Is attacking poor syntax a logical fallacy?
Daistallia 2104
01-12-2006, 16:47
Two questions:
Is attacking an argument purely and only on improper syntax actually a logical fallacy?
If so, what would be the proper term for it?
Depends if the way the point is stated is vague enough that you cannot understand the intent of the statement. Although that does not merit attack, merely clarification.
Popinjay
01-12-2006, 16:55
Depends if the way the point is stated is vague enough that you cannot understand the intent of the statement. Although that does not merit attack, merely clarification.
Agree
Ashmoria
01-12-2006, 16:58
can it really qualify as a logical fallacy when it doesnt address the issue at hand?
are you just looking for the name of what the fallacy is? it obviously is one.
UpwardThrust
01-12-2006, 17:04
can it really qualify as a logical fallacy when it doesnt address the issue at hand?
are you just looking for the name of what the fallacy is? it obviously is one.
Yeah I would consider it an ad hominim and or a red herring
Daistallia 2104
01-12-2006, 17:21
can it really qualify as a logical fallacy when it doesnt address the issue at hand?
are you just looking for the name of what the fallacy is? it obviously is one.
It seems that I may jsut be looking for the name of it, assuming the case is one of attacking a clear enough position.
are you just looking for the name of what the fallacy is? it obviously is one.
Yeah I would consider it an ad hominim and or a red herring
Hmmm... I wonder if there isn't a more specific term, as neither of those really seems to quite cover it.
Demented Hamsters
01-12-2006, 18:44
Hmmm... I wonder if there isn't a more specific term, as neither of those really seems to quite cover it.
How about the "I'm a pedantic arse trying to score cheap points and bully you into submission" fallacy?
Just "pedantic arse" for short.
Greater Trostia
01-12-2006, 18:46
SPELLING NAZI!
Of course, then you've Godwinned the thread, meaning you automatically lose. FOREVER!
The Black Forrest
01-12-2006, 18:47
Yeah I would consider it an ad hominim and or a red herring
Agree.
The attempt is basically to show the poster is not that smart since he can't write so ignore what he wrote.
Dinaverg
01-12-2006, 19:27
What of the poster who responds to the points their opponent has made, then points out errors in spelling and grammar?
Ashmoria
01-12-2006, 19:49
i googled it and chose this site
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
i decided that "appeal to ridicule" is the closest match because being a grammar nazi is trying to make the poster look stupid rather than addressing his point. supposing of course that the grammar nazi is pretending to address the topic and not hijack it into a discussion of proper syntax
Angry Fruit Salad
01-12-2006, 22:48
Personally, I've "attacked" an argument based upon poor syntax -- quite recently, come to think of it. The argument was about the use of a word, so there's some grey area.
Anyway, it depends upon the context of the argument, as well as the clarity of the post -- honestly, if you can't grasp the language well enough to get your point across, it's virtually impossible to have a coherent debate with you. Typographical errors, on the other hand, are generally permissible and far from grounds for ridicule. Of course, posting your entire argument in “txtspk” , “13375p34k”, or some other nonsense will often, and (in my opinion) SHOULD often get you laughed out of the forum.
We're all going to have some discrepancies regarding language, but they generally do not get in the way unless someone is being extremely lazy or stupid. I know we've got grammar nazis here -- it's a good thing,though. If you were going to debate orally, would you win the argument if you mispronounced words, used the wrong words, or paused every few seconds to say "um...uh" ? I highly doubt it.
But yes, we do need to avoid attacking an argument based upon the OP's ability to type, as well as his or her command of the English language.
MeansToAnEnd
01-12-2006, 22:50
It's a specific form of ad hominem attack. Namely, it's an ad syntaxium attack.
Yes. If you don't understand the syntax, you should ask the person to clarify their position and go from there. Attacking their syntax does not have any effect on the validity of their argument, and does not constitute an argument against that argument.
It's the same as saying a statement is untrue because the source is unreliable; that doesn't work because it has nothing to do with the truth of the statement.
You have to prove the statement untrue/true, not dismiss it due to unreliability or poor syntax.
Two questions:
Is attacking an argument purely and only on improper syntax actually a logical fallacy?
No. Syntactical errors render sentences nonsensical.