Here's a few ideas about how to argue better on the internet,
and also off the internet.
[THEME MUSIC]
[DING]
There is a lot of arguing on the internet.
There's a lot of arguing everywhere,
but sometimes it feels like the internet is a place that people
go specifically to argue.
And that's great.
Heated debate is how we move issues forward, generate
knowledge, and reach understanding,
because that's the point of arguing, right?
To reach an understanding.
Right?
Why are you looking at me like that?
Anyway, for obvious reasons, we here at Idea Channel
want everybody arguing at their full capacity all the time.
So what follows is a kind of Audubon field
guide for bad arguments.
A list of some of the most common
fallacies-- flaws in logic that can appear airtight
even though they're not.
Sometimes they're used intentionally
to distract, derail, deflate.
But lots of times, even the ones called intentional fallacies,
are deployed because by their very nature,
they seem appropriate.
When an interlocutor feels as though they are out
of logical road, they sometimes appear
under the less-than-solid fallacy shoulder.
The following are not nearly all or the most interesting
fallacies, but rather, the ones that I see the most often.
The goal of this video is to assist you
in assisting your fellow conversationalists
in identifying their unintentionally faulty logic.
This is one long video, but in the doobly doo
and in a playlist on Idea Channel's channel page,
you will find one video for each fallacy.
This way, when you do locate a fallacy out in the wild,
you can direct the person who's deployed it
to a source letting them know the faultiness of their ways
and encouraging them to do better, because we
know that they are capable.
We believe in them.
So with that being said, on with the fallacies.
The straw man fallacy.
Contrary to what many people would have us believe,
a straw man is not simply an argument that you dislike
or find inconvenient.
Rather, it is a version of an argument that
is misrepresented, simplified so that it is easier
to knock over.
Just as an actual man made of straw
is a less solid version of a man made of flesh,
a straw man argument is a less solid version
of a fully fleshed out argument.
A straw man replaces or represents whatever
actual argument is being made.
Straw manning can come in many different forms.
It's not even always intentional.
You might accidentally construct a straw man
if you don't fully understand the depth of an argument.
And that is fine.
It happens to the best of us.
However, to intentionally misread or misrepresent
an argument to simplify the process of discrediting it--
that's a little bit less forgivable.
To take nuanced points out of context,
to ignore crucial information, to even exaggerate claims
to the point of absurdity, which is then easier to refute,
these are all straw man tactics.
For example, Mike and Straw Mike are
having a conversation about how to responsibly depict
awful stuff in media.
I don't think it's too much to ask
that when a media creator wants to show heinous or awful stuff,
they do so in a context that shows that that stuff is
heinous and awful.
Oh, so now we're not allowed to show violent or terrible things
unless we include some long-winded sermon about how
bad things are bad?
I think creators should be able to show or do
whatever they want.
The original argument states a preference for what Mike thinks
constitutes the responsible use of media.
The straw man argument recasts this as something
much simpler and easier to agree with.
Freedom is good.
Censorship is bad.
But now Mike and Straw Mike are no longer
arguing about the same point.
And so the conversation will quickly
become unfocused and aggressive, which is never fun.
If you're going to win an argument,
you want to win against what the other side actually thinks,
don't you?
A straw man argument keeps that from happening.
I hope this description of the straw man
fallacy has been helpful.
Happy conversing.
The ad hominem attack.
Ad hominem criticism is where instead of criticizing
the argument or ideas of the person
with whom you are conversing, you
criticize the person themselves, and in so doing,
claim you have also criticized their argument.
And, boy, is this one popular.
Ad hominem criticisms are not always,
but are very frequently fallacious.
Wrong!
Unless the character or actions of the person making
an argument are directly related to the matter at hand,
criticizing them and not their ideas is a fallacy.
Ad hominem attacks are the bread and butter
of political advertising-- criticizing a candidate
and saying that because their character is bad,
their ideas and policies are also bad.
(DEEP VOICE) John Smith literally
hates little children, and so his ideas
about salmon fishery safety regulations
are wrong-- dead wrong.
(NORMAL VOICE) A related fallacy is tu quoque,
where it is argued that a person making an argument
has behaved in a way inconsistent
with that argument.
Their behavior might be inconsistent,
but it doesn't necessarily make their argument wrong.
For example, it's really important for fast food
restaurants to be clear about the salt, fat,
and sugar content of their food-- doubly
so because of how cheap it is.
Obesity is a real problem in America.
What business do you have asking companies
to disclose this stuff?
I saw you eat two Big Macs and drink 34 ounces of Hi-C Orange
Lavaburst yesterday.
[GROANS]
This is an ad hominem tu quoque attack.
Mike argues for the presence of certain dietary information.
And Straw Mike says that based on his behavior,
he lacks the authority to do so.
Straw Mike's response doesn't at all
approach the point Mike is making, though.
Mike is arguing that if certain dietary information were widely
available, it's possible that an effect on obesity would occur.
Ad hominem attacks make it so the person being attacked
suddenly has to defend their character and not their ideas,
when in fact their character has no bearing on the conversation
whatsoever.
And also, it's mean.
You seem like a nice person.
No need for insults.
I hope this description of the ad hominem attack
has been helpful.
Happy conversing.
The black and white fallacy.
A black and white fallacy is where
you present limited choices as the only choices, when in fact
additional options do exist.
It's time to choose.
Sometimes called the false dichotomy or false dilemma,
the black and white fallacy is a really easy way
of eradicating complexity and nuance.
The most common black and white fallacy
is the old saying, "either you're for us or against us,"
when, in fact, it's highly likely one might find arguments
on either side of a position appealing,
and therefore occupy some previously
unannounced space on a continuum between the two positions.
Much of governmental and gender politics, for example,
operate on a very widely spread adoption
of a black and white fallacy.
Sometimes the black and white fallacy
presents a dichotomy between two things that are not actually
opposites or mutually exclusive.
No continuum exists between those two things
because they are not related to each other in the way
that the black and white fallacy presents them to be.
For example, it would be nice to have more well written,
playable female characters in video games.
If you want more playable female characters,
that means you must want fewer male characters.
And those are the ones that I like the most.
Are you trying to ruin games?
In this situation, Straw Mike's black and white fallacy
is that in games, either specifically
or generally, there can only be male or female characters.
Having more of one automatically means that there
is less of the other.
That is not the case.
More of something is not always automatically less
of its opposite.
And so this dichotomy is false.
The black and white fallacy presents nuanced arguments
as being, well, black and white, and presents only extremes
as being available for further discussion, even when that's
not the case.
What are you doing?
Are you backing down from a challenge?
That's not like you.
I hope this description of the black and white fallacy
has been helpful.
Happy conversing.
The authority fallacy.
The authority fallacy holds that because someone
in a position of assumed authority has said something,
that thing must be true.
However, the authority fallacy is just as important for what
it isn't.
It isn't meant to defeat statements made by experts
or by scientific consensus.
Saying that global warming is true and man-made
because the vast majority of scientists
that study it produce evidence that support this claim
is not an example of the authority fallacy.
Neither is stating, for instance,
that all medical technology is blind to race
based on Lundy Braun's exhaustive research
of the spirometer.
The scientific community and experts in their field of study
are authorities.
The authority fallacy applies this level
of respect for authority to people
who don't actually possess it.
The firsthand accounts of our friends, family members,
and coworkers do not constitute authority, and therefore
truth-- unless, of course, they also happen to be experts.
For example, Mike and Straw Mike are talking
about automobile manufacturing.
Whoa.
Korean cars in America are so cheap.
I wonder how they do that?
Well, my uncle is a mechanical engineer,
and he says that it's because they use terrible, cheap parts.
You are literally trading money for safety.
Straw Mike's uncle might be an engineer, and that's awesome.
But it doesn't necessarily give him the authority
to talk about the construction of certain parts in vehicles.
This is an authority fallacy, unless it turns out
Straw Mike's uncle is an independent researcher
conducting a peer-reviewed study on the international automobile
industry and its effects on safety.
The authority fallacy trades actual points
for external, non-expert anecdotes--
the plural of which, you might have heard, is not data.
Your uncle seems like a really cool guy,
but I bet you can win this argument without him.
I hope this description of the authority fallacy
has been helpful.
Happy conversing.
The no true Scotsman fallacy.
The no true Scotsman fallacy calls into question the purity
or actualness of something as a way to refute an argument.
Usually it works like this.
You claim some set of things has a universal characteristic.
Someone then provides an exception to the rule,
making your claim universal no longer.
And then you respond by saying, well,
only true things in that set possess that characteristic.
The no true Scotsman user defends their claim
based on a reactionary, subjective notion
of what category something belongs
in or to what degree that thing truly belongs in that category.
Classically, no true Scotsman is used
to exclude bad actors from a group.
Anthony Flew, who coined this fallacy,
described a Scotsman who, upon learning
that one of his countrymen committed a violent act, said,
no true Scotsman would do such a thing.
However, there are a couple, what you might call,
"versions" of no true Scotsman.
One of them has to do with in-group maintenance,
claiming that no true gamer, comic book reader, Republican,
or feminist would say or believe a certain thing.
This tactic avoids confronting a counterargument
by saying the person who exhibits it is not
truly the thing they claim.
And so the exception they provide is null and void.
No true Scotsman also works to exclude ideas and objects, not
just people.
For example, Mike and Straw Mike are talking about video games.
All video games must have clearly stated
goals and a win-lose condition.
"Gone Home" doesn't have either of those things,
and it's a video game.
Right.
But "Gone Home" is not a true video game.
The more productive conversation would be,
what happens to the category of video game
when we consider "Gone Home" part of it?
Or to discuss what about the category
of video game-- for Straw Mike, at least-- absolutely
requires that it have clearly stated
goals and win-lose conditions.
Instead, the conversation is stopped dead in its tracks
because the entire point hinges upon one side's
subjective sense of what is and is not truly whatever.
And now we're just arguing opinion,
which will only ever end in Godwin's Law.
You Scots sure are a contentious people.
You just made an enemy for life.
I hope this description of the no true Scotsman fallacy
has been helpful.
Happy conversing.
And with that, we come to the end of our set of fallacies--
though, as it turns out, not the end of all fallacies.
There are a lot of fallacies out there.
And if you like this kind of thing--
if you want to see us make more videos in this style,
where we describe fallacies and put them in tiny videos for you
to send to other people== let us know, and maybe we'll do more.
There are plenty.
We're going to be doing full comment responses for the Game
Mechanics episode at the end of next week's video.
But there is one thing I wanted to talk about for a second,
just as a closing thought for this video.
There were some people who wrote comments
on last week's video, which was a collab with Extra Credits,
saying that they weren't going to watch
the episode because Dan from Extra Credits
has come out as being vocally anti-Gamergate.
And I just want to be super clear.
I know we haven't made a video about this,
and I'm struggling with whether or not we will.
But if a necessary precondition for your continued viewership
of Idea Channel is that we are in any way pro-Gamergate,
I have some bad news for you.
I understand that the party line is
Gamergate has ethical concerns at its forefront
and that it is about games journalism.
But for me, Gamergate is very much
defined by the harassment of women
and it's just terrible exclusionary tactics
to keep people out of gaming, to keep
people talking about gaming.
You can tell me all day long that social justice warriors
engage in the same tactics or that Gamergaters set up
a campaign to donate to an anti-bullying charity.
It kind of doesn't matter because Gamergate
has become so connected to, so defined
by harassment and vitriol.
There are ethical concerns in gaming and games journalism.
We've made videos about them.
Leigh Alexander wrote a very helpful list of them.
But none of them are worth the terrible things
that are happening in the name of ethics in games journalism.
And so for that reason and many others,
I am not pro-Gamergate-- not even a little.
And if that's a problem for you, so be it.
[THEME MUSIC]
[DING]