Continuing the discussion from Merit/Demerit system for posts, as opposed to “liking”:
Can we filter out logical fallacies and give the community the ability to promote logically sound discourse?
Presented without comment. The New York Times Guidelines on Integrity:
I like the logical fallacy poster, myself:
A summary of that (awesome) poster:
A logical fallacy is often what has happened when someone is wrong about something. it’s a flaw in reasoning. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians, the media, and others to fool people. Don’t be fooled! This poster has been designed to help you identity and call out dodgy logic whenever it may raise it’s ugly, incoherent head.
Misrepresenting or exaggerating someones argument to make it easier to attack.
Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too therefore A should not happen.
Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument.
Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when claim is shown to be false.
Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.
Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.
Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument.
Making the argument that because something is “natural” it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, or ideal.
Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.
Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering them with criticism.
Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.
Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made that it is necessarily wrong.
Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.
Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.
Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth.
I agree that is an awesome poster and almost exactly what I had in mind. I think it would be easy to implement provided that discourse has an easy to use API. I don’t know Ruby but it can’t be too difficult to learn coming from a Python background.
Perhaps baking yourlogicalfallacyis.com into Discourse might be a little much (but would it really? I think its license would allow it: Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported — CC BY-NC 3.0), but that would just be grand to flag posts with the various icons which would then expand upon mouse-over to provide the explanation.
A little much? It’d be a lot much.
Wait, so you essentially want to be able to tag people’s posts with fallacies?
Also, each tag would have an accompanying justification for why it is valid criticism. Each justification could also be tagged with logical fallacies. … Wait I think I just committed “Slippery Slope”! Yikes.
I love this idea. Instead of following fb and g+ etc and have “Like” or “+1”, we could take the logical way as it pertains to discourse and have “Ad Hominem” etc
Yeesh, what’s wrong with addressing other people conversationally rather than some complex flagging system? Honestly I think all of these ideas are just adding a degree of separation from the entire point; human discussion.
This would be excellent for an extension. This wouldn’t apply to every community. Several of the communities that I frequent do not want any kind of rating system implemented because of popularity contests being from it.
I read most of this thread thinking you were talking about automatically marking fallacies, and wondering if that’s even possible. If it is possible, it would be a really awesome extension - but I might rather have it for my browser, so it could check everything I read.