Post by Grey on Sept 17, 2012 0:48:46 GMT -6
I have no idea where to put this, so it can stay here for a while. Long story short, I was reading in the methodology section the other week and found a helpful book. It had explanations of common errors that could occur during debates, what they were and how to avoid them.
Since this forum is based around discussions, I thought it could be useful to have these points here - albeit summarised and in my own words, with some Warriors-centric examples - for anyone that wants to read it. Hopefully it's easy enough to read...
I can't find where I put the book. When I do, I'll credit the source.
These errors are as follows:
Failing to recognise or acknowledge an incomplete argument, such as when a key factor is not mentioned. For example, “Redpaw is a large cat, so she should become an excellent fighter” may be neglecting the fact that Redpaw was also born with a deformity of her front leg which makes her weaker than her playmates and is also an easily intimidated cat.
Making unwarranted assumptions about circumstances. The given example is: “Joan is generous so she must be well-paid, since she needs a high salary to pay for the lifestyle she leads”. In truth, Joan is just a savvy investor and is not particularly well-paid at all.
Overgeneralising from small or biased samples. For example, we hear Bluepaw make a funny joke, so we may then assume that Bluepaw is a humourous and social cat. However, that is only one occurrence and is not conclusive evidence. It is important to recognise the difference between an isolated incident and a reliable, representative sample of observations. If Bluepaw tells these kinds of jokes frequently and is witnessed often in the company of others, it is more reasonable to assume that he is, in fact, quite the joker.
Failing to recognise ambiguity or vague statements. Essentially, this means that a word is used and that the word can have multiple meanings. These meanings may only vary slightly, or may vary greatly, or the word chosen may not be easy to define. Take 'clever', for instance. What does clever mean? More importantly, what does clever mean in the context of its use?
Using a general rule which is not applicable to the situation. The circumstances around individuals and events are thoroughly significant to the understanding of those events and individuals.
Making claims that do not, or will not, entertain the notion of being proven false or otherwise incorrect. For example, “Goldenpaw is untrustworthy”. There is no convincing me otherwise, because I can spin anything you say to try and refute my argument. You may argue that Goldenpaw does a lot of good deeds and helps others often, but I will say that they are done only in ill-will; you may say that Goldenpaw is friendly and approachable, but I will say that it is the perfect cover for treachery – Goldenpaw is an ordinary cat in every way, it seems, and I will argue that is how Goldenpaw is untrustworthy. This line of argument is not conducive to actually getting anywhere or saying anything of consequence, and so is best avoided in discussions.
Mistaking metaphors or idioms for literal statements. Accidentally misleading phrases are abounds, especially in the English language. When arguing a point, it is best to use objective behavioural terms instead of the more descriptive version we are more familiar with using.
Arguing in a circle – also called 'begging the question'. Basically, it means that the conclusion is justified by the evidence, but the evidence is the same as the conclusion itself. For example, “Blackpaw is not a loyal cat because he fell in love with a cat from another clan; no loyal cat falls in love with a cat from another clan”. Just because Blackpaw fell in love with a cat from another clan does not make Blackpaw disloyal; the assumption of disloyalty is just that – an assumption.
Habitually bracketing or collocating specific terms, such as ‘loyal friend’, ‘quiet housewife’ or ‘rowdy delinquent’. Just because two terms are colloquially paired does not mean that is the only possibility; some characteristics may frequently occur together but this does not imply that they do in every circumstance. This is in the same vein of social stereotyping. The best way to avoid this is to use low modality terms and conjunctions such as “but” or “although”. It is important to recognise the exceptions. For example, “Whitestar is a responsible leader but not very charismatic.”
Evading the issue. This is an important one, so listen up. If you are going to debate anything, it is a very good idea to avoid this. It is when you reply to an argument, point or evidence with something similar to, “Everyone is entitled to your opinion”. The book I am using for reference pretty much says that if you're going to use that as your defence, you need to get out of the pool and find a different hobby, because there is no room for evading the discussion in a discussion.
Appealing to authority or using threats or insults instead of logical reasoning or evidence. The example given here is to say, “The headmaster agrees that John is the culprit” is not a reasonable basis for an argument, as it is only hearsay evidence.
Criticising the proponent of the argument instead of the actual argument or condemning the argument itself. This is not rational or sensible, according to this book. However, it does acknowledge that this is a particularly tempting option at times. “To say, 'You are silly to say that' is not a logical refutation of the argument even though it might be true”.
Appealing to majority opinion. This is using statements such as “Everybody knows that...”, when it is not scientific to assume general knowledge or consensus.
Accepting a conclusion because it has not been proven wrong. If you believe I am a bit of a fool and I am unable to prove you wrong, my failure to convince you may lead you to believe I have confirmed your conclusion. In truth, however, it does no such thing – all it confirms is that I am unable to make a plausible case. As the book says, “One's feelings of confidence in one's views should not be allowed to obstruct critical evaluation of them.”
Believing that the exception proves the rule. If the 'rule' is that all warriors are loyal and I claim to know for a fact of one warrior who is not, it could be argued that this 'proves' the rule (as one warrior, compared to the assumed majority, is not loyal). This is a fallacy, as 'prove' actually means 'to test', not 'to show proof'. In short, one non-loyal warrior tests (and subsequently falsifies) the belief that all warriors are loyal.
Appealing to values, such as social desirability or justice. This includes, but is not limited to, the phrases of “that's not nice” or “that's not fair”. True as that may be, but it does not belong in a logical argument. (The exception, of course, being debates of justice, et cetera).
Manipulation of people's emotions to sway a discussion. It's a super effective form of persuasion but it's not a logical way to conduct a rational argument. For example, “Tawnypaw is a murderer, so kill her before she kills all of us” is appealing to the emotions of others, and not asserting any kind of logical argument. If anything, it obscures logic.
Mistaking congruity for causality. If an event follows another event, the inclination is to believe the two are connected and possibly that the earlier event acted as a cause or catalyst for the secondary event. This is not always untrue, but must be viewed in context. For example, “Gingerpaw was found with a stolen kit” does not mean that Gingerpaw is the one that stole the kit in the first place.
Since this forum is based around discussions, I thought it could be useful to have these points here - albeit summarised and in my own words, with some Warriors-centric examples - for anyone that wants to read it. Hopefully it's easy enough to read...
I can't find where I put the book. When I do, I'll credit the source.
These errors are as follows:
Failing to recognise or acknowledge an incomplete argument, such as when a key factor is not mentioned. For example, “Redpaw is a large cat, so she should become an excellent fighter” may be neglecting the fact that Redpaw was also born with a deformity of her front leg which makes her weaker than her playmates and is also an easily intimidated cat.
Making unwarranted assumptions about circumstances. The given example is: “Joan is generous so she must be well-paid, since she needs a high salary to pay for the lifestyle she leads”. In truth, Joan is just a savvy investor and is not particularly well-paid at all.
Overgeneralising from small or biased samples. For example, we hear Bluepaw make a funny joke, so we may then assume that Bluepaw is a humourous and social cat. However, that is only one occurrence and is not conclusive evidence. It is important to recognise the difference between an isolated incident and a reliable, representative sample of observations. If Bluepaw tells these kinds of jokes frequently and is witnessed often in the company of others, it is more reasonable to assume that he is, in fact, quite the joker.
Failing to recognise ambiguity or vague statements. Essentially, this means that a word is used and that the word can have multiple meanings. These meanings may only vary slightly, or may vary greatly, or the word chosen may not be easy to define. Take 'clever', for instance. What does clever mean? More importantly, what does clever mean in the context of its use?
Using a general rule which is not applicable to the situation. The circumstances around individuals and events are thoroughly significant to the understanding of those events and individuals.
Making claims that do not, or will not, entertain the notion of being proven false or otherwise incorrect. For example, “Goldenpaw is untrustworthy”. There is no convincing me otherwise, because I can spin anything you say to try and refute my argument. You may argue that Goldenpaw does a lot of good deeds and helps others often, but I will say that they are done only in ill-will; you may say that Goldenpaw is friendly and approachable, but I will say that it is the perfect cover for treachery – Goldenpaw is an ordinary cat in every way, it seems, and I will argue that is how Goldenpaw is untrustworthy. This line of argument is not conducive to actually getting anywhere or saying anything of consequence, and so is best avoided in discussions.
Mistaking metaphors or idioms for literal statements. Accidentally misleading phrases are abounds, especially in the English language. When arguing a point, it is best to use objective behavioural terms instead of the more descriptive version we are more familiar with using.
Arguing in a circle – also called 'begging the question'. Basically, it means that the conclusion is justified by the evidence, but the evidence is the same as the conclusion itself. For example, “Blackpaw is not a loyal cat because he fell in love with a cat from another clan; no loyal cat falls in love with a cat from another clan”. Just because Blackpaw fell in love with a cat from another clan does not make Blackpaw disloyal; the assumption of disloyalty is just that – an assumption.
Habitually bracketing or collocating specific terms, such as ‘loyal friend’, ‘quiet housewife’ or ‘rowdy delinquent’. Just because two terms are colloquially paired does not mean that is the only possibility; some characteristics may frequently occur together but this does not imply that they do in every circumstance. This is in the same vein of social stereotyping. The best way to avoid this is to use low modality terms and conjunctions such as “but” or “although”. It is important to recognise the exceptions. For example, “Whitestar is a responsible leader but not very charismatic.”
Evading the issue. This is an important one, so listen up. If you are going to debate anything, it is a very good idea to avoid this. It is when you reply to an argument, point or evidence with something similar to, “Everyone is entitled to your opinion”. The book I am using for reference pretty much says that if you're going to use that as your defence, you need to get out of the pool and find a different hobby, because there is no room for evading the discussion in a discussion.
Appealing to authority or using threats or insults instead of logical reasoning or evidence. The example given here is to say, “The headmaster agrees that John is the culprit” is not a reasonable basis for an argument, as it is only hearsay evidence.
Criticising the proponent of the argument instead of the actual argument or condemning the argument itself. This is not rational or sensible, according to this book. However, it does acknowledge that this is a particularly tempting option at times. “To say, 'You are silly to say that' is not a logical refutation of the argument even though it might be true”.
Appealing to majority opinion. This is using statements such as “Everybody knows that...”, when it is not scientific to assume general knowledge or consensus.
Accepting a conclusion because it has not been proven wrong. If you believe I am a bit of a fool and I am unable to prove you wrong, my failure to convince you may lead you to believe I have confirmed your conclusion. In truth, however, it does no such thing – all it confirms is that I am unable to make a plausible case. As the book says, “One's feelings of confidence in one's views should not be allowed to obstruct critical evaluation of them.”
Believing that the exception proves the rule. If the 'rule' is that all warriors are loyal and I claim to know for a fact of one warrior who is not, it could be argued that this 'proves' the rule (as one warrior, compared to the assumed majority, is not loyal). This is a fallacy, as 'prove' actually means 'to test', not 'to show proof'. In short, one non-loyal warrior tests (and subsequently falsifies) the belief that all warriors are loyal.
Appealing to values, such as social desirability or justice. This includes, but is not limited to, the phrases of “that's not nice” or “that's not fair”. True as that may be, but it does not belong in a logical argument. (The exception, of course, being debates of justice, et cetera).
Manipulation of people's emotions to sway a discussion. It's a super effective form of persuasion but it's not a logical way to conduct a rational argument. For example, “Tawnypaw is a murderer, so kill her before she kills all of us” is appealing to the emotions of others, and not asserting any kind of logical argument. If anything, it obscures logic.
Mistaking congruity for causality. If an event follows another event, the inclination is to believe the two are connected and possibly that the earlier event acted as a cause or catalyst for the secondary event. This is not always untrue, but must be viewed in context. For example, “Gingerpaw was found with a stolen kit” does not mean that Gingerpaw is the one that stole the kit in the first place.
