Minor Update to the Rules of the CCAM Forums

[DialecticSkeptic]

When used legitimately, identifying a logical fallacy in good faith is about trying to keep the discussion on-topic and productive. Such fallacies as straw man, ad hominem, appeal to emotion, really any fallacies of relevance are by definition off-topic—by virtue of being "not relevant." Thus, exposing them ought to be an effort to refocus the discussion on the topic of the thread, essentially saying, "Let's stay on track."

However, this can also be misused—sometimes in a deliberate or malicious fashion. A particularly disruptive tactic occurs when someone in a single post accuses their opponent of multiple logical fallacies, creating a kind of "Gish gallop" of accusations. This strategy overwhelms the opponent because the amount of space required to address the accusations would be considerable and (far more importantly) the effort would derail the thread entirely. The result is shrewd, an effective but unfair rhetorical ambush: the accusations, even if baseless, remain unchallenged and create an unjust perception of the accused.

To prevent this, effective immediately, the Rules & Guidelines are being updated with a new rule in the Posting Guidelines section:

4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. To ensure fair and orderly debate, members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time in an opponent's argument. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and resolved. This prevents discussions from being overwhelmed by a cascade of accusations which, if addressed, would derail meaningful engagement. Fallacy accusations should be made in good faith, with careful attention to context and a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.
​

 

[Josheb]

I understand the effort to reduce digression due to fallacy may be an ongoing process, but I have a few questions.

How should an increasing accumulation of logical fallacies be handled? Most of us have had exchanges in which multiple fallacies have occurred and each new posts adds to the already existing problem. The end result is that someone may have received X number of construction errors, X number of begged questions, X number of straw men, X number of red herrings, X number of ad hominems, X number of false causes, X number of false equivalences, X number of false dichotomies, X number of shifting onuses, appeals to incredulity, ad populum, personal anecdote, etc. Unless and until clarified, Rule 4.4 will prevent that problem from being addressed. All the fallacy-maker need do is deny the fallacy exists. Having denied it, there will be no acknowledgment and Rule 4.4's objective of moving a discussion forward one resolution at a time will never happen.

The end result in many discussions is the presentation of a "case" that is rife with errors. Presumably, we all agree 1) no one should be persuaded by a fallacious argument (including the one presenting the fallacies), 2) the one making the fallacy-laden case won't change their case if they don't realize those mistakes have been made, and 3) noting those problems is (or should be) a collaborative and edifying effort.

So.....

Will the moderators be requiring posters who have committed an objectively verifiable logical fallacy to address and correct the fallacy if and when someone legitimately points out such an error?

If someone identifies one logical error at a time (one identification per post) are they eventually able to list all the fallacies employed in order to provide a review of the case presented?

How will the moderators address someone posting individual posts in which individual lines from another's post are separated by their constituent fallacy, resulting in multiple posts each containing the identification of a single fallacy? The letter of the law of Rule 4.4 will have been met but the thread will, nonetheless, suffer from tangential branches of discussion where each fallacy is addressed, one fallacy at a time, before returning back to the specified topic of discussion.

What is the recommendation when the culprit does not acknowledge and resolve overtly clear fallacies when committed?

Lastly, I would like to note a well-founded valid, legitimate objectively-verifiable-by-all observation of fallacy is not an "accusation." It is simply a statement of fact. I know this board is for announcements, so I do not expect a response. Most of this was posted for the benefit of the mods as they endeavor to address the problem of "shrewd unfair rhetorical ambush," and the corresponding disruption of a thread, although some clarification on these matters will help us all.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I can only speak for myself and how I would moderate, but here is my guidance for these different scenarios (with which other moderators may agree). I repeat, this is one moderator's suggested guidance. These are not rules, but they reveal my moderating practices.

1. What if someone commits multiple fallacies in a single post?​

Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.

2. What if someone commits another fallacy before the first one was resolved?​

Disregard any additional fallacies until the first identified fallacy is resolved. Since it is crippling the core argument, it is the most crucial one.

3. What if someone simply denies committing a fallacy, or ignores my identification thereof?​

Since that is a violation of the Rules & Guidelines (4.4), click the Report button.

4. What if someone responds with multiple posts, each one containing a fallacy?​

First, do not respond with multiple posts of your own. Combine all of that person's posts in a single response post fom you. Second, discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.

---

The following is intended as information for all members, not just Josheb.

The end result is that someone may have received X number of construction errors, X number of begged questions, X number of straw men, X number of red herrings, X number of ad hominems, ... [snip rest]

The focus of nearly every interaction in these forums should be charitable, thoughtful, Christ-honoring discussions that edify one another for the glory of God. This does not consist in keeping track of who committed how many of which fallacies. I sincerely hope that nobody, including you, is able to fill in those numbers. At the end of the day, it's about interacting in a manner that reflects the character of Christ and builds up the body of believers through meaningful, in-depth dialogue. If you can do that without identifying logical fallacies, all the better. But if you cannot, then restrict yourself to the one that is the most crippling to whatever is the core argument in your effort to keep the discussion on-topic.

Unless and until clarified, Rule 4.4 will prevent that problem from being addressed. All the fallacy-maker need do is deny the fallacy exists. Having denied it, there will be no acknowledgment and Rule 4.4's objective of moving a discussion forward one resolution at a time will never happen.

The objective is not about moving the discussion forward one resolution at a time. The resolution should be incidental to the objective, which is focusing the discussion on the topic of the thread (as defined by the opening post)—again, in a manner that reflects the character of Christ and builds up the body of believers.

... (3) noting those problems [created by fallacious reasoning] is (or should be) a collaborative and edifying effort.

I would underscore "should be." It can and should be edifying. However, there are several instances where the fallacy is named and that's it. Consider this hypothetical scenario: Someone responds, "Ad populum"—but nothing more. There is no argument for how an argumentum ad populum was committed, nor how that fallacy—if it was committed at all—impacts the core argument. Would you consider that edifying? I would not.

Will the moderators be requiring posters who have committed an objectively verifiable logical fallacy to address and correct the fallacy if and when someone legitimately points out such an error?

Rule 4.4 requires it, and the primary task of moderators is to enforce the rules.

If someone identifies one logical error at a time (one identification per post) are they eventually able to list all the fallacies employed in order to provide a review of the case presented?

No. It is possible to explain how someone failed to make their case (either for or against the topic) without an itemized listing of the logical fallacies they committed along the way. The topic of the thread is the point, not any particular person and the mistakes they made. (And I sincerely hope nobody is keeping track of who commits how many of which fallacies because that is pathological, not to mention irrelevant.)

How will the moderators address someone posting individual posts in which individual lines from another's post are separated by their constituent fallacy, resulting in multiple posts each containing the identification of a single fallacy?

I was unable to decipher the question being asked here.

What is the recommendation when the culprit does not acknowledge and resolve overtly clear fallacies when committed?

Since that is a violation of rule 4.4, click the Report button.

Lastly, I would like to note a well-founded valid, legitimate objectively-verifiable-by-all observation of fallacy is not an "accusation." It is simply a statement of fact.

Until it has been proven, it is not a fact but an accusation (or allegation). It is possible for Smith to think everyone can plainly see that something is fallacious, only to find out that he was the only one who thought so. "The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him" (Prov 18:17).

 

[Josheb]

I can only speak for myself and how I would moderate, but here is my guidance......

My regrets for not being clearer. I was not asking for advice. I was asking for clarification of the rules. For example,

​

Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.​

​

.
I wonder how "discernment" will be enforced. Or how the subjective "most crippling" will be enforced.

Until it has been proven, it is not a fact but an accusation (or allegation).

Aside from the fact that facts are not dependent upon proof, I stipulated "objectively verifiable by all" as a given, thereby necessarily implying the fact is proven. Once proven, it is not an accusation. In other words, it is not difficult to objectively prove a fallacy exists, but it is difficult to get a person to acknowledge that fact. The new rule will place onuses on posters that have always been implicit but will now be formalized and codified.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B ignored the observation.
• Discussion of the fatal element ends because the rules require nothing more be said about the fallacy unless and until it is resolved.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges the observation but refuses to correct the fallacy.
• Discussion of the fatal element ends and the discussion then either also ends or it continues with a fatal matter unresolved.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges and self-correct the fallacy (typically discarding it and acknowledging the point it sought to refute).
• Poster A then notes the next most fatal fallacy and, assuming Poster B repeats the acknowledgment and self-correction the discussion contains a potentially lengthy tangential branch that addresses all the fallacies (one at a time) until all are resolved as stipulated by the forum's rules before any return to the specified topic can occur.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges and self-correct the fallacy (typically discarding it and acknowledging the point it sought to refute).
• That process continues through all the fallacies Poster B has posted,
• Then Poster B observes a fallacy in Poster A's rebuttal (and one of the first three scenarios above ensues.

• Poster A notes and the proves a statement is fallacious.
• Poster B acknowledges and resolves the error.
• The rest of the discussion is made impeccably..... even though the fact of truth is that only one position can be correct and the discerning of an impeccable case is one of the purposes of the forum.

Those are the most likely scenarios, not the only ones.

It is possible for Smith to think everyone can plainly see that something is fallacious, only to find out that he was the only one who thought so.

Irrelevant. I explicitly stipulated the fallacy was objectively verifiable by all, thereby precluding any and all subjectivity.

Which means this discussion just became an object lesson because you are now in a position to correct the non sequitur and demonstrate to all the lurkers how situations like this are supposed to work when new Rule 4.4 is applied. This new rule implicitly requires fallacy makers to acknowledge their fallacy and fix it AND it requires fallacy observers to prove the fallacy is fallacious to the point of acknowledgment ad resolution (all in the effort to prevent shrewd rhetorical ambushes).

"The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him" (Prov 18:17).

Yep. That is exactly why I expressly stipulated the condition of objective verifiability.



As I said, most of what I have posted is for the mods' benefit, so as to clarify the rules and how they will be applied. I won't belabor the points further made because I'm not a moderator and these two posts may not be perceived as helpful. I do, however, foresee problems (for all) implementing this new rule.

 

[Arial]

My regrets for not being clearer. I was not asking for advice. I was asking for clarification of the rules. For example,

​

Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.​

​

.
I wonder how "discernment" will be enforced. Or how the subjective "most crippling" will be enforced.

Aside from the fact that facts are not dependent upon proof, I stipulated "objectively verifiable by all" as a given, thereby necessarily implying the fact is proven. Once proven, it is not an accusation. In other words, it is not difficult to objectively prove a fallacy exists, but it is difficult to get a person to acknowledge that fact. The new rule will place onuses on posters that have always been implicit but will now be formalized and codified.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B ignored the observation.
• Discussion of the fatal element ends because the rules require nothing more be said about the fallacy unless and until it is resolved.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges the observation but refuses to correct the fallacy.
• Discussion of the fatal element ends and the discussion then either also ends or it continues with a fatal matter unresolved.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges and self-correct the fallacy (typically discarding it and acknowledging the point it sought to refute).
• Poster A then notes the next most fatal fallacy and, assuming Poster B repeats the acknowledgment and self-correction the discussion contains a potentially lengthy tangential branch that addresses all the fallacies (one at a time) until all are resolved as stipulated by the forum's rules before any return to the specified topic can occur.

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges and self-correct the fallacy (typically discarding it and acknowledging the point it sought to refute).
• That process continues through all the fallacies Poster B has posted,
• Then Poster B observes a fallacy in Poster A's rebuttal (and one of the first three scenarios above ensues.

• Poster A notes and the proves a statement is fallacious.
• Poster B acknowledges and resolves the error.
• The rest of the discussion is made impeccably..... even though the fact of truth is that only one position can be correct and the discerning of an impeccable case is one of the purposes of the forum.

Those are the most likely scenarios, not the only ones.

Irrelevant. I explicitly stipulated the fallacy was objectively verifiable by all, thereby precluding any and all subjectivity.

Which means this discussion just became an object lesson because you are now in a position to correct the non sequitur and demonstrate to all the lurkers how situations like this are supposed to work when new Rule 4.4 is applied. This new rule implicitly requires fallacy makers to acknowledge their fallacy and fix it AND it requires fallacy observers to prove the fallacy is fallacious to the point of acknowledgment ad resolution (all in the effort to prevent shrewd rhetorical ambushes).

Yep. That is exactly why I expressly stipulated the condition of objective verifiability.



As I said, most of what I have posted is for the mods' benefit, so as to clarify the rules and how they will be applied. I won't belabor the points further made because I'm not a moderator and these two posts may not be perceived as helpful. I do, however, foresee problems (for all) implementing this new rule.

No. It is possible to explain how someone failed to make their case (either for or against the topic) without an itemized listing of the logical fallacies they committed along the way. The topic of the thread is the point, not any particular person and the mistakes they made. (And I sincerely hope nobody is keeping track of who commits how many of which fallacies because that is pathological, not to mention irrelevant.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

• Poster A notes and then proves a statement is fallacious (having selected the fallacy most fatal to the core of the argument if other fallacies also exist).
• Poster B acknowledges and self-correct the fallacy (typically discarding it and acknowledging the point it sought to refute).
• Poster A then notes the next most fatal fallacy and, assuming Poster B repeats the acknowledgment and self-correction the discussion contains a potentially lengthy tangential branch that addresses all the fallacies (one at a time) until all are resolved as stipulated by the forum's rules before any return to the specified topic can occur.

That adheres to the letter of the law but not the spirit. It is tedious, off-topic stuff like this to which I will put an end. Again, as Arial so astutely picked up on,

It is possible to explain how someone failed to make their case (either for or against the topic) without an itemized listing of the logical fallacies they committed along the way. The topic of the thread is the point, not any particular person and the mistakes they made. (And I sincerely hope nobody is keeping track of who commits how many of which fallacies because that is pathological, not to mention irrelevant.)

 

[Josheb]

I do appreciate all of your input, but I also encourage you to think this through because fallacies are being committed in the posts of the mods right here and now and, therefore, if the new rule were applied rule's veracity would be disproven. There is a better way to handle the perceived problem. It starts with the opening statement in the op.

When used legitimately, identifying a logical fallacy in good faith is about trying to keep the discussion on-topic and productive.

Yep

The most useful and effective, and the most readily and easily moderated rules contain affirmative guidelines, not just prohibitive ones. Telling people what not to do does not provide much guidance regarding what to do. On the affirmative side, this new rule instructs posters to identify one fallacy at a time. That's it. Everything else in the op is about the motive behind the rule.

I am aware my advice is not often well received because I am (wrongly) perceived as a troublemaker but my inquiries and comments here are intended to help.

Look, for example at the first two lines of the rule. They can be summarized as...

1. Members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time.
2. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and resolved.

#2 implies #1 is an accusation. Is that really what you want to communicate to the members as a rule? I attempted to highlight that problem and the exact problem the rule seeks to avoid happened. Summary Point #1 was later modified to say,

1. Members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time..... Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.

Which means the part about "at a time" is negated.
Another (potential) problem arises when a post contains multiple fallacies. A respondent then attempts to discern the one single most fatal fallacy (which is a problem because more than one fallacy can be equally fatal to an argument) and cites it. The one making the fallacious argument then denies the existence of the fallacy and the respondent is then compelled to report the post and have the moderators adjudicate the matter. Aside from the fact that method assumes the fallacy-maker will be more responsive to the moderator than to reason and his/her fellow forum member, it results in censorship and the end of the thread. This is especially true if all respondents note the fallacy. The fallacy maker is then compelled by the rules, the participants in the thread, and the moderator affirming the original respondent's observation of the fallacy.
This would have prevented you, @DialecticSkeptic from responding further in the thread on Supralapsarianism. The response you are considering right now, "You never proved I committed a fallacy," is one of the problems this rule seeks to prevent (because it seeks to limit off topic digressions).
This also makes the moderators the arbiters of the fallacy, not the fellow members. It makes the moderator take sides. In other words, it compromises what is supposed to be the moderators' objectivity. At the foundation of this rule is the prohibition.....

1. Members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy. Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.
2. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and resolved.
3. Members are not permitted to make errors in reasoning.

And that will have to be applied to every member's exegesis because many errors in exegesis are logical fallacies. No synergist will ever be able to attempt an apologetic for synergism because of the inherent inferential nature of synergism. A causal inference is the same as a causal fallacy. At its worse, all anyone has to do to do bring a thread to a halt is prove a causal inference is being made incorrectly.
You can call it "tedious" if you like, but that does not change the facts in evidence. Calling something tedious as a means of dismissing an argument is called an appeal to ridicule and that is a fallacy. There's an irony to this thread because I could cite several fallacies, but I am prohibited by the new rule from doing so. I am only allowed to post about the rule, the rule that states,

4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. [Members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy. Discern the core argument being made and identify the most crippling fallacy to that core argument. Disregard any other fallacies.]

My regrets, but I have to go. I am confident if you all think this through, you'll come to agreement over a better, more veracious and implementable alternative.​

 

[Arial]

I do appreciate all of your input, but I also encourage you to think this through because fallacies are being committed in the posts of the mods right here and now and, therefore, if the new rule were applied rule's veracity would be disproven. There is a better way to handle the perceived problem. It starts with the opening statement in the op.

Yep

Hint: The most useful and effective, and the most readily and easily moderated rules contain affirmative guidelines, not just prohibitive ones. Telling people what not to do does not provide much guidance regarding what to do.

Josheb, you need to give it a rest. There is no need of unending argument to prove oneself as right and intellectually superior and another person intellectually inferior, over everything. That is all you are doing here, we know it even if you do not. It permeates most of your posts. The forum is not a battleground of wits and pontificating. It is a place for discussions pertaining to an OP. Not pointing out everyone's faults and posting about them.
Obey the rules as they are given instead of trying to get around them to serve your own purposes. If, in your opinion, someone has supported a position through a logical fallacy, it should be no problem for you to demonstrate why it is a logical fallacy in the context of the discussion, rather than just calling things logical fallacies. And continue the conversation with the logical fallacy having been put to rights. It is even possible to do that without calling anything a logical fallacy, but with simple logic if it is indeed a logical fallacy. Pontificating over the matter is the problem being addressed in the rule.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, you need to give it a rest.

No, I do not. but I have said my piece and you all will either consider it or you won't.

There is no need of unending argument to prove oneself as right and intellectually superior and another person intellectually inferior, over everything.

That is a fallacious argument . It's also off topic (because I am not the subject of this discussion).

That response demonstrably proves my points! The new rule would require me to prove the statement fallacious AND it would require you to acknowledge the error. If you did not acknowledge that proof, then I would then have to report your post and have a moderator verify the fallacy require you resolve your error. Your error, not the dispute between two posters. You would then be required to submit to the moderator's judgment (which in this case would side with me). That is going to be a huge problem for all the moderators posting under your own handles. It will necessarily pit mods against mods with one of the mods having to submit to the new rule without dispute (lest sanctions be meted out against one mod by another mod). It also empowers non-moderator members to hijack a thread anytime they choose whenever any fallacy occurs! In other words, as written, the new rule actually empowers the kind of conduct (shrewd rhetorical ambushes) it seeks to limit. Therefore, if moderators do not want to find yourselves on the wrong end of this new rule the new rule will have to be amended to prevent that from happening. I would make some proactive, positive, solution-oriented suggestions (like the mods posting a reference page of the most commonly-occurring logical fallacies and their definitions so EVERYONE has an objectively verifiable reference in the forum by which they can measure their own posts AND by which the mods can adjudicate reports), but I am not a moderator, I haven't been asked, and I don't see any evidence anyone is interested in my views. I will, therefore, Unwatch the thread and not reply further.

Just think the new rule through to its likely consequences.

Content can be controlled but not thought or intent. The best forums have a practical set of rules that guide the kind of content that is desired (not just a list of prohibitions) and an objective (fair, unbiased) moderation.

 

[Arial]

No, I do not. but I have said my piece and you all will either consider it or you won't.

That is a fallacious argument . It's also off topic (because I am not the subject of this discussion).

That response demonstrably proves my points! The new rule would require me to prove the statement fallacious AND it would require you to acknowledge the error. If you did not acknowledge that proof, then I would then have to report your post and have a moderator verify the fallacy require you resolve your error. Your error, not the dispute between two posters. You would then be required to submit to the moderator's judgment (which in this case would side with me). That is going to be a huge problem for all the moderators posting under your own handles. It will necessarily pit mods against mods with one of the mods having to submit to the new rule without dispute (lest sanctions be meted out against one mod by another mod). It also empowers non-moderator members to hijack a thread anytime they choose whenever any fallacy occurs! In other words, as written, the new rule actually empowers the kind of conduct (shrewd rhetorical ambushes) it seeks to limit. Therefore, if moderators do not want to find yourselves on the wrong end of this new rule the new rule will have to be amended to prevent that from happening. I would make some proactive, positive, solution-oriented suggestions (like the mods posting a reference page of the most commonly-occurring logical fallacies and their definitions so EVERYONE has an objectively verifiable reference in the forum by which they can measure their own posts AND by which the mods can adjudicate reports), but I am not a moderator, I haven't been asked, and I don't see any evidence anyone is interested in my views. I will, therefore, Unwatch the thread and not reply further.

Just think the new rule through to its likely consequences.

Content can be controlled but not thought or intent. The best forums have a practical set of rules that guide the kind of content that is desired (not just a list of prohibitions) and an objective (fair, unbiased) moderation.

Sorry you suffer from MHLWS. But thanks for illustrating my post so beautifully. It was perfect!