The same could be said of chess, but it's still useful to learn as many common positions as you are able, especially for beginners.

If you are able to give something a name and study it, it helps you to recognise it faster and be more confident dealing with it.

But I agree in some sense. Just yelling them out when you see them like it's a game of bingo is rarely productive.

In particular, the route to recognizing, and explaining, something like moving the goalposts from first principles can be kind of long and convoluted. Having vocabulary for it helps a lot.

While I agree with the notion that in many fields it helps a lot to agree upon a common vocabulary for speed/shorthand, accuracy and clarity in communication, in this case I think that learning the vocabulary is learning the wrong thing.

Shorthands also have a couple of obvious pitfalls. One of them being in this case that neither party might recognize particular leakiness in a generally agreed-upon abstraction.

What you (IMHO) should be learning--and the vocabulary sort of comes implied with this, but is not necessary--is how to recognize the shape of such a concept or structure (in this case, fallacies) and how to "disarm" them, deal with them, in the context of an argument. Pointing out the fallacy by name should only be done maybe after disarming the fallacy in context of the argument, as further clarification.

If doing that is too long and convoluted, it really goes to show that learning a common vocabulary is training for the wrong thing. Instead, train to make your ways of dealing with fallacies shorter and to the point.

Say you know and studied all the moves in karate; During a match, your opponent comes at you with a certain attack, and you know the perfect defence / counter attack to it because you studied it all. You call out the name of your opponent's attack and shout the name of your counter attack. Having agreed upon a common vocabulary, your opponent knows they are defeated by your counter. A shouting match ensues.

I'm not saying that having a common vocabulary is not useful, it's very useful. Imagine two karate trainers sharing tips on what techniques best to learn students of a certain level. Imagine how they are even able to talk about "students of a certain level". But that's all meta game. In a real fight the moves have no names, and in a real argument neither do the fallacies.

> I've never found these lists particularly constructive. If someone makes an error in logic you should be able to take it apart from first principles.

That's fine but it also leads to a shift of burden of proof on the counter argument rather than the initial claim. In turn, this leads to "proving a negative" and it is generally quite impossible to do so. Therefore, one needs to be careful with the line of arguments.

Personally, I have also found that the best way to counter a fallacy is to ask the claimant to substantiate his/her stance.

Using the term literally is usually the irritating bit. Like responding with "appeal to authority" versus "Einstein wasn't an expert on xyz, though".

I don't think the point is to use them in an a real debate, that doesn't seem to go well, it's more to help yourself analyze arguments.

Great comic though

I too am not convinced of the usefulness of these lists in helping you to shape your toughts.

However, they might turn useful in understanding why somebody told you not to "put up a straw man", or used other apparently weird expressions. (I think I've never found an occurrence of the "No true scotsman" argument, but it sounds quite funny!) Though I doubt I would hunt for this specific book in that case, just googling around would be probably faster.

Yep, that's exactly how I see them applied online. It chills the conversation and leaves both parties unsatisfied.

Thanks for sharing the comic; this looks like a fantastic weekly read.

From the comic, I guess 'fallacy fallacy' is the name of the fallacy of declaring an argument to be a named fallacy without further explanation - but is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing a counter-argument because it mentions a named fallacy, regardless of what explanation is given? Or the fallacy of declaring a named fallacy, but giving an explanation that is not a valid example of that fallacy? (That last one may not be a fallacy if the explanation is valid...)

Basically this.

I think there is a difference how those lists are presented and particularly which audience they are intended for.

I think the worst possible way is if a list is intended to be read by participants of a debate - and then the author (or one of the participants) magically expects everyone to obey to the list and complains if they don't.

That's pretty much like the bully who as been outwitted and demands the other to "fight like a man". For people not familiar with them, those lists are in the end only another set of arbitrary set of rules thought up by humans. (Yes, this may even apply to the whole principle of logical reasoning). Sticking to those rules may in fact give you anormous insight to learn facts about the world, but this is in no way obvious. In particular, if the one who tells you about those rules appears to be biased against your own views, you have even less incentive to learn about them.

The second-worst way is to memorize the fallacies, recognize them in an argument, call them out and by that expect them to be disputed. This might be useful if you're an undecided bystander and try to keep a clear head. However, if you're yourself part of the debate, this probably isn't going to convince your opponent or any bystanders: You're calling out the fallacies, but you're not explaining why they invalidate the particular argument.

So in the end all that's left in your actual counter-argument is "the list says that kind of argument is invalid" - which, ironically, is itself a pretty bad appeal to authority.

Fallacy Man has demonstrated that nicely.

I think the good kind of lists go a step further: They show you how to detect the fallacies and how to dispute them. This way you could actually use them like the patterns in the chess example and drive the discussion forward, even if neither your opponent nor your bystanders know about the fallacies.