I find on the internet that people treat logical fallacies like moves on a Chessboard. Meanwhile, IRL, they’re sort of guidelines you might use to treat something more carefully. An example I often give is that in court we try to establish the type of person the witness is—because we believe so strongly that Ad Hominem is a totally legitimate matter.
But Reddit or 4chan politics and religion is like, “I can reframe your argument into a form of [Fallacy number 13], check and mate!”
It’s obviously a total misunderstanding of what a logical fallacy even is. They treat it like rules of logical inference, which it is definitely not (and would disprove what someone said, however outside of exotic circumstances, such a mistake would be trivial to spot).
I find on the internet that people treat logical fallacies like moves on a Chessboard. Meanwhile, IRL, they’re sort of guidelines you might use to treat something more carefully. An example I often give is that in court we try to establish the type of person the witness is—because we believe so strongly that Ad Hominem is a totally legitimate matter.
But Reddit or 4chan politics and religion is like, “I can reframe your argument into a form of [Fallacy number 13], check and mate!”
It’s obviously a total misunderstanding of what a logical fallacy even is. They treat it like rules of logical inference, which it is definitely not (and would disprove what someone said, however outside of exotic circumstances, such a mistake would be trivial to spot).