Comments on: How to “Win” Arguments and Infuriate Opponents (with examples!) http://lbrandy.com/blog/2009/02/how-to-win-arguments-and-infuriate-opponents-with-examples/ { on programming and the internets, every monday } Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:14:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: louis http://lbrandy.com/blog/2009/02/how-to-win-arguments-and-infuriate-opponents-with-examples/comment-page-1/#comment-2516 louis Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://lbrandy.com/blog/?p=480#comment-2516 Yes, which is a good point. This is also why science never "proves" anything. It simply produces things which appear to be the best possible explanation. It also explains why things like Occam's razor are useful. There are innumerable theories that can all explain the data but most of them tend to include extraneous additions (non-falsifiable ones, usually) to standard theories. In truth, -all- logical fallacies are useful heuristics. The reason they are useful as heuristics is precisely what makes them pitfalls. Typically, the things that experts says, or things that majority of people believe, tend to be true. This is why these pitfalls prove so powerful. So if we are talking about the probability of truth, having experts on your side increases your odds, but it doesn't prove it categorically. This post is about understanding and abusing these common belief heuristics. Yes, which is a good point. This is also why science never “proves” anything. It simply produces things which appear to be the best possible explanation. It also explains why things like Occam’s razor are useful. There are innumerable theories that can all explain the data but most of them tend to include extraneous additions (non-falsifiable ones, usually) to standard theories.

In truth, -all- logical fallacies are useful heuristics. The reason they are useful as heuristics is precisely what makes them pitfalls. Typically, the things that experts says, or things that majority of people believe, tend to be true. This is why these pitfalls prove so powerful. So if we are talking about the probability of truth, having experts on your side increases your odds, but it doesn’t prove it categorically.

This post is about understanding and abusing these common belief heuristics.

]]> By: MrvnMouse http://lbrandy.com/blog/2009/02/how-to-win-arguments-and-infuriate-opponents-with-examples/comment-page-1/#comment-2507 MrvnMouse Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:18:23 +0000 http://lbrandy.com/blog/?p=480#comment-2507 Just as a weird though, isn't all science more or less based on "Affirming the Consequent" i.e. Theory L implies that if we do experiment B, then C will happen. L -> (B -> C) Therefore, if (B -> C) then L must be true. (For example, the Theory of Relativity.) The only real difference is that if we were to get something that implies not L, then it is accepted that L is false. Just a thought. Just as a weird though, isn’t all science more or less based on “Affirming the Consequent”

i.e.

Theory L implies that if we do experiment B, then C will happen.

L -> (B -> C)

Therefore, if (B -> C) then L must be true. (For example, the Theory of Relativity.)

The only real difference is that if we were to get something that implies not L, then it is accepted that L is false.

Just a thought.

]]> By: Daniel Tenner http://lbrandy.com/blog/2009/02/how-to-win-arguments-and-infuriate-opponents-with-examples/comment-page-1/#comment-2356 Daniel Tenner Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:38:35 +0000 http://lbrandy.com/blog/?p=480#comment-2356 The classic "Conversational Terrorism" article is a good one in that vein too: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html Daniel The classic “Conversational Terrorism” article is a good one in that vein too: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

Daniel

]]>