40 2012-08-16 by gnostic_cat
The easiest way to hinder an honest discussion is through the use of fallacies. I reccommend that anyone researching "alternative information (information not coming from an 'official' source)" spend a few hours teaching themselves critical thinking, and learn the common fallacies. A great resource for this is http://www.triviumeducation.com/ or http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
"In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)." source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
There are a few common fallacies being used to derail honest discussion here (the link above contains the 42 most common, but there are many more). This is by no means a complete list feel free to add to it or correct me, these are just a few I see over and over again.
(A) "Appeal to Ridicule" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html 1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). 2. Therefore claim C is false.
(B) "Appeal to Authority" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html 1.Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2.Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3.Therefore, C is true. Example from a thread this week: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/y7bil/how_are_you_going_to_argue_with_harvard_finally/c5t22i8 Rokey76 makes the claim:"Why does everyone keep linking to an anti-flouride group to prove their points. This isn't a valid source!" The implication is that because the links provided are not coming from an "authority", they are invalid.
(C) "Hasty Generalization" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html 1.Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P. 2.Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. Example: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/xg10f/2nd_shooter_in_batman_massacre_ignored/c5m1z7a greenw40 makes the claim:"And according to this subreddit, the second shooter was going to do something else crazy last weekend." Implying that one or a few making a certain claim speak for an entire subreddit.
Another thing I've noticed is when an article/video is posted with eyewitness testimony that conlficts with the official story, there are people popping up out of the woodworks to state "ZOMG eyewitness testimony is the worst evidence!!!" Ok, making that statement is not evidence, it's an observation. I've looked into it, and yes eyewitnesses are wrong...alot. However , from what I've read on the subject, they are usually wrong about a description of a suspect, NOT THE NUMBER OF SUSPECTS.
The more people on this sub who know these "tricks", the healthier the discussion will be imo.
14 comments
14 [deleted] 2012-08-16
[deleted]
7 [deleted] 2012-08-16
I've seen Hanlons fallacy mentioned once or twice too. Occams razor has been a favorite derp of reddit for almost ever I think, along with 'Correlation does not imply causation' although many use (what I think is incorrect) 'Correlation does not mean causation'.
Yes the science bent of reddit makes some narrow minded too. Science is always right, businesses such as pharmaceuticals wouldn't misrepresent data ever (although it's proven that they have).
5 [deleted] 2012-08-16
I've never understood how the simplest explanation would automatically be the correct explanation.
2 tilfordkage 2012-08-16
It isn't, but to say that the simplest explanation isn't a possible explanation is just silly.
2 [deleted] 2012-08-16
It doesn't entail that at all. It simply encourages you to choose the explanation that relies on the least assumptions. E.g: compare "his hat is wet because it is raining" vs "his hat is wet because a dragon had to take a leak mid-flight". You'd 'use Occam's Razor' to cut out the second explanation, as a sort of cognitive rule of thumb. You do it all the time, every waking moment. It gets trickier as you go deeper into logic and proofs and such, but that's the gist of it.
1 [deleted] 2012-08-16
Most likely because the simplest explanation doesn't make it the correct one. Many people here also think that the more complex an explanation, the more accurate it will become, which isn't the truth either.
3 gnostic_cat 2012-08-16
I did a search for "occams razor fallacy", found this I guess it would be called an "appeal to simplicity".
2 joseph177 2012-08-16
I love your Occam's razor post, I'll have to link to it next time I see it come up.
2 highdra 2012-08-16
So right. I love when people just say those two words as if it were a complete thought. "I live in MA, and you're seeing contrails. It's condensation. We have Logan, Providence, and TF Green airports all surrounding us, there's a lot of planes in the sky. Occam's Razor."
5 [deleted] 2012-08-16
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ seems pretty slick.
3 jakenichols 2012-08-16
We all should be studying in something called the Trivium, which covers Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. With those three tools we can defeat any bullshit argument and refine our points so that they are impossible to counter. I try to refresh up on it daily for a few minutes each day to get basic principles to be a part of my thought processes. It covers logical fallacy as well.
3 [deleted] 2012-08-16
[deleted]
3 jakenichols 2012-08-16
Ah, i have a book called The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric although there are probably a lot of sites that cover the same exact info. I just looked into what the best book on the subject was so i could look into it away from the computer. Most of this stuff was learned in middle school/early high school, except they didn't cover the logic aspect which blows my mind because that is just as important.
2 gnostic_cat 2012-08-16
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
2 yahoo_bot 2012-08-16
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just advertising your website. Not that that's bad, just saying.
-3 danxmason 2012-08-16
Hasty generalization