a not-nearly-comprehensive guide to classical logical fallacies as employed in fandom

[pocochina]

I should probably preface this by saying I don't think I've seen more bad arguments than usual or worse arguments than usual lately. But I do feel like I've seen an uptick in people expressing a few specific frustrations across a surprising variety of fandoms? And so when a post earlier this week (locked and not mine, so I'll go no further, but if

Comments

[ash48]

Hey there, I'm not entirely sure I've got the gist of this (apologies if I don't), nor do I know the article you're referring to but this assumes that the people (fans) who are writing up reviews or critics on the show are professional writers - that these ways of arguing (or rather not effectively arguing) are understood. I would say that someone "ranting" about a character doing something they consider OOC are not going to go through a check list of the best way to form an argument. I mean, if they are professional writers and are perhaps writing a piece for a magazine or academic article then yes, using those forms of arguments would be not only frustrating but annoying enough not to read. But if I see those on someone's LJ (or personal blog) I'd accept that their arguments may very well be flawed. Especially when talking about something as passionately as their fav character being OOC.

In fact, it's those very flaws that can create a point of contention and therefore a broader discussion (if it doesn't get too heated of course).

And I get that it's frustrating when someone puts forth an argument where they are just making shit up, but then they'd be the ones that would be worth turning away from.

(though, as I've said, I'm not sure of the context for this so I may not be responding appropriately..;D)

I found it very interesting though. I don't write arguments because I know how damn tricky they are. I often write opinions though.

[pocochina]

In terms of isolated posts, I'd agree. But it's not just contained to rant posts. My concern is when people casually say "OF COURSE EVERYONE KNOWS that XYZ significant thing that totally happened doesn't count" and then that becomes part of the fannish consensus, to a point where if you say "I acknowledge that this episode happened!" you're the one who's wrong.

There's actually quite a lot of context, as this is something I've been thinking for quite a long time, but as an example: I didn't think of a sufficiently abstract way to make the "no true Scotsman" point until yesterday, though for about a year and a half I've been privately thinking of it as "no true Leland," after a particular favorite character of mine who ~EVERYONE KNOWS was "out of character" for 50+ out of the 80-some episodes in which he appears, people were so resistant to rethinking their snap impressions of him from the pilot!

For a more concrete example, perhaps, I put up this post a few days ago. As I said in the heading, I felt like I had to say all of that, because people were putting up "meta" which aspired toward objectivity which was denying things that had in fact happened on the show. There are four sub-headings, each of which contains one or more items that I went back and looked in transcripts to make sure I wasn't misremembering anything. I referred to a concept that needed further elaboration, and so I provided a link to that so people could verify my logic there. The only interpretation I offered in the post was one paragraph - 1/3 of one subheading. And someone reblogged it with just a tag saying "i disagree with most of this."

Which, I can totally roll with someone disagreeing with the paragraph of interpretation I offered. I'm pretty damn sure of it or I wouldn't have included it in the post, but I am willing to accept that people can disagree with me. But that's not "most" of the post, it's a fraction of a sub-heading of the post. It's possible that the person meant "I don't agree with a reading of Dean which emphasizes these facts." Now, I think it's pretty tough to make a persuasive argument in that vein and I've seen a lot of people try, but I acknowledge it's possible - but that's not what this person said. It's just "la, you're wrong, no need to explain, agree to disagree!" And that's shitty generally, though I admit it really hacks me off given the particular subject matter.

So...yeah, admittedly I guess I am a "professional" logician, since I've been paid to tutor formal logic. But I'm not writing in that capacity here, and I honestly don't think this is beyond people's grasp. I tried to write it out calmly here in the interests of making things more accessible, though.