Jackowens wrote:I mean as things stand now, we have no agreed-on method for identifying acknowledging and discarding errors --errors that we know must exist. That just leads to quarreling. If we have such an agreed-on method, per the plank that I suggest that we use, the likelihood of an argument disintegrating into a quarrel is lessened.
I disagree. I think we do have an effective foundation for methodologically pointing out errors. On these forums, I think with the forum rules, with the rules of logic, and with common sense and courtesy, we do have an effective flooring and from which to methodically discuss, debate, and point out perceived errors and failures in each others arguments.
As far as discussion on these forums goes, one who refuses to abide by the forum rules can be reported and can be banned. Technically speaking, fallacies of relevance such as red herrings, straw mans, ad hominems, etc. are clearly against the forum rules, and one who does not genuinely try to avoid using them can be reported and can be banned.
In accordance with the forum rules, the title and original post determine the specific topic/question to be discussed, debated and attempted to be answered.
To illustrate the lack of need for some extra methodology, we did not need to discuss methodology for me to point out the false dilemma fallacy I believe you committed in the thread from which this complaint was copied. Without any special other methodology, it's clear to both of us that you have to show that you didn't commit the fallacy or your argument fails. This is just an exercise in basic logic.
The complicating issue I don't think is methodology of finding and pointing out errors; it's just miscommunication and misunderstanding. Sometimes we inadvertently misinterpret what a person is saying as something that we believe is untrue or illogical when what they actually mean to say is something with which we would agree. But as long as both people use common courtesy and follow the forum rules, misunderstandings will be cleared up.
Anyway, what type of methodology do you have in mind, Jackowens?
Here is another threads which may be of some use: The Four Elements of a Complete Logical Argument - By extension these also represent the four categories of rebuttals to arguments, or four things that can be cause an argument to fail. The credibility of the sources can be doubted, the truth of the premises can be doubted or the logical validity of the inferences can be doubted; the conclusion itself can be proven wrong (but any claim that the conclusion is false is a claim that either the premises are false or the logic is invalid).