Dyssonance

This page isn’t actually rules for the behavior of others *here*, although I may, randomly, choose to enforce it on such. Especially such things as Godwin’s Law.

However, I am going to give it out as a set of rules, that I will occasionally update, to which I will put forth my best effort to adhere to.

And I am posting them so that those who may, say, have a personal dislike but happen to feel like reading me, or who may encounter me online, can reference them and call me out on violations of my own code of conduct.

By having them here, as well, it provides a nice, simple, easy place for them to be stored, and while the suspicious might feel that I will change them at whim, there’s pretty much nothing I can say that would change their minds anyway.

This code of conduct is not going to deal in post count or thread dominance issues.  I’m still going to dominate a thread if I enter into it with passion.  I’m still going to write long comments – because the stuff I say generally is not going to be easier said in less space (although it can often be edited a bit).

I avoid generalities as a general rule, preferring to be specific.  And that means considering a great deal of different things when I am writing my comments – I say things for a reason, and I say them a certain way for a reason.

1. I will ask more questions than I make assertions.
2. I will engage in active listening
3. I will not reply to digression – this being a reply which is a deliberate or unintentional attempt to change the subject or diver the argument.  I will repeat the question without noting the digression, as well.
4. There will be no violations of Godwin’s law on my blog or in my postings, regardless of length.
5. When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one’s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.
6. Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.
7. The formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
8. The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.
9. If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.
10. One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.
11. One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
12. One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion
13. One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.
14. An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.
15. If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.
16. If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
17. I will remain reactive in discussions, outside of my own blog, and I will not post to blogs where my position is contrary to the owner’s in order to foster more accord and gather information.
18. I will update this as I see further violations that I determine need to be corrected.

A fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in logical argumentation.

Among the most common:

Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptions

Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general rule

Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. Among related forms are:

purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),

popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum–appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),

fear (argumentum ad baculum),

conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam–appeal to authority)

to arouse pity for getting one’s conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)

proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q

Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q

Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.

Also called arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. The fallacy is to use a circular argument as a proof of truth.

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.

post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

When one politician says to another, “You don’t have the moral authority to say X”, this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. Arguably, the politician is not even attempting to make an argument against X, but is instead offering a moral rebuke against the interlocutor.

By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be rewritten in such a way that they fit a valid argument form. The challenge to the interlocutor is, of course, to discover the false premise, i.e. the premise that makes the argument unsound.

Portions from: “Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments” by T. Edward Damer (Amazon .co.uk/ .com )

Popularity: 2% [?]