This is based on my post on page 57 of some obscure thread and I am reposting it here as it was suggested in hope that someone will find it useful.
The level of discussion in this forum is appalling. It seems most people are either unable or unwilling to hold a civil and reasonable discussion. Let me give you some details and examples. Some of those are based on recent massive pirate related trolling campaign which I will use in my examples. Please note that even while my examples may refer mostly to the pirate affair (a popular topic at this time) the same low quality of argument is endemic. Perhaps we are indeed entering "
eternal september" state.
Brief background is that user pirateat40 made an extraordinary claim that he has some kind of biz model that is producing >3400% APR
AND that it is reasonable for him to buy capital at ~3400 APR%
AND that his biz model is not a ponzi. Moreover he has taken deposits/money in rather significant amounts based on that claim directly and via intermediaries/partners/employees/etc.
The pirateat40's opponents have called this BS and reasonably asserted that pirate is running a ponzi scheme based on logical reasoning and common sense.
Pirate and his shills, supporters, lieutenants and captives went on offensive employing every logical fallacy in the book (many of them anyway).
Let's just list some of fallacies that have been routinely used and/or likely will be used shortly by team "pirate, the miracle worker" (and by other community members on other topics too, of course):
Ad hoc:
"pirate paid 1 account, hence he will pay all accounts", "pirate paid N weeks on time, hence he will continue paying on time" etc...
Anecdotal evidence:
"we had a dinner with pirate, therefore he is not anonymous"
Argumentum ad baculum:
"you say something against pirate, you get paid last"
Argumentum ad crumenam:
"pirate has NNNNNN BTC, therefore he is right", "I bet NNNNNNN BTC, therefore I am right (or ballsy), you did not bet therefore you shut up"
Argumentum ad hominem:
attacking opponents personally and on various unrelated matters, like their own businesses, bets they have or not have placed etc...
Argumentum ad ignorantiam:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.
Argumentum ad misericordiam:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.", "I lost so much money on ponzi and stupid bets, I am suffering enough, do not tell me that I am guilty of promoting and conspiring in a ponzi scheme and a scammer"
Argumentum ad nauseam:
ohh yea repeat utter BS until any reasonable person tells you "nuff off, no point to talking to you", nauseating it is indeed.
Argumentum ad numerum:
"so many people invested in that, they cannot be all wrong"
Argumentum ad verecundiam:
(Appeal to authority, false authority in this case): "Pirates's lieutenants and shills say they know him, and he has a magical biz model and it is not a ponzi, it must be so then"
Bifurcation:
"if pirate pays all accounts now, he is not running a ponzi" (That is an interesting one, think about it)
Fallacy of presupposition:
demanding an explanation of something that is not true or has not been established
Ignoratio elenchi:
illogically concluding that some set of usually fallacious arguments support the desired conclusion
Non causa pro causa:
"pirate has defaulted because his opponents were posting that he is running a ponzi"
Non sequitur:
"pirate pays 7%, therefore he has some miracle biz model making lots of money and it is totally possible"
Petitio principii:
"pirate is not running a ponzi, because he pays dividends, and must have some underlying biz model, and therefore he is not running a ponzi"
Plurium interrogationum:
demanding a simple answer to a complex question.
Red herring:
"some copies of bitcoin magazine were delivered late, therefore pirate is not running a ponzi"
Shifting the burden of proof (again):
"pirate has claimed that he is not running a ponzi and that he needs to buy capital at 3000% APR and that he has some underlying biz model other than paying capital back as dividend and asked and received lots of money, now you need to prove that he is not running a ponzi."
Straw man:
(happens ~10 times in every thread.) miscquote your opponent than attack his, taken out of context or misrepresented, opinion. Works especially well with typos and grammar/spelling mistakes.
Tu quoque:
"you attacked me ad hominem, I will respond with ad hominem too."
I might have misunderstood some logical fallacies, missed some or gave not reasonably good examples. You are more than welcome to post in this thread and improve on what I have said above.
Persistent and pervasive abuse of all the logical fallacies is so annoying that continuing any serious discussion amounts to utter waste of time, not intellectually stimulating and often simply aggravating.
May I respectfully suggest the community to gently ostracise any member who blatantly abuses logical fallacies either intentionally or due to ignorance. No need to do anything harsh but maybe ignoring such a member or replying by citing the logical fallacies that were abused and, if feeling generous, including an appropriate wikipedia link to educate ignorant ones. Or just place link to this thread in your reply and let em figure out on their own what went wrong.
There is no point whatsoever to continue any discussion with anyone after a logical fallacy has been deployed by this person. The argument is invalid and should be discarded simply because it is utter nonsense.
Some logical fallacies are considered to be more abusive than others, specifically such as ad hominem, tu quoque, ad baculum, straw man, red herring, ad nauseam. These ones probably deserve more harsh reaction than others.
For your reference:
Just google name of any logical fallacy and you will get plenty of resources explaining it in depth. Wikipedia is particularly great with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapothttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/example of an excellent retort:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.
No one is claiming he's not a Ponzi. All I see are a bunch of people claiming he is. Sounds like a logical fallacy on your part. "I believe in the Devil, and I'm going to make you prove to me that he doesn't exist or else I'm going to keep on believing and telling about he's the Devil because he's red and does parlor tricks".
Straw man fallacy. Try again. Try better.
