When was the last time you were in an online argument?
Actually, it doesn’t matter. If you’ve ever been in one, you must have encountered your fair share of logical fallacies and counter arguments. I’m all for it.
What gets on my nerves is on demand philosophy.
Thanks to the internet, now everybody has access to their share of Socrates, Plato and anything remotely related to logical arguments that have been documented in the literature. And with that, comes a fancier version of the usual online fisticuffs – one with philosophical name-dropping.
Having a sound knowledge and understanding of ‘No True Scotsman’ and ‘Tu quoque’ is definitely a great thing. Using that knowledge to point out someone’s mistake online is even better – if you’re actually doing that.
On the other hand, if, at the commission of said fallacy, all you’re doing is quickly going through your mental (or physically documented) list of logical fallacies until you hit the right one, just to name-drop it in the argument and leave, then you my friend are committing the greatest fallacy of them all – mockery.
You’re mocking the lack of your opponent’s know-how about these very well documented argument tools, not their ability to argue or the argument itself. Do you seriously think that looking up a definition online is going to change someone’s worldview? Definitions and theories that the now famous logisticians spent years debating over and formulating ideas around? If you are, then it probably worked on you too.
Then you should gladly accept that you’re no true logician.
Arnab Mukherjee 