undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTangaroa12y ago0 comments

Reread it yourself. He does in fact uphold forcefulness ("confidence", "command", "outmaneuver", not "feeble") and rhetoric ("inner strength", "emotion") as superior to logical thought ("predictable", "rigid"). It's like he just discovered that street-level debates don't follow Oxford rules, that some people cannot be persuaded by logic, and that other people can be persuaded by illogical means, so he denounces the use of logic and stands by the illogical means as the path to deducing correctness. He views rhetoric as persuasiveness as correctness. His examples all reinforce this analysis.

And let's consider that "inner strength". It is not the actual strength of the argument since that is what the logic-users would see and support. If the argument had outer strength, the baloney detectors would not have called it out in the first place. This "inner strength" is a feeling he gets from the argument. It is an emotional uplift. It is irrelevant to the actual strength of the argument.

When the baloney detectors are correct, they very well ought to be assertive, stubborn, and convinced of their own correctness. Why should they accept their opponent's views as fact after they have proved it insufficiently justified or logically false?

And yes, conversations can be multifaceted. I'm sorry to have to inform you that serious logical flaws and mistakes of fact in one facet of a multifaceted conversation do in fact invalidate that one facet of the conversation.

And please refrain from the insults, although it was nice to learn that I am both young and old at the same time, and also a racist.

0 comments

coldtea12y ago

>And let's consider that "inner strength". It is not the actual strength of the argument since that is what the logic-users would see and support.

A circular argument, if I ever met one. No, it's the actual strength of the argument, since, what the logic-users would "see and support" (the mere logical consistency of the argument) is far from the essence of human argumentation. Except if you argue with Aristotle or Medieval Philosophers.

>And yes, conversations can be multifaceted. I'm sorry to have to inform you that serious logical flaws and mistakes of fact in one facet of a multifaceted conversation do in fact invalidate that one facet of the conversation.

For one, you misunderstood me. Badly.

I said that real world arguments are multifaceted, and thus, spotting a "serious logical flaw" in one, doesn't mean the whole argument is invalidated. And you reply to me that ...it would invalidate just that facet? Well, you don't say!

This repeating of what I told as if it was some novel information tells me you are incapable of evaluating even my simple arguments in context.

>And please refrain from the insults, although it was nice to learn that I am both young and old at the same time, and also a racist.

Where you gathered that from my reply, I can't even fathom. If my guess is right, you think "naive" also implies "young", and "prejudiced" implies racism. I don't know about "baloney detection", but my extreme reading comprehension issues detector started beeping wildly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse