Contribution to a better discussion culture on HA

I usually stay away from forum discussions for various reasons. One of the reasons is people tend to bring up non-factual arguments, get overly emotional, implying things that don't exist resp. they can't prove, make baseless statements, personal attacks, etc. Most of it is the result of logical fallacies. Some people aren't aware of it. Others are deliberately ignorant. Lately this situation has gotten out of hand and my impression is that this repeats itself every once in a while. Therefore this is my attempt for a better discussion culture on HA.

In this post I'll summarize common logical fallacies I noticed people make in forum discussions. There are academic summaries out there but most of them are uninspiring. I try my best to keep it down to earth. I hope by the end you'll notice logical fallacies earlier either in yourself or others, so you either won't fall prey when being manipulated, won't make statements that are harmful to others or yourself, or don't base your decisions on things that don't hold true. 

Argumentum ad hominem (ad hominem)
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Most people are aware of this term because it is often used on internet forums. But not everyone knows the meaning. Some people think it only means an "insult". While ad hominem could mean insult, the term is much broader.

For example:

- Dr. Evil said: "The grass is green".
- But Dr, Evil is bad, therefore this can't be right.

When discussing you should not discuss the person, his personality or his past, but the arguments he makes. Even if the person has a history of lying, twisting the truth, and do all sorts of those things, it doesn't necessarily mean all of what he says is wrong. You can mention this, but it doesn't make his arguments less valid.

For some this is a hard pill to swallow: Agreeing with someone on the arguments even though you don't like him/her. Try to differentiate between the person and the arguments he makes.

Another example:

You only say this because you are [some attribute, e.g. Asian, small, female, ugly, foreigner, rich, poor, jealous, etc.]

You only say this, because you want to get attention.

This is usually a dishonest attempt to discredit the validity of an argument with some random attributes of a person. Again, you can bring it up as a concern. But this alone doesn't disprove the validity of his/her arguments.

Then, there are indirect ad hominems:

He says something different than those high class, rich, elite, snobs. I trust him!

He doesn't belong to the mainstream. Therefore, he is uncorrupted.

This is populism mixed with ad hominem. Just because someone works in a certain field, just because someone is from the mainstream media, just because someone works for a state agency doesn't make him biased, wrong or what-not. Just because someone is from a country known for xyz doesn't make him xyz. Just because someone is from e.g. Vietnam, doesn't make him smart. Just because someone is from Russia, doesn't make him corrupt, just because someone is from Afghanistan, doesn't make him a terrorist, etc. Just because someone back talks to some authority or some higher power and plays the rebel, maverick or what-not, doesn't make him right or more trustworthy.

Another example is discrediting a person's opinion because he was wrong in the past:

You are wrong/not trustworthy because you said the opposite in the past

I don't believe you, because you changed your opinion

Changing one's opinion doesn't make his opinion any less valid. If he/she can explain why he/she changed his/her opinion, then this is no counter-argument. Science constantly corrects itself and therefore science is constantly improving itself and the results it produces.

Heads up: The background of a person is not unimportant though. For example, someone with a physics degree can probably make more accurate statements about physics than someone who hasn't studied anything at all. Some people can have ulterior motives. And it should make you skeptical. But the point is: it doesn't prove anything. And attacking him/her only based on his person doesn't move us closer to the truth or solve the problem. Instead it leads us astray and creates more conflicts.

Sometimes people even make the reverse: Claiming ad hominem when there was none (which is itself an ad hominem), e.g.:

You don't trust me because I don't have a degree/went to college

You don't like me because I'm [some attribute, e.g. Asian, Black, female, too young, too old, too ugly, etc.]

You are wrong because you got rejected and now hate me.

I have nothing against you but you obviously have something against me. Therefore, all of your arguments against me are wrong.

The only reason he doesn't agree with me is because he hates me.

This is often the case during a discussion when the argument is proven to be false, but the opposite party takes it personal or considers their failed attempt as a public humiliation. Instead of admitting it, admitting to others and his/herself, that person diverted the criticism back.

Another subtype of ad hominem are so-called "killer phrases/Thought-terminating cliché" because they are often based on prejudice:

Just wait and see. The white knights will now come to defend him/her

inb4 all [some group, e.g. guys, girls, Asians, Blacks, etc.] complain

This is usually an attempt to prematurely stop all uncomfortable discussions or discredits all potential discussion coming after a statement. In this case, you could, for example, try to ask for an explanation or their reasoning why the person thinks that way.

Argumentum ad populum (ad populum)
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wik...ntum_ad_populum

People usually hold the opinion of the majority, either by their peers or society at large to be true.
For example:

[x number of] [a set of groups, e.g. women, Asians, Blacks, etc.] have already made this statement. Therefore, it is true.

Most people in this forum says xyz, therefore xyz is true.

[Upvoting/thanking each other's posts... who got the most votes "wins" resp. appears to be the winner]

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.

Though it shows agreement among the group, it doesn't prove anything. Even a single person can be right against tens and thousands of experts, if he/she can back up his argument with facts and considers the facts accordingly and is able to draw a conclusive and resilient model from it.

Another version - mix of ad hominem and ad populum:

5 people of [some homogeneous group, e.g. Blacks, Asian, Whites, women, men, etc.] made this statement. You disagreed with all of them. Therefore, you are against [said group]

The inverse - something is unpopular, therefore it is wrong/flawed - is also an ad populum:

No one likes you, therefore you are wrong.

It's often difficult not to be carried away in a group of peers or standing alone when all your friends have a different opinion than you. But sometimes it is best to genuinely reflect on the situation and not be influenced by peer pressure. Keep in mind, an unpopular opinion can also be right.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (ad verecundiam)
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wik..._from_authority

This means appeal to an authority in order to make a point, for example by quoting them. 

The opinion of the beloved philosopher is xyz, therefore xyz is the right thing to do.

However, quoting someone - well-known/famous/smart/beloved or not - doesn't prove your point. Another person could quote someone else just as well-known/famous/smart/etc. that has the opposite opinion. There is a joke running around that you could quote Nietzsche for every topic because he has given his opinion to every topic - even the opposite

Other examples:

- Prof. Dr. Dr. Seuss said something stupid about topic xyz.
- This can't be true. He is an expert. He must be right

He studied math. Therefore, he has to be smart.

He has two degrees. Therefore, he has to know what he is talking about.

Academic titles and background support the credibility of a person but they in itself don't prove anything. Trusting a person just based on his academic laurels is a big mistake that you must avoid. The same applies to any other authority. Yes, the admin/mod team included.

No one alone knows the truth. Searching for it is a continuous and usually a joint quest. However there indicators that back up the credibility of a person - even though they don't prove it:

 
• the statement is made by a person who has studied at an acknowledged and well-known institution
 
• the statement is made by a person who worked a long period of time in that area
 
• the statement is made by a person and was peer reviewed by his colleagues resp. people working in that field and confirmed through repeated experiments
 
• the statement was made by an acknowledged source, e.g. encyclopedia, lexicon, etc.
 
• the statement is coming from a trusted institution, a university/college, research institution, government agency, etc,

The more points match, the more you can trust the validity of the statement.

There are other logical fallacies I noticed in forum discussions. If you are interested in them you can read them here:

simple.wikipedia.org...g_the_goalposts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
en.wikipedia.org/wik...imply_causation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
en.wikipedia.org/wik...ng_the_question
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I hope they will help you to detect false arguments and not become an easy prey of nasty people. But I also hope this helps in reflecting on one's own arguments. This doesn't mean we don't welcome lively discussions. On the contrary! But always keep the logical fallacies in mind and always try to put your point across in a nice and respectful way. 

If you see a big forum discussion where people accuse each other, make false statements, or imply things they can't prove, don't jump into it because you feel the need to correct them. Just stay away from it knowing that other reasonable people do the same. If you still think some moderation is needed in the forum, click the report button or call a mod (or multiple mods) directly. Getting actively involved in an argument only makes the situation worse for everyone involved.

Don't be like other people who see a big pile of dirt and instead of steering clear of it or calling the caretaker, i.e. us mods, they jump right in and then complain why they are getting dirty themselves. Don't be like them. You may not come off as cool if you don't play the hero. But I can assure you, you'll earn our highest respect.

Also keep in mind, even if you win an argument on the internet....

 
...it's usually not worth it.