[JerryLove]

Discussion 101 – Introduction to online discussion

Purpose: The purpose of this document is to offer a primer and introduction to common terms, phrases, strategies, and etiquette of online discussion. This primer consists of three parts; the first, terminology, defines some of the more common terms used in describing discussion. The second, logical fallacies, is intended to offer examples of false and improper logic, and methods of discussion, which have been prevalent and should be avoided; this section also serves as the second part of Terminology defining these fallacies which may simply be referred to by name in topical threads. The third section, strategy and etiquette, discusses general guidelines for productive posting, and some base rules of etiquettes for having a civil conversation.

Preface: This document is in transition. I will be borrowing from others ware I can and thoroughly encourage contribution. Because of the setup of this thread, and the fact that I will be editing this original post, you may see references in “later” posts that are now reflected here, or that may reference things no longer present in this post. Also, sorry for the “sloped toward my view” of some of the examples; I am trying to draw them from experiences here, and I only have my own to pull from; I gladly accept better examples.

Credits: I have done the typing myself, and I am borrowing heavily from Stephen Downes who has an excellent page on terminology and logical fallacies. Further, I thank those who are contributing on this thread, and will add them to the credits when I can.


Part 1 – Terminology

ad infinitum, ad nausium: The point, topic, or event at hand repeats (or digresses) to a point of infinity, or until one becomes sick of the repetition / digression. ”If everything has a creator, than something gmust have created God, and something must have created that something, and something else that something, ad infinitum, ad nausium”

Lie: Statement made is false fact. “Darwin admitted that creationism was correct”

Theory [Layman Definition]: An idea or belief in what might be occurring or why it occurs. ”I have a theory that atheists are really unhappy people”

Theory [Scientific]: A collection of theorums, laws, and facts which form a tested understanding of something. theory of light, theory of buoyancy, theory of evolution

Fact: An empirical observation. ”when you let go of a ball while standing on the Earth, it falls to the ground”

Law: A representation, expressible in mathematics or binary logic, which describes the rules governing an interaction; empirically tested rules governing observable fact. ”The rate of acceleration caused by gravity is inversely related to the distance from the source”

Hypothesis: Precursor to a theorem, a hypotheses is a non-law, non-fact which describes an event or process and fits all the available information and has not been disproved. A hypothesis must be able to make a prediction. ”The speed of gravity is infinite”

Theorum: A hypothesis for which the prediction has been tested and proven true. A theorem (like a hypothesis) must fit all available facts and not be disproved. ”massive bodies moving at relativistic speeds would produce gravitic waves”


Part 2 - Logical Fallacies

Straw-man argument: A Straw Man Argument is a statement you make if you want to more easily attack an opposing position. You intentionally make a silly caricature of that position, or an outright lie regarding it, one that no one would believe, knock down that silly, unrealistic caricature, and then proclaim that the original version of the argument has been demolished. “evolution is a religion because evolutionists worship Darwin”.

False Dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. “Either A: the first book of the Bible is Job, or B: the first book of the Bible is Exodus”

From Ignorance: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. “Since you cannot disprove God, he must be real” / “Since you cannot prove you love your mom, you must not”

Slippery Slope: In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator. “If we accept that morals are not absolute than we must have them relative, and if we do that, then they must not have value, and if they do not have value than we must not have morals, and if we don’t have morals, anything is ‘OK’ “.

Complex Question: Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator. “Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?”

Appeal to Consequences: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false. “You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.”

Prejudicial Language: Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. “Anyone who believes in God knows the Earth was created in seven days.”

Appeal to Popularity: A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true. “Most people believe in God, so God must be real”.

Attacking the Person: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

. 1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

. 2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

. 3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches.

Appeal to Authority: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

. 1. The person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,

. 2. Experts in the field disagree on this issue.

. 3. The authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Coincidental Correlation: This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other. “I prayed to god for the cold to go away, and the next morning I wasn’t sick anymore”

Joint Effect: One thing is held to cause another when in fact both are the effect of a single underlying cause. This fallacy is often understood as a special case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc. I know this one has come up, can anyone offer an example?

Fallacy of Exclusion: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence". ”Measuring the rate of helium creation and comparing it to the amount of helium shows that the Earth is <10,000 years old” (exclusion, the measured rate of helium exiting the atmosphere is identical to the predicted creation rate).

False Analogies: In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P. People are God’s sheep, and so we should be sheared and occasionally slaughtered for lamb chops.

Unrepresentative Sample: The sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole. “Every scientist at ICR agrees that evolution is false”

Wrong Direction: The relation between cause and effect is reversed. “The increase in AIDS was caused by more sex education. (In fact, the increase in sex education was caused by the spread of AIDS.)”

Equivocation: The same word is used with two different meanings. “dispersion is like entropy, and entropy is like disorder, so if dispersion always increases, than disorder must always increase” (there’s actually more than one logical fallacy here)

Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A “If God made you, than you must exist, so since you exist, God must have made you”

Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B. ”If God designed us to know right from wrong, that explains why we do, so if we occurred through evolution we wouldn’t know right from wrong”

Subverted Support: An explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. The explanation is fallacious if the phenomenon does not actually happen of if there is no evidence that it does happen. “Evolutionists are confused by the lack of missing links because it disproves evolution” (fallacy, evolutionists are not confused by missing elements in the fossil records).

Conflicting Conditions: The definition is self-contradictory. “God can to anything”

Circular Definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition. ”I know the Bible is true because it says so in John”

Failure to Elucidate: The definition is harder to understand than the term being defined. ”God cannot act in an evil manner” (how is “evil” defined?)

Limited Depth: Theories explain phenomena by appealing to some underlying cause or phenomena. Theories which do not appeal to an underlying cause, and instead simply appeal to membership in a category, commit the fallacy of limited depth. ”My classmate votes democrat because she’s an atheist” (presumes that all atheists are democrats).

Proof by Repeated Assertion: An assertion is repeated ad nausium in the hopes that such repetition will make it appear true. ”The second law of thermodynamics says that everything moves from order to disorder”


Part 3 – Conversation Strategies and Etiquette

Read the Thread: No one expects you to come in and read 20 pages of text, but you can read two or three. Try to get a feel for how the discussion is going. If you feel the urge to take the thread in an “entirely new direction” and have not read the thread, it would do well to feel out if that direction has already been addressed by asking.

Stay on Topic:

Keep Focus:

One Point at a Time: Particularly in those threads that are tried-and-true (evolutionism vs. creationism), it is appropriate not to blurt out every problem you have with one-side or the other and expect others to respond to them all. Put out one issue, discuss it to resolution or impass, and then move on.

Define Your Terms: There are a great many terms in any discussion, but religious discussion in particular, that are vague; often not the ones you are expecting. Always look for opportunities to concisely define your terms, and make sure you are clear if you are using non-standard terms. Some examples include “sin”, “good”, “theory”, and “law”

Respect the On-going Discussion: If two people are already engaged in a careful discourse, try not to sidetrack it through methods like ignoring shared definitions. if a discussion is going on about weather David sinned, and there has been a consensus on “sin”, don’t start interjecting based on a definition other than the one used (probably a good opportunity to start a new topic

Be Direct:

Understand your Topic If you are going to comment on the fallacies of transpoon insertions, make sure you understand what they are and what’s wrong with them. If you do not, don’t make ascertains until you do (the two common methods are to ask, and to research)

Support:

Discuss Your Own Thoughts: I’m not here to argue with drdino, and you are not here to argue with talkorigins. While citing is very good (see the previous entry), cutting and pasting an argument from someone else is bad. Make sure that you understand and agree with what you are typing and can discuss it, otherwise you are making an Appeal to Authority and probably not following the One Point at a Time guideline either.

Avoid Non-responsive Answers:

Do Unto Others:

The Burden of Proof The burden of Proof falls on the person with the positive affermation. Something which is unproven is, from a logical standpoint, false. Until something is either proven true, or accepted as convention; siproofs are unneccessairy. "Bigfoot is real" would be a positive affirmation, "Bigfoot is false" would be a negative one.

Citing vs Copying We are not (by and large) hebrew scholars; nor are we astronomers. As laymen, we rely on the research of others. But there is a real difference between citing the research of another person and copying their conclusion. If you want to know what the Bible says in its original hebrew, a hebrew concordance is a good reference. If you want to know what a passage means; that you have to support. Similarly, if you want to reference measured dust levels, that's a cite. If you want to claim what the proves, that's a conclusion and you must be able to support it.

[JerryLove]

Here is my twist on how to properly setup, frame, and conduct a proof.

Establish the topic: That is to say, clearly define what it is you wish to prove. If you wish to show that flipper was the anti-christ, and you wish to establish it through emperical means, yo should title your thread Emperical evidence flipper was the anti-Christ.

Spell out your goal: A continuation of establishing the topic, the really through poster will set up in his initial post exactly what it is that he wishes to accomplish. Such as In this thread, I will be discussing the fim career of Flipper, the dolphin and how it establishes Flipper as the anti-christ described in Biblical prophecy

Spell out your ground rules: If you ar trying to prove Flipper was the anti-Christ, you probibly don't want a discussion of weather flipper was a bad actor, as that is beyond the scope the discussion. You also want to spell out any shared presumptions that you don't wish to contest. For example: For this discusssion, we shall be discussing only the orignal dolphin, flipper. We assume that the portrail on TV is accurate, and that the Bible is allegorical when it discusses the anti-christ

Start with agreed presumptions and work forward: If everyone invoelved agrees it's true, or if it has been stated as a presumption in the ground rules, then it does not need to be proven. If, on the other hand, it requires accpetance, than it should be proven. For example, do not presume that only one dolphin played flipper unless you can establish it. If that is a prerequsite to your proof, then establish it first.

This is, of-course, only one way to persue a discussion. It is a formula built around the presupposition that one is attempting to provide a proof for a premise. If the discussion is a general question, or something more open-ended, then another format would be in order.

[JerryLove]

I would like to add, temporarily, though i think it was touched on, the different between deductive and inductive logic.

Deductive Logic:

Basically, a string of premises producing a logical and absolutely true conclusion if the premises are true. For example:

(a)All men are from mars.
(b)same is a man
(c)conclusion:sam is from mars.

This would be written in an if, then statement: If a and b are true, then c.

A faulty use of such logic is as follows:

(a)All men are from mars.
(b)Polly is a woman.
(c)conclusion:Polly is not from mars.

This wouldn't be a conclusive statement because no where is the premise "Women are not from mars" or "Only men are from mars" established. Therefore, we do not have conclusive proof as to whether Polly is from mars or not. Since there is more than one possibility (Polly is/isn't from mars), the conclusion is not proven.

Inductive Logic:

Inductive Logic cannot be used as proof, but as support. it is appealing to a generalization. If you note that every dog that you have seen has four legs, it is a reasonable assertion that all dogs have four legs. However, an unreasonable assertion is that all pets, or all animals have four legs. Such unprovably assertions should be made to as detailed groups as possible For another example, if I found that all brown cats that I have seen have four legs, the best use of Inductive Logic would be to say that all brown cats have four legs. A legitimate, though not as sure use would be to say all cats have four legs. However, once you begin applying it, as above, to all animals, or all breathing things, it is not being used correctly. Shakespeare (our shakespeare gave a good example of bas usage of Inductive Logic: