I agree that rhetoric can be dangerous, but I’m actually not sure how it applies in this case. Don’t these Counterspells strictly dominate, “You used X logical fallacy against me”?
It’s true that many complaints about “logical fallacies” are mistaken, but I think that one of the nice features of Counterspells is that because their forms are so tight, they can actually help you realize when you’re misapplying them to something that is a valid inference (or something that is a different fallacy than you first thought). In the process of developing this idea, more than once I have gone to use a Counterspell against something, only to find in the process that my interlocutor was saying something very different than what I had initially imagined.
I think their formulaic, fill-in-the-blanks nature forces you to engage with the material more than you might otherwise; I think they’re the opposite of an excuse not to listen. And since they only make sense in response to certain invalid inferences, I don’t think there’s much opportunity to shoot your foot off. Many of them include a request for elaboration, and in a respectful discussion where no one engages in rhetorical tricks, they will never come up.
Dominate by what measure? In terms of scoring debate points with the audience, no. “Fallacy X” takes less time to say. People who don’t know what “X” means may still assign you higher status because you named something in Latin, and assume people who can reply quickly are smarter, and therefore right.
Counterspells seem more effective when arguing in writing than in person, when the slower response time isn’t as costly. You also wouldn’t have to memorize them.
If the goal is to get a single interlocutor to actually change their mind, something like Street Epistemology might be better. Politics is the mind-killer. When a position is tied to identity, direct confrontations are simply attacks to be resisted. You have to cut sideways and undermine their foundations. Don’t focus on the reasons why they believe (where Counterspells seem to be focused), but how they come to beliefs. If their epistemology is broken, don’t expect more evidence to sway them—because they’re just not listening.
But all of the above are still Dark Arts, because they’re rhetorical tricks that can be selectively applied to anything you don’t like. Yes, there has to be an opening. The interlocutor has to have at least appeared to have made a “mistake” in reasoning or at least the presentation of it, which may make it less Dark than more underhanded rhetorical tricks, but which openings you choose to attack shows your own bias.
If you care about the truth, don’t reach for any formulaic gotcha ammunition. Steelman. Take the most charitable interpretation of the opposing argument you can muster, and then cut it down. If you can.
I agree that they are most useful when actually trying to change someone’s mind.
I originally thought that they would be more effective in writing than in person, but after making the list some I’ve been surprised at how quickly and naturally they can be used in conversation. It took a few seconds the first few times, but I didn’t really need to practice. YMMV.
I actually have a pretty narrow range of uses in mind, and I think some of our disagreement comes from thinking I intend these for general use. You correctly point out that Counterspells don’t make any positive progress in the debate, they just swat things down (like a… counterspell?). And yeah, that’s all they are. They don’t do much heavy lifting and you need other tools to actually change someone’s mind (most of the time).
All I’m saying is whenever you would say, “That’s invalid because [Fallacy Name]”, instead say, “[Counterspell]”. It has to exist within the framework of better rhetorical skills, and yeah, if someone is the kind of asshole who pulls them out as underhanded tricks, these won’t save them.
I agree that rhetoric can be dangerous, but I’m actually not sure how it applies in this case. Don’t these Counterspells strictly dominate, “You used X logical fallacy against me”?
It’s true that many complaints about “logical fallacies” are mistaken, but I think that one of the nice features of Counterspells is that because their forms are so tight, they can actually help you realize when you’re misapplying them to something that is a valid inference (or something that is a different fallacy than you first thought). In the process of developing this idea, more than once I have gone to use a Counterspell against something, only to find in the process that my interlocutor was saying something very different than what I had initially imagined.
I think their formulaic, fill-in-the-blanks nature forces you to engage with the material more than you might otherwise; I think they’re the opposite of an excuse not to listen. And since they only make sense in response to certain invalid inferences, I don’t think there’s much opportunity to shoot your foot off. Many of them include a request for elaboration, and in a respectful discussion where no one engages in rhetorical tricks, they will never come up.
Dominate by what measure? In terms of scoring debate points with the audience, no. “Fallacy X” takes less time to say. People who don’t know what “X” means may still assign you higher status because you named something in Latin, and assume people who can reply quickly are smarter, and therefore right.
Counterspells seem more effective when arguing in writing than in person, when the slower response time isn’t as costly. You also wouldn’t have to memorize them.
If the goal is to get a single interlocutor to actually change their mind, something like Street Epistemology might be better. Politics is the mind-killer. When a position is tied to identity, direct confrontations are simply attacks to be resisted. You have to cut sideways and undermine their foundations. Don’t focus on the reasons why they believe (where Counterspells seem to be focused), but how they come to beliefs. If their epistemology is broken, don’t expect more evidence to sway them—because they’re just not listening.
But all of the above are still Dark Arts, because they’re rhetorical tricks that can be selectively applied to anything you don’t like. Yes, there has to be an opening. The interlocutor has to have at least appeared to have made a “mistake” in reasoning or at least the presentation of it, which may make it less Dark than more underhanded rhetorical tricks, but which openings you choose to attack shows your own bias.
If you care about the truth, don’t reach for any formulaic gotcha ammunition. Steelman. Take the most charitable interpretation of the opposing argument you can muster, and then cut it down. If you can.
I agree that they are most useful when actually trying to change someone’s mind.
I originally thought that they would be more effective in writing than in person, but after making the list some I’ve been surprised at how quickly and naturally they can be used in conversation. It took a few seconds the first few times, but I didn’t really need to practice. YMMV.
I actually have a pretty narrow range of uses in mind, and I think some of our disagreement comes from thinking I intend these for general use. You correctly point out that Counterspells don’t make any positive progress in the debate, they just swat things down (like a… counterspell?). And yeah, that’s all they are. They don’t do much heavy lifting and you need other tools to actually change someone’s mind (most of the time).
All I’m saying is whenever you would say, “That’s invalid because [Fallacy Name]”, instead say, “[Counterspell]”. It has to exist within the framework of better rhetorical skills, and yeah, if someone is the kind of asshole who pulls them out as underhanded tricks, these won’t save them.