What I means is that Fallacies have replaced discussion.*
You and I right now? We're discussing. Some people do not
discuss. They bully and mock like thugs, hauling logical
fallacies around like Evangalical Bible thumping thugs of the
19th century, but with Fallacy charts instead of Bible Quotes
and "Logic says" instead of "God says".
it's grown into a religious movement of its own. It doesn't mean
one has to be a part of it to be influenced by it. I'm
influenced by it too sometimes.
It gets in your head too. It has VERY PRECISE meanings of words
that aren't normal. Words don't carry singular definitions.
Words have a variety of meanings. But words are used as weapons;
tools for bringing down an enemy in a courtroom fashion.
it's all very strange. === That's a better use of it.
Still, there's more than just fallacy arguments in discussions
to be had.
For example, there's other points of view. I'll give an example.
I often appeal to etymology as a source of credibility.
Etymology is "where words come from" of course and an
etymological point of view can hold weight in arguments of that
nature.
Sometimes I will appeal to a sociological point of view, or I'll
utilize the kind of reasoning used frequently in post modern
style talk.
Such things don't fit the standard scheme found in many of these
discussion groups, which focus on a singular methodology for
determining credibility.*
It's useful, but sometimes you need a metaphor and if all you
have is a hammer, discussion stops cold. === The one place I
can find this style of logic to be quite useful would be in a
world where they ONLY thing we have to work with is:
a) the original argument
b) the game of Logic
But the world is far more involved than that. We have knowledge
that's outside of the original argument.*
In some scenarios like a Courtroom, there are necessary rules
that are similar to this.
But in people freely discussing topics of interest, sticking to
the logic hammer becomes unconvincing in itself, because it's
not human: It's an artificial system containing criteria that
some people like to use to determine credibility.
But it's a closed system that has a value only to a certain set
of subcultures within society.
From an outsider's point of view, they seem rather strange.
I can speak the language and understand it and use it... but
it's limited. === Still, it can be a useful bullshit detector.
There's other bullshit detectors too as well - some I use
against those who get heavy into logical arguments*tongue
emoticon ==
