What to avoid if you want to make a persuasive argument.

[dex]

I read the political posts and I am amazed at the poor rational, and poor logic used. The worst fall into what is call tealogical (sp?) the rational is selected to fit a predetermined conclution. I usually ignore those post because there is just too much wrong to discuss.

The weakest to me is the personal experience rational (I knew a guy who was... -- therefor something is true of relavent). This is the inverse of what an example is for. An example should flow from a measurable truth and used for an example or to aid in understanding. Instead the example is thought to be valid in itself.

Here are a couple of sites that may help in making your argument better.
http://people.eku.edu/williamsf/HON1...falsec-web.htm

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

If a person respects you they will try to avoid such falacious arguments.

[Texarkandy]

Originally Posted by dex

I read the political posts and I am amazed at the poor rational, and poor logic used. .....

Originally Posted by dex

The weakest to me is the personal experience rational (I knew a guy who was... -- therefor something is true of relavent).

....

So you've identified this to be a problem via your "personal experience" of reading the posts of some people on this board?

[dex]

THat would have been a good observation if I didn't have the second half of the paragraph there explaining how personal experience can be used as an example.

I have something very important to do right now - watching the South Park Moive.
Maybe you can look up whick fallacious argument you used and let us know.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by dex

I read the political posts and I am amazed at the poor rational, and poor logic used. The worst fall into what is call tealogical (sp?) the rational is selected to fit a predetermined conclution. I usually ignore those post because there is just too much wrong to discuss.

Do you mean teleological? Like this:

Life is too complex and ordered to have occurred naturally/randomly
Therefore life must be the creation of a higher being (i.e. - intelligently designed)
God is that higher being
Therefore God exists.

Which, of course, assumes the existence of God.

[dex]

Gumby,
That's not it - I wish I could spell it properly. I see if can find it an post an official definition.
txs

[Texarkandy]

Originally Posted by dex

THat would have been a good observation if I didn't have the second half of the paragraph there explaining how personal experience can be used as an example.

I have something very important to do right now - watching the South Park Moive.
Maybe you can look up whick fallacious argument you used and let us know.

It was a joke. Yeeesh!!

[FinanceDude]

I have always been accused of "circular reasoning".......my dad used it with great success on our family growing up.....it drives DW crazy..........

[haha]

Originally Posted by dex

Gumby,
That's not it - I wish I could spell it properly. I see if can find it an post an official definition.
txs

You are likely trying to say tautological.

As a respectful observation, your posts would benefit if you were to buy a dictionary, and use it.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by haha

You are likely trying to say tautological.

As a respectful observation, your posts would benefit if you were to buy a dictionary, and use it.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by haha

You are likely trying to say tautological.

As a respectful observation, your posts would benefit if you were to buy a dictionary, and use it.

So are you pontificating that my vitriol is exacerbated by a history of unsubstantiated diatribe

[Abreutime]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

So are you pontificating that my vitriol is exacerbated by a history of unsubstantiated diatribe

I object: Argument By Prestigious Jargon.... Dem words r 2 big.

[dex]

Originally Posted by haha

You are likely trying to say tautological.

As a respectful observation, your posts would benefit if you were to buy a dictionary, and use it.

I always had a spelling problem - I think it is a mental disorder of some kind.

The word I am looking for sounds like "tee - a - logical" I haven't found it yet.

[TromboneAl]

Dex, your post complains about other posts in this forum, so I'm taking that as permission to complain about your post. Please take these as friendly suggestions.

The problems in your post make it harder to read. The errors take away from the flow of your argument, and distract me from what you're saying. It's kind of like listening to someone talk, and having someone else splash water in your face every 30 seconds.

Being a poor speller is no excuse in this age of spell-checkers. My spell-checker underlined the following words:

Tealogical
conclution
relavent
falacious (you even had the correct spelling of this visible above).

Other errors that the spelling checker couldn't catch but maybe proofreading would have caught:

"rational" instead of "rationale"
"what is call" instead of "what is called"
"therefor" instead of "therefore"
"I usually ignore those post" instead of "I usually ignore those posts"
"and used for" instead of "and be used for"
"in itself" instead of "in and of itself"
"an example should be...used for an example" -- makes no sense

These eleven errors really take away from your argument. If you read over your post one time before submitting it, I bet you would have caught most of these. This online dictionary can help.

I've ignored the more subtle errors, such as ending sentences with a preposition, and saying "used for an example" instead of "used as an example."

Finally, I haven't been able to figure out what these two fallacious arguments that you're talking about are. Perhaps if you'd given a full example of each I'd understand.

If you respect us you will proofread.

OK, I got it out of my system now. I've been good about this for a couple years on this forum.

I read the political posts and I am amazed at the poor rational, and poor logic used. The worst fall into what is call tealogical (sp?) the rational is selected to fit a predetermined conclution. I usually ignore those post because there is just too much wrong to discuss.

The weakest to me is the personal experience rational (I knew a guy who was... -- therefor something is true of relavent). This is the inverse of what an example is for. An example should flow from a measurable truth and used for an example or to aid in understanding. Instead the example is thought to be valid in itself.

Here are a couple of sites that may help in making your argument better.
http://people.eku.edu/williamsf/HON1...falsec-web.htm

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

If a person respects you they will try to avoid such falacious arguments.

[dex]

You're right Al - I think I'll try writing in Word first and then using the spell check function.

Therefor is a word. I used the wrong one.

Therefor is by far the rarer word and means “for or in return for that, for it,” as in I’ll explain what we must do and the causes therefor. Therefore means “consequently, hence, for that reason,” as in I don’t have a key; therefore, I’ll have to ring the bell.

[OAG]

Use Firefox - built in spell checker that will flag most misspelled words as you type them. Grammar is another problem altogether. I did not go very far in formal schooling so I had to learn mine from reading a lot and it helps but is not perfect. As Al said sometimes just reading my posts before I commit helps and the "edit" function is a godsend (don't know if that word is PC or not but, I'll use it). I personally, think you had a good point in your post but it got lost somewhere and I hope you do not think I am "piling on".

[youbet]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

OK, I got it out of my system now. I've been good about this for a couple years on this forum.

A couple of years represents an excellent beginning TA! A focused, continuing effort will result in even better results going forward! Thanks!

[Moemg]

Dex , You were very classy the way you handled the critique.

[dex]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

Finally, I haven't been able to figure out what these two fallacious arguments that you're talking about are. Perhaps if you'd given a full example of each I'd understand.

Al,
I'll try to give a definition of tealogical (sp? - I'll keep looking) – using only that information that supports a predetermined conclusion and ignoring all other commonly know information that refutes that conclusion.

In the context of this thread - “What to avoid if you want to make a persuasive argument”; the goal of the person who uses such a tactic is transparent.

It is similar to but not exactly like the ultimate of chutzpah "A boy, having just been convicted of murdering his parents, begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan.”

PS - I might not have spell check in the Asus Eee I'm using. It has Open Office Writer but it doesn't appear to be catching misspelled words.

[Bram]

Originally Posted by Moemg

Dex , You were very classy the way you handled the critique.

I agree!
and I thought the critique itself, well done, TA.

---- teleological---- Is this the word you're looking for, dex?

[haha]

Originally Posted by Bram

I agree!
and I thought the critique itself, well done, TA.

---- teleological---- Is this the word you're looking for, dex?

From above:

Originally Posted by Gumby

Do you mean teleological? Like this:

Life is too complex and ordered to have occurred naturally/randomly
Therefore life must be the creation of a higher being (i.e. - intelligently designed)
God is that higher being
Therefore God exists.

Which, of course, assumes the existence of God.

Must be something else he needs.

Ha