I have always loved debating, ever since I was small. When I was 13, I participated in a publicly moderated debate with an adult on the ethics of abortion. I have always had very logical intuitions, and can smell a bad argument a mile away. Often I just know that an argument is unsound, even if it takes me a moment of reflection to figure out what the problem is.
As such, it has always made me frustrated when people commit very basic fallacies (or even more subtle ones), as it means I have to take time to explain things that are instantly obvious to me by intuition. Many of these fallacies are named, and are relatively well-known, like the No True Scotsman fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation, or begging the question.
Does anyone else who is philosophically inclined get frustrated when they encounter logical fallacies that seem obvious to everyone except you? Do you resent having to explain them? What fallacies do you encounter? I can perhaps make a list of them.
One I encounter often is people misunderstanding a reductio ad absurdum. Roughly, a reductio is where you concede hypothetically something that your opponent is arguing for, and then show them how it leads to logical absurdity. But what many people do is mistakenly think that I actually believe the premise that I am conceding only hypothetically. Has anyone else experienced this?
P.S. if I come across as intellectually arrogant, it's probably because I am.
List of fallacies:
Myzozoa: Category error + straw man
gvmgvm40: Nirvana fallacy
Josh: ad populum
Soul Fly: tu quoque
Captain Clefairy: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Damn son, that's a lotta Latin !
As such, it has always made me frustrated when people commit very basic fallacies (or even more subtle ones), as it means I have to take time to explain things that are instantly obvious to me by intuition. Many of these fallacies are named, and are relatively well-known, like the No True Scotsman fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation, or begging the question.
Does anyone else who is philosophically inclined get frustrated when they encounter logical fallacies that seem obvious to everyone except you? Do you resent having to explain them? What fallacies do you encounter? I can perhaps make a list of them.
One I encounter often is people misunderstanding a reductio ad absurdum. Roughly, a reductio is where you concede hypothetically something that your opponent is arguing for, and then show them how it leads to logical absurdity. But what many people do is mistakenly think that I actually believe the premise that I am conceding only hypothetically. Has anyone else experienced this?
P.S. if I come across as intellectually arrogant, it's probably because I am.
List of fallacies:
Myzozoa: Category error + straw man
gvmgvm40: Nirvana fallacy
Josh: ad populum
Soul Fly: tu quoque
Captain Clefairy: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Damn son, that's a lotta Latin !
Last edited: