New Rules on SFN

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We have yet again revised the forum policy on SFN, producing a shorter, more concise, and generally more readable version of them that we hope will make things easier on us. Take a quick glance through it so you become familiar with our rules.

 

Here it is:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14

[Genecks]

So, how strict are you enforcing fallacies? I've known people to use circular reasoning without understanding the fallacy. To tell you the truth, not many people understand what a fallacy is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We'll ask people to stop before we give them warning points or anything. There's also a convenient link to a description of most of the logical fallacies available right there in the rules, so we can point people to that.

[Phi for All]

So, how strict are you enforcing fallacies? I've known people to use circular reasoning without understanding the fallacy. To tell you the truth, not many people understand what a fallacy is.

The two we're most concerned with are ad hominem and Strawman. Circular logic happens but usually gets jumped on by the person it's used on.

 

Ad homs are usually in the form of Flaming, which most boards don't tolerate. Strawman just causes too many side arguments and weird thread tangents when used persistently. For the most part people stop when it's pointed out that they are basing their arguments on faulty, fallacious logic. It's only when they ignore everyone and keep up the fallacious tactics that we'll start giving out warnings with points toward a temporary ban (usually a week for the first, I believe).

 

We all love discussion and even a good all-out argument can be productive. When someone has their back against the wall, doesn't have the grace to capitulate (or even admit the other person has a good point or a right to their opinion), and ends up trying to switch to questionable logic, it wastes everyone's time. And no one wants to just drop the matter and lend tacit support to an argument based on fallacies.

 

It's *not* all about being the perfect debater but having the courtesy to not waste everyone's time with junk reasoning. We're not going to be Fallacy Nazis but when both sides are making good cases it often comes down to who is going to cave and start reaching for the weak stuff. Do it persistently and you'll get a warning.