New Wikia page -- looking for more

[Arafelis]

I started a new page over at http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Fallacies and was hoping for some contributions, especially from the philosophically literate.  It's a general description of what a fallacy is (and isn't), followed by a list and advice on how to use each in jamming.

Besides adding or improving content, I think it'd be just spiffy if folks 'edited down' any overly-academic language.  I don't think there's any there now, but if I did, then I would have changed it; so clearly my opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

[fomenter]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem a good source

[Cain]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

BOOM! HEADSHOT!

[Arafelis]

Yeah, but none of that stuff tells you when and how to use them.

Edit: Although I am amused how similar my overview is to that one.

[Cain]

I would have thought a description alone is telling you how to use it.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

   1. Person A makes claim X.
   2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
   3. Therefore X is false.

Seems pretty much how to use it, to me.

[Arafelis]

There's absolutely no advice provided as to when and how you ought to use the fallacy, merely a description of what it looks like when it is.

That's like giving someone a knife and showing them a picture of a stab wound when they ask how to fight with it.

[Cain]

Well yes, if we want to treat people like complete idiots.

Personally, I think if you don't have an idea of when or how to deploy such an argument, then you shouldn't be allowed out on your own, or allowed to hold sharp objects.  But since you seem to want to write the For Dummies version....

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

[Arafelis]

...jedoch um Mißverstand zu vermeiden, »Eristische Dialektik« nenne will.

Now there's something beautiful.  And ironic.

[Triple Zero]

you didnt know about the links posted by Fomenter and Cain, and also not heard about Schopenhauers Art of Controversy, and you're trying to write an article about fallacies?

I really would suggest you read the Art of Controversy. It's not very long, rather entertaining (IMO) and pretty useful.

Actually I will add it to that "essential discordian reading" list.

[MMIX]

you didnt know about the links posted by Fomenter and Cain, and also not heard about Schopenhauers Art of Controversy, and you're trying to write an article about fallacies?

I really would suggest you read the Art of Controversy. It's not very long, rather entertaining (IMO) and pretty useful.

Actually I will add it to that "essential discordian reading" list.

" essential discordian reading " - now that's funny . . .

[Triple Zero]

I mean the list Skieth asked for.

[MMIX]

I mean the list Skieth asked for.

. . . no need to be so defensive - I'm not trying to troll you. I've got to say though grinning about the very idea of essential discordian reading has much enlivened an afternoon otherwise memorable only for dusting vacuuming and mislaying one of my dogs