About the Stupid Skeptic (tSS)

In this forum, we will work together to stick to an Informal Logic format for proposing and testing ideas. This will provide a standardized format for proposing arguments, and testing the validity of both the argument itself, and the premises it is built upon. 

As most of us are unfamiliar, or unpracticed, with this format, we will be learning together. If you'd like to learn more on the subject, we'd suggest you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic.

Arguments provided in posts, comments or discussions must be structured using two components. One ore more premise(s) that support a single conclusion, and the single conclusion drawn from them.

Here is an ancient example that illustrates this, "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal". Breaking that down:

"All men are mortal." This is a premise supporting the conclusion.

"Socrates is a man." This is another premise supporting the conclusion.

"Socrates is mortal." This is the conclusion drawn from the premises.

One can rephrase the same argument for clarity: If, all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates must be mortal.

To evaluate this argument, you start with evaluating the validity of the argument itself. To do this, one temporarily assumes that the argument's premise(s) are correct (you may have to suspend disbelief temporarily.)

Step 1: Assuming the premises are true, do the premises guarantee the conclusion. Note: the argument itself can be valid, even if the premise(s) are not true (that's why we have two steps).

Step 2: Now that validity of the argument has filtered out arguments that aren't valid either way, we can focus on whether the premise(s) are true or not.

Results:

1. If the argument is valid, and the premise(s) are true, we have a sound argument worth debating.
2. If the argument is not valid, we need not move forward until the argument's presenter reformats the argument in a valid way.
3. If the argument is valid, but one or more premises are not true, we need not move forward until the argument's presenter reformats the argument in a sound way.

Note: If the argument is not valid, or sound, this has no bearing on the conclusion itself. The conclusion still exists in a state of possibly true or untrue (a superposition if you will). It may be untrue, hence the argument fails. It may also be true, but not supported effectively by the argument. In this forum we're focused on discussion and debate of sound arguments.

Using the Socrates example:

Step 1: Assess the validity of the argument

Assuming that "All men are mortal", and "Socrates is a man", would Socrates have to be mortal? Yes. One has a valid argument, but they have one more step to take before considering the argument sound.

Step 2: Are the premise(s) true?

Are all men mortal? Yes.

Is/Was Socrates a man? Yes.

Both premises are true, and the argument is valid, therefore we have a sound argument. Note: This is itself an argument built on two premises and one conclusion.

It's important to note that we can't glean much additional information from this argument other than its conclusion.

Example 1:

We can't use the same premises to conclude our buddy 'John' is mortal.

All men are mortal. True.

Socrates is a man. True.

John is mortal. Invalid argument. If one assumes, or knows, the premises are true, they still do not  support the conclusion. We would need to change the second premise, "John is a man". This would create a sound argument.

Example 2:

We can't use the same premises to conclude that any woman is mortal. Swapping our friend 'John' for our friend 'Sarah' using the modified example above.

All men are mortal. True.

Sarah is a man. False.

Sarah is mortal. Valid argument. If one assumes the premises are true, they do  support the conclusion. The argument is not sound however, because one premise is not true. One would need to modify the argument. There are, at least, two ways to do this.

1. Modify the first premise to "All humans are mortal, and the second to, Sarah is a human.
2. Add a premise, "The term 'man' in this context refers to all of mankind, i.e. humankind.

Either of these would create a sound argument, but one shouldn't allow for the implied premise to remain unstated.

Informal logic provides a framework for analyzing the soundness of natural language arguments. This differs from formal logic, which translates natural language into a well-defined logical language which can be tested for soundness in a more objective mathematical form akin to philosophical calculus. For obvious reasons, such as not forcing participants to learn a new logic language, and a new form of philosophical math, this forum will use generally accepted informal logic principals.

As described above, the first step in assessing the soundness  of an argument, is determining the validity of the argument itself. The second step is determining whether or not the premises are true. A series of defined informal fallacies assists with these steps.

Informal Fallacies (No specific order or categorization):

Ad Hominem (Personal attack): This fallacy redirects the debate from the argument, to the arguer, in order to avoid addressing the argument. A sound argument stands on its own, it is sound coming from the mouth of the world's most objective, intelligent, and informed person, just as it is sound coming from that person's opposite. This is often difficult to accept. It may be easier to think of the concept in an analogous fashion, 'Even a broken (analog) clock is right twice a day'. The point being, regardless of the arguer, we must address the argument on its own merit.

Note: There is one major exception to this in Arguments from Authority. In these arguments, one or more premise(s) are supported by the authority, or expertise of a 3rd party (person, text, arguer, etc.) If the authority is in question, the supported premise will be less probably true (the premise is more questionable). Special caution should be taken with Arguments from Authority due to Authority Bias, a tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority.

There are three major authority detractors:

1. A lack of reasonable authority, such as the opinion of an average person on the pros and cons of nuclear energy (a complex engineering topic). 
2. The authority is supporting a claim outside of their expertise, such as a business management expert acting as a political authority.
3. The authority stands to gain from one's belief in the conclusion. Example: One is considering the purchase of a used car from a mechanic with 30-years of experience. One can reasonably assume the mechanic is an authority on vehicle reliability, etc. That authority is questionable however due to the mechanic's potential gain from the buyer accepting their authority.

Straw Man (refuting an argument that differs from the argument being discussed): This fallacy creates an illusion of refuting the original argument through covert replacement of the argument with a different proposition which is easier to refute. 

Example: The original proposition is "Thus, we should ban single use plastic bags", the response is "Great, now you want to ban all plastic." The responder has generalized the proposition far wider than the argument, thus standing up a straw man to knock down.

Argument from Ignorance (appealing to a lack of contrary evidence): This fallacy occurs when one asserts a proposition is true solely because it has not been proven false, or that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true. If a proposition has not been proven true or false, the proposition is simply unproven. Generally it will remain in a state of probability of truth until proven one way or the other, if possible. Most, if not all, scientific theories exist in this state. 

Example: Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is one of the most probabilistically true scientific theories in existence due to the myriad of diverse predictions the theory accurately makes. It can not be proven true, but that does not prove it false.

Begging the Question (assuming the conclusion): This fallacy is based on one or more premise(s) assuming the conclusion without supporting it. Of note, many people use the phrase 'begging the question' incorrectly. Example: Drugs are illegal, so they're bad for you. We should not legalize drugs.

False Dilemma (False dichotomy, or false binary): This fallacy is based on a premise that incorrectly reduces the available options.

Example: Proposed NYC noise ordnances will force businesses to shut down. This incorrectly removes any and all options where businesses continue to operate, while taking other measures to reduce noise.

Fallacy of Division (The logical opposite of Fallacy of Composition): This fallacy takes something that is true for the whole, and asserts that it must also be true of all or some of its parts.

Example: The country of China consumes a lot of white rice, therefore, all Chinese people eat white rice.

Fallacy of Composition (The logical opposite of Fallacy of Division): This fallacy occurs when something that is true for some part of a whole, is used to infer that it is true for the whole. 

Example: Every Chinese person I know eats rice, therefore all Chinese people eat rice.

Syntactic Ambiguity (Structural Ambiguity): This fallacy occurs when a sentence is open to potential interpretations. These fallacies tend to be harder to recognize, because one's brain often inserts one or the other meaning automatically.

Example: 'Tim spotted the man on the mountain with binoculars.' Depending on comma placement, several meanings can be inferred from this sentence:

'Tim spotted the man on the mountain, using binoculars.'

'Tim saw a man on the mountain which had binoculars on it.'

'Tim saw a man on the mountain using binoculars.'

etc.

Equivocation: This fallacy is the result of using a particular phrase or word in multiple contexts or senses within a single argument.

Example: 'Tennis balls bounce. Checks also bounce. Therefore tennis balls and checks both have the bouncy trait.' 'Bounce' in each premise is being used in two distinctly different senses, creating a fallacy.

Our goal in this forum is to avoid fallacies in our own arguments, use them to deconstruct opposing arguments, and in turn formulate productive debate through rational argumentation.

As humans, emotion is always at play influencing our beliefs, actions, and decision making. In ancient times, Plato used the analogy of chariot to describe the human mind. For Plato, the charioteer represents the 'rational part of the soul', Freud referred to the same as the ego, we can think of it as one's 'sense of self', the 'me' in 'this happened to me'.

Plato's chariot was pulled by two horses. One horse was noble, representing higher desires and reason. One horse was unruly, representing passions and appetites. In Plato's view, our job as the charioteer, or self, is to control the emotional horse through reason. This general idea remained fairly static for centuries, sharing similarities with Freud and many others.

Modern behavioral science and psychology has begun departing from the concept of suppressing emotion. Instead, recent research leads to theories expressing the need for emotion in decision making. For example, researchers have studied the ability to make decisions using subjects with limited ability to process emotions (due to specific brain damage). 

This research showed that without emotions, subjects were adept at weighing decisions via some form of analysis of advantages and disadvantages. What they were generally unable to do, is stop the analysis and make a decision. They simply kept analyzing and analyzing.

To understand this, think of the decision to buy a car. You may have a series of priorities you're focused on. Four doors, trunk space, gas mileage, low-maintenance, mid-range price, etc. These criteria will narrow your selections significantly, leaving you with several options to choose from. Generally you would analyze the differences between this reduced option group, and come to a decision. 

The hypothesis derived from this research suggests that the actual decision requires an emotional impetus, basically a feeling that forces a final decision. For the subjects with impaired emotional processing, this impetus never occurred, so they continued down the analysis phase in theoretical perpetuity. "Okay, but who makes the spark plugs? Are they reliable? Do they use child labor? Where are the materials sourced? is it sustainable?" Whatever the criteria, there is always more information to gather on a subject.

In this forum, we're focused on rational debate for the purpose of learning and enhancing our critical thinking skills. We also understand that many subjects cannot be cleanly separated from the emotions they elicit. This will lead to less logical engagements, and less rational conversations, but that is the real world in which we all operate. Our job is to minimize the bias emotions influence by working together. 

Put simply, bring your passion, check your biases, and ours.

It is commonly said that incentive drives behavior. Interestingly, even though this is widely understood, and even practiced by any pet owner, our species tends to underestimate just how powerful this connection is, and the bias it will drive in our subconscious mind (the mind below your sense of self).

As such, this forum will mitigate incentive bias by eliminating financial incentive. The site will not be monetized through advertising, data collection and sale, or sponsorship in any way. Each of these will always induce a level of bias that is difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate.

If or when the site grows, additional costs will be associated with that growth. Content creation costs, site hosting and management, and many others. The Stupid Skeptic (tSS) reserves the right to add monetization to cover any administrative or overhead costs required. 

Monetization may take many forms, with the exceptions listed above. Any monetization implemented will be clearly stated, no fine print, no legal language obfuscation to create confusion. Just plain English accounts of where and how monetization will occur.

Some potential monetization you may see in the future:

• Merchandise: "I'll pay $10 for $5 worth of swag to support the site."
• Optional Donations: "I get some value from this, here's some change I have in my pocket."
• Enhanced subscriptions: The intent is to make all content available for free. Knowledge is power, and those who can't afford to pay for it need it the most. tSS may however build subscription packages that reformat and restructure content in more usable ways for a cost. As always, this will be clearly stated. "This content is available unordered and structured for free, but if you'd like the convenience of a learning path and knowledge retention workbooks the course is available for $9.99."

While any topic can be discussed in this forum, the intent of all discussions here is to share knowledge, learn from one another, and enhance our critical thinking as a defense against the noise of modern society. As such, we are committed to ensuring this becomes a safe, and respectful community of thought.

Disagreements are welcome, emotional response will occur. Each of us will need to be accountable to our interactions here. If one goes too far, makes a mistake, changes their mind, attacks the arguer versus the argument (ad hominem), be accountable to that with an intent to improve, and things will work well.

For those who can not, or will not engage with accountability or an open mind, you will simply be removed from the community.

Our rules of conduct will be subjective, they will not be strictly defined, one will not be able to appeal decisions. Any consequence for violating the stated principles of the forum will be decided, and enforced in the style of a benevolent dictator. All decisions are final, and may or may not fit the offense. By engaging here, you are agreeing to those terms. If you do not agree with those terms, there are a myriad of places where you can participate, this just isn't one of them.

Contributors retain all rights to the content they post here, while providing non-exclusive, perpetual, authorization for The Stupid Skeptic (tSS) to use the content for any purpose on the site.

Any and all content available here can be used for any non-commercial purpose with proper attribution to the site and author. No commercial use will be considered for any reason, or under any circumstances.

No content on this site is authorized for use, consumption, or reuse by software learning models. These models include, but are not limited to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLM), etc. The Stupid Skeptic believes that humans should learn to think for themselves, before off-loading that task to code.