It is difficult for me to ascertain when the person I am communicating is using a logical fallacy to trick me into believing him or doubting my judgement, even when I realise it hours after the argument.

I have seen countless arguments in Reddit threads and I couldn’t figure out who was in the right or wrong unless I looked at the upvote counts. Even if the person is uttering a blatant lie, they somehow make it sound in a way that is completely believable to me. If it weren’t for those people that could exactly point out the irrationality behind these arguments, my mind would have been lobotomised long ago.

I do want to learn these critical thinking skills but I don’t know where to begin from. I could have all these tips and strategies memorised in theory, but they would be essentially useless if I am not able to think properly or remember them at the heat of the moment.

There could be many situations I could be unprepared for, like when the other person brings up a fact or statistic to support their claim and I have no way to verify it at the moment, or when someone I know personally to be wise or well-informed bring up about such fallacies, perhaps about a topic they are not well-versed with or misinformed of by some other unreliable source, and I don’t know whether to believe them or myself.

Could someone help me in this? I find this skill of distinguishing fallacies from facts to be an extremely important thing to have in this age of misinformation and would really wish to learn it well if possible. Maybe I could take inspiration from how you came about learning these critical thinking skills by your own.

Edit: I do not blindly trust the upvote count in a comment thread to determine who is right or wrong. It just helps me inform that the original opinion is not inherently acceptable by everyone. It is up to me decide who is actually correct or not, which I can do at my leisure unlike in a live conversation with someone where I don’t get the time to think rationally about what the other person is saying.

  • nonstopshirtflutter@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Logical fallacies don’t necessarily disagree with facts. While the most common examples are simply unsupported statements that sound supported, very often we don’t have the luxury of working with clearly factual statements as a basis.

    All rhetoric is at the end of the day a fallacy, as the truth of the matter is independent on how it is argued. Yet we don’t consider all rhetoric invalid, because we can’t just chain factual statements in real debates. Leaps of logic are universally accepted, common knowledge is shared without any proof, and reasonable assumptions made left and right.

    In fact one persons valid rhetoric is another persons fallacy. If the common knowledge was infact not shared, or an assumption not accepted, the leap in logic is a fallacy.

    I would try to focus less on lists of fallacies or cognitive biases and more on natural logic. Learn how to make idealised proofs, and through that learn to identify what is constantly assumed in everyday discussions. The fallacies itself don’t matter, what matters is spotting leaps in logic and why it feels like a leap in logic to you.

    After all, very often authoritive figures do tell the truth, and both sides of the debate agree on general values without stating them. If someone starts questioning NASA or declares they actually want more people to live in poverty, they did infact spot very real logical fallacies in the debate, but at the same time those fallacies only exist from their point of view, and others might not care to argue without such unstated common ground.

    • buckybeaky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reddit’s obsession with logical fallacies is one of the things I was hoping we could get rid of moving here

      • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. OP should be working on critical thinking skills in general and not specifically focusing on logical fallacies.

        Logical fallacies and argumentation theory in general certainly have their place. But unless you’re taking part in a debate club or otherwise getting really really deep into these topics, they may do you more harm than good in thinking critically and having productive discussions.

        The reddit (and, previously, slashdot) obsession with logical fallacies has been almost entirely as a way to prevent critical thinking and end discussion rather than promoting either.

        • 🦘min0nim🦘@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The old Slashdot obsession of calling out logical fallacies lead to the hyper normalisation of climate change denial. We had a whole load of really smart people who were very quick to call out any appeal to authority (of, you know, actual climate scientists), but a bit too lazy to read the source material themselves.

          Fun times.

        • flamingarms@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Rather than not encouraging focusing and learning fallacies, maybe we are simply saying that they need to also learn to use them appropriately? Fallacies are not just the informal ones that everyone is referencing here in this thread, but also the formal ones which are very much required for logical argument structure. So even in learning about fallacies, there will be opportunities to understand the difference between informal and formal, why they are different, and how that applies to discourse. Knowledge is power; it just needs to be balanced with understanding on how to use and I think a deep dive into fallacies could actually assist in that regard.

          • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dunno. For someone just starting to want to think critically during discussions of when reading things, asking them to get serious in the academic pursuit of logic and argument theory might not be the way. For one, it’s probably just asking for them to get stalled in the sort of dunning kruger zone of identifying fallacies and stopping there.

            Especially when such behavior is already endemic to the internet and many platforms have feedback loops designed to reward this behavior. Just dunk on 'em and move on - watch the upvotes and retweets roll in.

            I definitely don’t want discourage OP from learning anything, but I do want to be careful in what direction we point a beginner.

            I think maybe learning to find good sources of information and verify claims might be a better first step. That doesn’t give OP any shortcuts I’m discussions, which is good. Then they may begin to notice different patterns or forms of discussion and at that point they can start to classify them and learn about them if they see fit.

            • flamingarms@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Such good points; I’m convinced. To continue on your line of thinking, after learning some media literacy and starting to notice different patterns and forms of discussion, I wonder if learning Aristotelian syllogisms would be a good next step. So we still aren’t jumping right into fallacies per se, but we start to understand logic structure and what is formally valid/invalid. So now it’s got them thinking about how to structure and challenge their own beliefs and arguments. And while we are now potentially hitting formal fallacies, I think this would not give any immediate tools for dunking on anyone either because, in my experience, converting a real-time argument to a syllogism is very very difficult without a ton of experience and practice breaking arguments down into simpler ideas. What do you think?

              • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I like that. After being able to recognize and validate claims, being able to verify the validity (at least logically if not factually) of any conclusions drawn from those claims seems like a good next step.

    • HelixDab@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Truth” is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like–and this is an intentionally racist argument–53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact–what that fact means–that’s the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.