Why logical arguments are bad arguments

[Eric Cartman]

mostly posting this here so I can find it again later

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/why-logical-arguments-are-bad-arguments (https://archive.is/1Dycy)

I don't know if I agree with everything he says here, but the section about how most "logical fallacies" are used constantly with no pushback and are actually fine resonates with me

a lot of fallacies always include disclaimers that they're ok sometimes, which just says "these are ok when I like them, when they feeeel more correct"

like, slippery slopes aren't strictly logical guarantees, but come the fuck on, some consequences are near enough to certain to constitute a pretty good argument

"appeal to authority" is only bad when people don't like the authority, "oh that researcher has a clear agenda and was discredited ages ago by other people I already trust implicitly, so you can safely disregard everything they said"



also, this takedown of the Karl Popper shitty meme infographic

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/the-paradoxes-of-the-tolerant (https://archive.is/uuySm)

I don't know if its a linguistic or cultural difference he is approaching a lot of these from, but he kind of fundamentally misunderstand their use in his analysis.

I mean, if he wants to say "These are bad because idiots misuse them in arguments", there's zero pushback from me, but there's plenty of other rhetorical devices morons utilise to prop up their own shitty intellects to try and win arguments once someone has used them against them.

Like, the 'authority' example you give - its not so much 'only when I don't like it'; it is a fundamentally flawed rationale for debate.
"Popular person likes thing, therefore thing is good" is inherently not a strong or compelling argument.
It's literally "Bad person likes thing, therefore thing is bad" from the other direction.
This is the most common usage of this fallacy, but there is also a related fallacy related to unrelated authority - for example, "Harvard scientist says climate change is not real, and they are a HARVARD SCIENTIST!"; if they're not a climatologist, they have fuck all more insight into a topic they are not an expert in than anyone else does.

Logical fallacies being exposed aren't intended to be linguistic cudgels to shut down arguments; they're like narrative tropes.
They are intended to be exposing 'logic traps' where you are either weakening your argument, or failing to meet basic rational standards, for whatever reason.
Even with their use in things like formal debates they're not intended to be 'red card - YOUR OPINION IS NOW INVALID!", they're like... I dunno, fluffing the landing in gymnastics or something. The rest of the argument is where the majority of points would be picked up.
Outside of formal debate structure, they still have use for the exact same reasons understanding the use of tropes even if youre only consuming media and not writing it.