Hacker News Reader

Comment by skissane | Hacker News Reader

I think these kinds of lists encourage a particular approach to debate I've seen on the Internet – respond to someone's argument with a claim "you've just committed the X fallacy!" Often with no explanation of how what they've said is actually an instance of the X fallacy, or justification of why the X fallacy is actually fallacious. (Just because someone calls something a fallacy, or even publishes it on a list of fallacies, doesn't actually make it a fallacy.) As if fallacies were magical spells with which your opponents arguments could be dismissed by mere invocation of their names.

View on HN

Well checking if your opponent argument commits logical fallacies is just the first part. The second part is, of course, providing your own logical counter.

I think it is often better if you explain why and how the argument is fallacious without actually bringing any named fallacies into it. If you’ve done a good job of explaining the why and the how, you don’t need the name. But sometimes people think if they use the name they can skip the explaining why and how

Because it does not scale. If they did, they would spend a lot of time explaining easy-to-produce fallacious statements, in a similar dynamic to that of people „feeding the trolls“ on the internet.

P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)

> Because it does not scale

Arguing on the Internet doesn't scale.

And if someone says something wrong, and you don't have the time to respond to it properly, it is better to just ignore them and move on, than to answer their poor argument with a poor response.

> P.S. Or, in other words, burden of proof ;)

I hear so many invoke the concept of "burden of proof", without appearing to have ever really reflected on the complex philosophical questions involved – which of many distinct principles for assigning the burden of proof ought we accept? Many of them sound plausible on the surface, yet can produce opposite results when applied to particular cases. And why and how are we obliged to accept any such principle? If there are multiple competing proposals as to the nature and contents of the "burden of proof", how do we determine which (if any) of those proposals is right? Is there a single burden of proof across all of human thought, or does each discipline or field of endeavour adopt a burden of proof suited for its own needs? Do we force criminal law, high energy physics, mathematics, ancient history, psychiatry and philosophy to all share the same principles for determining the burden of proof? Or do we allow each to pick their own, and maybe one discipline's principles will contradict those of another?

Such people would be well-served by familiarising themselves with some of the philosophical literature on the topic, for example James Cargile's 1997 article "On the Burden of Proof" [0]. I think it is well summarised by his concluding paragraph:

> Is there one, ultimately correct standard of proof? I don't think so; but in a given case, it may be true that an appropriate standard of proof has been satisfied. It can be truly observed that a different standard has not been satisfied. Confusion can arise as to the significance of this fact.

And to quote the epistemologist Keith Lehrer's (often-cited, including by Cargile's paper I referenced above) 1971 address to Vassar College [1]:

> ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side...

[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751305

[1] Keith Lehrer, Why Not Scepticism?, Philosophical Forum 2 (3):283 (1971)

I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the fallacy :)

I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting.

If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is:

1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true).

2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?)

> It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application

So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application.

Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here).

EDIT: s/OP/you/

As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.

Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc.

In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity.

Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.

I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks.

To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness.

I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims).

IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo.

So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument.

Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic.

I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.

I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention.

On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.

Yes, and it's annoying. It's pseudo-intellectualism that uses the tactic of confusion, of shifting the argument from its substance to deconstructing the discussion itself.

When that happens, declare victory and leave the conversation.

> When that happens, declare victory and leave the conversation.

I think this is almost always the “winning move” when dealing with intellectual, yet idiot types.

> “ I think these kinds of lists encourage a particular approach to debate I've seen on the Internet...”

My brother once said to me the surest way to get the right answer to something you post on Reddit is to intentionally post the wrong answer. Someone will always correct you.

Then you can throw fallacy 38 back at them (Deliberate Ignorance).

My reaction upon starting reading, was that most of the "fallacies" covered are thought patterns that are sometimes useful and sometimes bad.

In other words, for most of them, saying that the pattern is always wrong or always right are both fallacious. This is covered by fallacy 42 (Either/Or).

Also, while each "fallacy" is not universally true, they can still be useful for two reasons: 1) They can be used in bad faith (to manipulate people who are likely to fall for them). For this, knowing this list can provide "Defence Against the Dark Arts" 2) To break out of indecision, or to avoid a decision when indecision is better. May of the "falacies" have a set of situation where their claim is valid

For instance: A: Let's say your brother owns a business that is, and alwyas has been losing money, and comes to you to ask you to invest in his business. If you don't see any reason why the business should become profitable, you could say "I don't throw good money after bad", as a way of explaining the situation. This does not mean that you would never invest in a busness that has lost money for some period, as long as it is reasonable to think that profit will come in the future, but it places the burdeon of proof on the one that wants your investment.

B: "Trust your gut" may sometimes be a bad idea, but in some situations, intuition may be the most reliable guide. If one listens to one's inner voice (and knows how to do it), one may sometimes "hear" things that are probably true, but perhaps uncomfortable. Maybe you are about to marry a young, beautiful person, but your gut tells you it is for the money? In that case, your gut may be right, even if he/she insists its your humor.

C: "Two-sides fallacy": Even though there are some cases that clearly does not have two symmetrical sides, there are also a lot of situations where there ARE two comparable sides. Sometimes, one may weigh evidence differently, and sometimes one may prioritize different values. When people are too quick to label others (or Others) as either delusional, dishonst or plain evil, they may need to be reminded that perhaps they should try to see the alternative perspective. Then of course, sometimes there are conflicts where compromize or an agreement to disagree is not acceptable. It is possible that your spouse/boss/parent really is a psychopath that really wants to hurt you as much as possible, your country may be facing a military enemy that cannot be alowed to exist (ie Hitler), or you may not want to waste time considering if the earth is flat. To resolve those cases, though, you have to use some kind of force, like total war, a court order for your ex to keep his/her distance or a law banning teachers from teaching about the flat earth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com