discussions and language

[zelazny]

Well, this title may give the wrong idea about this tread, what i really want to do here is show a few forms of false reasoning, false tactics during debates etc..
This way you can submit a few so i can learn those and become more aware of people using them and on the other hand it should help in finding flaws in thinking.

soo, without further ado, i'll give you my two most hated:

The analogy
I'll show this one with an example, someone tries to prove the existance of the creator so he comes up with something like "When you see something as complex as a clock, you know there has to be someone who made that"

Now you can't deny that sentence, but the whole meaning behind it (the universe being made by a god since it is so complex) has nothing to do with that whole analogy, first of all they make a comparation between a clock and the universe, second of all they give people who are unaware of this method the idea that their assumption (the god) is correct since the analogy was correct (god i hate it when people use it).
Sadly enough some times you need the analogy to make people understand a concept but as soon as someone starts to prove by coming up with analogies.. Sic em..


The circle logic
Mostly found with people who try to advert their religion without resorting to 'real' theology.
Circle logic would be something like ..
A is B... why? because B is A.
hmm, this is a bit too abstract, lets put it this way.
someone might say "You have to believe in god"
and as soon as you ask "why"
they would reply with a "because god is good"
look closely, they're supposed to prove a god to you but the only proof they give is that god exists because he is good.
so A exists because A = B.
Just like the baron von Munchausen, who claimed he was able to lift himself on his bootstraps. (i'll give good money if i can ever see someone do that)
but back ontopic if someone uses this, you can just retort that it's a circle logic and see if they can come up with more intelligent arguments than this one


------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[This message has been edited by zelazny (edited October 29, 2001).]

[zelazny]

so come on people, what foul tricks did you meet in discussion or what kind of tricks do you have up your sleeve (because i have to admit, feeling quite guilty that i used foul tactics (not the above) to finish a debate with someone who used rubbish as arguments (see above for types))


------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[Captain Janks]

We already know that there are no mountains on the other side of the moon. You guys and Gals check out my new Jerry Vale Fan Club sit here on hostboard when you get a chance. The board is in its infancy, but I expect to have all types of Vegas and Atlantic City Memorabilia type stuff on there. It takes time to build things. My next project is a tribute to Shecky Green. Later, All.

------------------

[doodoo]

The cliche I resent most: "Thus, your statement is no less an absolute itself" (as a reply to someone who claims that nothing is absolute).

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

[marturios]

Don't you just love the way zelazny used both analogy and circle logic to describe his hatred of analogy and circle logic?

------------------
Dare2
DV8

[zelazny]

well done maturios
indeed, as i said with the analogies,
sometimes it's hard to explain something without resorting to them but as soon as you start to use them as proof for something, there's something wrong.
well... still awaiting your tricks and crookeries

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[zelazny]

btw, the whole crux of this post isn't to show my personal motives towards these things, but more to get a big list and examples of these so that people can at least look at them a bit prepared.

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[zelazny]

ok, i don't know the name for this one, but it goes like this:
When someone states a certain argument that you cannot work around or cannot disarm some people revert to blemishing the person who made that argument so people won't listen to that argument anymore, a foul way of diverting attention since it does not answer the argument but just 'disproves' it by stating that the user of that argument is flawed instead of the argument itself.

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zelazny:
well done maturios
indeed, as i said with the analogies,
sometimes it's hard to explain something without resorting to them but as soon as you start to use them as proof for something, there's something wrong.
well... still awaiting your tricks and crookeries
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


(zaps zela), then redo your message statement!

Analogies are a good thing.



------------------
Alex

[Alex]

God is Good.

...Why?

Because the Bible says.....

what would you call that?

Perhaps that is circular reasoning.

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited November 01, 2001).]