Exercises in Logic

[sistermagpie]

I recently got pointed to this post that's really worth reading. It's about the political advantage of encouraging the current anti-intellectualism wave in the US today, with specific examples taken from the response to Katrina.



In her post hedrahelix says:

If you've been lucky enough to get a first rate education, when the politicians start their bullshit, you recognize it for the bullshit that it is, and the sooner you see it as bullshit, the faster you can see through it and get to the heart of the matter. The less willing you are to be put off by their stupid shit.

This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone. Probably the biggest thing that compels me to jump into Internet arguments I'm not in to start with isn't the emotional connection to the subject but bad logic in arguments--not in terms of me wanting to instruct people, but in terms of my seeing somebody say something that seems untrue. I don't consider myself particularly good at spotting this lack of logic--or at least, I'm not an expert. But honestly, I feel that getting into discussions on the Usenet, mbs and lj has helped me get better at it. There was one poster at TORC I will always consider one of the greatest teacher I ever had in this--Apostasy was the name he went by. He had a gift for taking apart an argument and explaining exactly why it didn't work logically, using the name of the logical fallacy and explaining it, in a way that made it clear (I think he was a teacher IRL). It really did make me more able to articulate things I saw wrong with arguments, times when it just didn't seem right but I didn't know how to pull apart the logic.

Once you're aware of this you just see it all over the place. Here hedrahelix is using it to talk about, for instance, Chertoff's attempt to create a false binary about the hurricane: you can either help the people who need help or you can assign blame and talk about what should have been done. You can't do both, so if you choose the latter, you are a bad person. It's just so damn sneaky yet it works appealing to the emotion--nobody is going to choose to assign blame rather than help. The lie is in the idea that you can only do one or the other. But if you put off the questioning until people have calmed down and the facts are no longer fresh chance are you'll get off.

I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way. And it works because I think less and less do people feel confident in demanding a logical argument or articulating what is illogical about an argument. How often do people fall back on "you're taking away my right to speak" when all anyone has done is disagree, or "you're insulting my opinion" when you've pointed out logical holes in their theory? Or claim that it's up to you to prove that their theory couldn't be true when in fact the burden of proof is upon them as the person making the claim (and that means coming up with why we should even be considering the claim, not just assuming the claim is true and then tossing out simpler explanation to make it fit). Or they switch from arguing about a characters' actions to why they don't like the character, or how another character is a nicer guy, seemingly without realizing the difference? I know it's easy to get caught up--like I said, I'm not holding myself up as the model for everyone by a longshot. But I like learning how not to do that.

I think that's why it drives me crazy when this gets lumped into the "everybody should be nice argument." It's been argued many times that a fic writer or artist will not improve if shielded from all criticism. Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes. Only when it comes to argument it seems even more important to make sure people are made to understand logic. With a fic writer or artist the alternative is just bad fics and bad art. With logic you're talking about the ability to recognize truth itself. It's not that everybody has to come to the same conclusion or the same personal opinions, particularly with regards to fandom (there's no logical reason for liking one ship over another, for instance), but that people should be able to tell fact from opinion and know what is canon evidence and what isn't, and be able to distinguish what a character thinks from what the author thinks from what they think, if not for the sake of figuring out what's going to happen in the next book or episode but so that maybe they can do this in life. They're not going to get that in an atmosphere willing to, for instance, teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory as if they're just ideas of equal worth, or where bias is given such focus people are encouraged to think that bias is the only truth there is.

Anyway, there is more to the linked post than that, including very good points about just what a sense of entitlement will get you. But I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures. I certainly don't think that every discussion must turn into an exercise in logic--there's a place for just venting, etc., It's just that if you want to learn about this, the Internet is a good place to do it.

Comments

Looooong reply (again!)

[arwencordelia.livejournal.com]

This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone.

Yes. Just last night, I found myself at a friend's house watching an infomercial where some guy was selling his book which was full of "natural cures" for serious diseases: diabetes, cancer, (oh yes, all types of cancer), AIDS, everything out there that makes people afraid and desperate. Why haven't any of us heard of these cures? Because the FDA is in league with the pharmaceutical companies, and they won't label anything a "cure" if pharma can't profit from it (even though the FDA is a Federal Agency, whose employees have to abide by strict rules to avoid conflicts of interest; FDA medical reviewers, for example, cannot be on advisory boards for a pharma company, and owning their stock is definitely out).

What struck me about this person is that he was obviously intelligent, well-educated, and, well-spoken. By listening closely you could see just how carefully scripted his sentences were, and pick out all the places where he took a kernel of truth, and used it to build an argument that didn't hold any water past the first sentence. I lost count of the number of fallacies and badly built arguments he used in the few minutes I was actually watching.

And what was most frustrating was that people were probably actually buying his book. Besides being your run-of-the-mill medical scam taking advantage of desperate people, this particular case was maddening because people in this country, who views education as a right to be provided free to everyone, should have enough critical thinking skills to dismiss this person's claims as obviously unfounded.

And that was clearly not the case. I have the advantage of always having lived in large metropolitan areas, surrounded by people who received an adequate (or better) education. Unlike the writer of the post you linked to, I was born to a middle class family, who valued education above almost everything else, and made certain that I would know how to think for myself by the time I was old enough to make any sort of important decision. That's a pure accident of birth. Just as easily, I could have been born in a situation where merely learning how to read was a challenge.

And I'm now rambling, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no surviving in this world anymore - even in the absence of natural disasters - without a good education, whose value, when it all comes down to it, is to teach people how to think and how to assess the world around them.

That includes politics, and all the comments made by politicians (a topic I try to stay away from, at least on LJ, though I've been less than successful lately :-) Your point about intelligent design is another very good example. A few short years ago I would have been shocked that there are people who do not understand the difference between an established theory that has withstood two centuries of testing and is now regarded as scientific fact, and a "theory" someone cooked up by saying that, well, it's possible after all that the world was created by an intelligent being. Or by Albus Dumbledore, who happened to sneeze particularly vigorously one day while holding his wand :-/

The issue of debate in fandom is another one that I try to temper my response to. It just doesn't seem to me that analysing an argument to show exactly where it breaks down would be well received (and the few times I tried sort of reinforced that idea!). I've been reading and occasionally posting at Talk Origins ever since the usenet days, and as this is a common and respected strategy there, I figured I'd try it in fandom. I've since stopped doing that because, really, I don't have time to keep up with the fall back, or to keep explaining that it has nothing to do with being "nice". Now, I just step back and maybe go write about in my LJ, or just dismiss whatever it is altogether. Cowardly, but true!

Re: Looooong reply (again!)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Just last night, I found myself at a friend's house watching an infomercial where some guy was selling his book which was full of "natural cures" for serious diseases: diabetes, cancer, (oh yes, all types of cancer), AIDS, everything out there that makes people afraid and desperate.

I have heard about this guy. In fact, I remember seeing him lampooned on the Daily Show--but see, that points to a gulf too, because on the Daily Show it's so ridiculous it can just be mocked, but then there are people who really want to believe these things. I feel the same way about that guy who's constantly writing about the "conspiracy" to make people believe that weight has anything to do with health. That too is supposed to be about big pharm making money off of diet pills (when really, don't they make far more money off of all the medicines for illnesses weight can make worse). It sounds good, but it's not.

But then, one of my favorite shows is Penn & Teller's Bullshit, so it's no wonder I like this stuff!

Now, I just step back and maybe go write about in my LJ, or just dismiss whatever it is altogether. Cowardly, but true!

I completely understand how you feel! But still there's always part of me that's confused when people don't appreciate this. I don't mean somebody swooping in and telling them their argument fails, but honestly explaining how it breaks down and what they're really saying.

Re: Looooong reply (again!)

[arwencordelia.livejournal.com]

It sounds good, but it's not.

I think that explains a lot of things, actually - being willing to believe a simple explanation exists too easily, even when all the clues point to something more complex.

And I'm going to have to watch more TV, I think :-) I was absolutely shocked by that infomercial, but no one else there paid it much mind. In fact, I got a lot of "what's the big deal" looks for spluttering in indignation because, apparently, everyone expects this sort of ad to make outrageous claims, and no one really believes infomercials. I just can't help but think there are people who do believe them - after all, everyone else watching with me also had the benefit of a good education and the capability to recognise an outrageous claim for what it is.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, it's been that way for a while now. I was taught occasionally in private schools, which in California were much better than the public schools (for British readers: I was taught in public schools, which in California were better than counsel or gov't-run, taxpayer funded schools). I saw holes in some arguments, which friends wanted to paper over with things like, yeah, but *if* this and that and this and that... When 'if' never entered the equation. This is what happened, this is the disconnect, this then is the problem.

The thing I will never get over is, when I made my occasional way to public/gov't-run schools, I coasted. I had already learned what they were teaching. The church-schools I attended didn't discriminate against the dumb students, so all I can think is, the schools my parents paid for did *not* teach down to the Lowest Common Denominator, while the ones we paid for in taxes, did. And I'm not the brightest bulb when it comes to math, either, so when I say I coasted, I'm not inflating my own genius.

It's horrible. It really is. And I am glad for the internet! Even for sites where illogic rules. They're the ones you say, yes, that's wrong and that's wrong and that's wrong... and so on. Showing by example.

Of course, I'm following a debate elsewhere, where one poster is rude, critical, unbudging, pompous, arrogant, and dismissive of posts which don't agree with him or at least bow down to his (legend in his own mind) superiority at deduction (a HP board). And I, too, have decided to decline to respond to this guy, after responding once to his moral relativisim. He's got a stick, and he's storing it you-know-where.

In fact, if I can rant a minute, the amount of people I have seen who will give a pass to someone they like while being extra-critical of someone they don't like, is amazing. Mind boggling. No one wants to find common ground any more. Hard-liners. I sort-of expect that on a political board, since politics can often replace religion as a core belief. But, on a board about a fictional book???

End of rant. I do try to stay away from political messages, since the areas of the internet I usually traverse are generally politically opposed to my own stance and beliefs. But, in those times when I do run across kindred spirits, I still hate joining the chorus. I like a well-reasoned argument where people can feel free to comment with well-reasoned responses. And maybe I'm dumbing down, too, but anymore, I'm happy to see a response that doesn't end up calling the former poster a jerk, and dumping on them *just because* they don't see life in quite the same way.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Urgh! Yes, I know just what you mean-and it somehow does seem silly to get this way about a book of all things. Though in a way it's also almost more important that people learn to speak more accurately when they're talking about politics, because otherwise you just get people yelling at each other. It *matters* if you're accurate.

But then, I guess it does also drive me crazy even when I'm talking about fiction to have people say things that just are not true, or slip in their interpretation of events as if they are fact.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I had a very good teacher in 11th grade for US Government. He had us each try out a campaign speech. And he let us ramble on about all the wonderful things we were going to do, yadda yadda, you know what most people remember from political speeches. And when each person would get to the end of his or her feel-good promotion, he went through why each thing was wrong or right.

I can only guess that at that time, peope really did pay attention more to what was actually being said. When someone promised to fix the roads, he said that voters would have to wonder where he planned on getting that money to do it. More schools? (someone sucking up to the teacher here???) Where's the funding coming from? Reform the laws? Presidents can't do that. And so on, and so on.

Public/taxpayer teacher, but one of the best I had. I don't know about the rest of the class, but I learned to listen to what the pol is actually saying, and hold it against what the job can do, or what the cost will actually be, weigh the benefits and the downside. I really hate political season. You'll find me yelling at the TV, 'Hey! You can't do that! / Who's paying for that?'

It just seems that no one knows what the different offices can do any more!

[fictualities.livejournal.com]

Interesting link, and a very interesting post.

I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures.

I think so. You're quite right to point out that internet arguments sometimes reduce to a laundry list of logical fallacies, but the same is true, frankly, of argumentation in many other forums, including the classroom. Internet argumentation has two advantages as an educational opportunity: 1) It's written, and thus may be examined again and gain, so if you don't see the logical flaw the first time, you can catch it later, particularly if some other poster points it out. 2) The very best of it is freely available to anyone who can get into a public library. Education should be that way too, dammit, but it's not, or not in practice for many people.

It's funny -- I've reconnected with my cable company after a six month billing dispute, and have been celebrating with a C-Span orgy. Just saw something that made me laugh: a presentation by a social scientist who had discovered that Americans are reading fewer and fewer books. Yes, this is a bad thing, and he predicted all kinds of dire consequences -- but it turned out the study was not about reading and writing in general, but about whether people are reading books, as in the things printed on dead trees. People are reading fewer of them, and the cause, the guy said in hushed tones, was "increased access to electronic media" -- by which he meant not TV (TV viewing has remained constant) but the internet.

Although I'm tempted, I won't dwell on the irony that this guy was bemoaning the influence of electronic media on television. Too easy, and maybe he didn't know C-Span was going to cover his talk. For the purposes of your post, his attitude toward the internet was far more interesting. He didn't even seem to consider the possibility that the internet might hone people's intelligence. I love books, and have been cutting back on my net time to read more of them, but dismissing the internet altogether seems like a sign of inflexible thinking. Does he think that people are simply staring at the screen when they surf?

If the educational system has screwed you over -- or even if it hasn't -- the net is a chance to encounter other opinions and to use language to wrestle your own opinions into better shape. Those who see the net as a bunch of pretty lights dancing on the screen (or those who for whatever reason decry genuine diversity of opinion in their own internet communities) are overlooking one of the medium's greatest advantages.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Internet argumentation has two advantages as an educational opportunity: 1) It's written, and thus may be examined again and gain, so if you don't see the logical flaw the first time, you can catch it later, particularly if some other poster points it out. 2) The very best of it is freely available to anyone who can get into a public library. Education should be that way too, dammit, but it's not, or not in practice for many people.

Yes, definitely. It occurs to me, for instance, that when you get to know people on the 'net, or at least their arguing style, you probably start to notice which people make good arguments no matter what the subject and those who make you cheer if you agree with them, but sometimes drive you crazy. I wonder if you really looked at them it would turn out that they weren't ever really being that logical, only when you agreed with them it didn't bother you as much.

Does he think that people are simply staring at the screen when they surf?

It sounds like it! I guess yeah, there's a lot of things you can do on the 'net--there's videos and shopping and pictures. But there's also a lot of words and information. In a way it really shows just how many people are still interested in the kinds of things the media would have you think was too nerdy to attract interest. There's so many obscure things people make web sites on. Once in a while it suddenly strikes me how there was a time when I couldn't just quickly find information on something from my room.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I'm really intrigued by the idea of taking 'Introduction to Logic' as a philosophy course, as mentioned in the linked post.
(God knows I love to argue IRL, although I actually tone it down on the net - I know, unbelieavable, right? ;) - because of the very fact that I'm not necessarily as educated/expert on certain styles of debating, even though I like to think I know what I'm talking about when referring to specific canons/subjects. I like to argue when I know I can win. (Which probably says lots about it just by itself. *facepalms*)
Although I find you learn bunches just observing on the net, as you mentioned; even just fan wanking and fic teaches basic skills.

I'm glad to have the name of 'false binary' too (I'm not sure - would that be the same thing as a straw man?)

I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way.

Oh, yeah. I know that 'If you don't like every single aspect of every single Order/DA/Gryffindor members personalities, you're saying that the DEs are preferable' comes up a lot, and I know my uncle had a similiar reaction when we saw Revenge of the Sith (LOL) - I said I didn't particularly like the Jedi, and he went all 'Well, they're better than the Sith!'
Um, yeah, I got that. I would have mentioned that none of the Sith's ethics were particularly likeable/admirable, but I thought it was kind of obvious. Then he cited 'Only a Sith thinks in absolutes' Which seems kind of an absolute to me, but by then I was just wanting to go to sleep. I can only wank about one fandom at a time, apparently!

Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes.

I've never meant anyone who actually believed that, anyway.
I've met lots of people who believed that their own arguments deserved automatic respect and that pointing out it's lack of logic was mean, or that no one should criticise their fanfiction because it hurts so bad OMG, but I've never seen anyone apply this across the board to everyone in fandom, regardless of their differing opinions.
For instance, you might get someone who says that any criticism of JKR's writing, even in a logical, preferrably objective rather than emotive way is terribly cruel and harsh and unfair, but who enjoys filing Mary Sue reports about ff.net stories, or complaining about how 'stupid' meta essayists are.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I've never taken an introduction to logic either--I'm glad for the link in that post. Like I said, I think I got a lot more information from that one guy who would do it as part of a discussion I was interested in. I remember going for weeks with this kid who kept trying to prove that demonic possession was real. I started into it just because what he was saying was so silly and obviously not about evidence, but since he kept arguing this guy had to keep walking him through his argument and showing him again and again why he was wrong. Things stuck in my head!

I like to argue when I know I can win. (Which probably says lots about it just by itself. *facepalms*)

LOL! Well, most people don't get into an argument if they don't think they're right on some level, so that's probably normal.

I can only wank about one fandom at a time, apparently!

Hey, it's a big commitment!

I've met lots of people who believed that their own arguments deserved automatic respect and that pointing out it's lack of logic was mean, or that no one should criticise their fanfiction because it hurts so bad OMG, but I've never seen anyone apply this across the board to everyone in fandom, regardless of their differing opinions.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, nobody wants to read crap all day long, right? And at the same time, I don't think most people are in fandom to hurt beginning writers. What everyone would agree on would be a way to give people criticism nicely, but people get shoved into these two extremes.

I'm glad to have the name of 'false binary' too (I'm not sure - would that be the same thing as a straw man?)

No.:-) (Hope I get this write) A false binary is like she described, where someone claims you can have one thing or another and those are your only two choices, when really you can have both or neither. A strawman is where you create a false argument for the other person that's easy to knock down, knock it down and claim you knocked down their argument. Like, I think a common one would be if you say that a "good" character did something bad, and someone says you think Harry is just as bad as Voldemort when Voldemort killed people OMG!!11! The argument that Harry and Voldemort are moral equals is a strawman that's easy for them to knock down.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Logical fallacies is a personal pet peeve of mine, especially when people seem to buy into arguments containing them. Not that I'm an expert either, but sometimes they are just so glaringly obvious, that it's highly frustrating to see other people not seeming to see through them.

When I studied philosophy in high school, a part of the course was argumentation analysis, and it was very interesting. I remember we got about nine or so categories of different types of faulty arguments, but I only remember "majority arguments" and "authority" arguments among the categories. I wish I had kept the papers about it, no doubt would they have come in handy when debating over the Internet. ;-) Maybe I'll just borrow the book from the library, one of these days...

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm an expert either, but sometimes they are just so glaringly obvious, that it's highly frustrating to see other people not seeming to see through them.

Yes! And so passionately believe in them too. You can't help but get more and more frustrated the more leeway people give them.

I have never taken a course in these things, so I'm sure there are huge gaps in my knowledge on it. Maybe I'm making logical fallacies all over the place and I don't know it!! But really, I can remember even as a kid I loved to explain things logically, say how I got to such-and-such conclusion (usually I was explaining it to myself but still it's very satisfying).

[sleeplessmarea.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link, Magpie. Most thought provoking, and well written indeed.

Glad I've finally been introduced to the phrase "false binary". I'd understood the concept for a while now without knowledge of that term - things are gonnna be easier to explain now.

Another logical fallacy I'm rather fond of is that of "over- determinism". That's the one where you're SURE that there's ONE chief cause behind any given issue, controvery or event. The mistake is in not allowing that many, if not most, things arise out of a series of causes, some unrelated to one another except that they impact the same thing. Unfortunately overdetermined causes usally precede overdetermined (and ususally distoreted) solutions because they fail to account for all the causes. Any overdetermined solutions which follow are doomed to failure due to being even FURTHER divorced from reality than the causes are.

Take the issue of being overweight as an example. While it may be technically correct to contend that Americans are overweight because we lead lifestyles that are too sedentary, it is a stretch to say that all Americans have to do is excercise and they will become fit and return to normal weight. Really? Does the "solution" take into account the following elements, which may exist with or without a regular excercise program: thyroid or other hormone imbalances, prescription drug side effects, unhelpful food additives or drug interactions, genetics, the prevalence of junk and/or fast food and simply the total calorie imput that any consumer consumes? Once we look at those, NOW do we think it's just all about excercise?

Overdetermined opinions make it seem like conspiracy is afoot. And sometimes they're gonna be right. But too often sloppy debate seems as much to be a resultof an inappropriate and doomed impulse to simplify life by the complexity phobic than to any preponderance of fact or conviction or wisdom.

And I just LOVED these next lines...

Let’s say your kid has a bad teacher at school.

If you’re middle class, you have a sense of entitlement that your tax dollars paid for that school, and damn it, you’re going to get your money’s worth from it. That teacher ...is not teaching your kid what he or she needs to know, and Mrs. Jones down the street told you the other day that she requested a transfer to get little Suzy out of that class, so you decide to make an appointment to talk to the principal on Tuesday.


If you’re middle class, you have a sense of entitlement that your tax dollars paid for that school, and damn it, you’re going to get your money’s worth from it. That teacher ... is a loon ...not teaching your kid what he or she needs to know, and Mrs. Jones down the street told you the other day that she requested a transfer to get Suzy out of that class, so you decide to make an appointment....

So true....

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Another logical fallacy I'm rather fond of is that of "over- determinism".

Ah! Yes, I see what you mean. Usually the thing that's the main cause of something is...the thing that person wants to address. The weight thing is a great example. I remember reading something about that recently, for instance, and it pointed out that a lot of the things that people talk about like they're recent (like people being sedentary) are not. It's not just a case of this one thing changing so drastically in the past 25 years. It sounds good, but it's not really true.

But too often sloppy debate seems as much to be a resultof an inappropriate and doomed impulse to simplify life by the complexity phobic than to any preponderance of fact or conviction or wisdom.

Well said.

[(Anonymous)]

I work in a legal capacity and teach part-time in a legal studies program. One of the things I am supposed to teach is critical thinking, which is the ability to tear apart or construct arguments, using logic and proof. Critical thinking is a difficult practice to convey to students. It involves setting aside preconceptions, examining various points of view, and even worse, doing hard work.

Making critical thinking more difficult for me to teach is the fact that I am not a logical person. I studied logic. It didn't move me. I am by temperament or nature or whatever more of an intuitive, leap into the unknown, connect the dots scattered far apart in space kind of thinker. To me, thinking is as much play as determination. Yes, I am Luna Lovegood, a Ravenclaw, but not what you'd expect from the brochure.

I just want to submit that logic isn't everything. There are many learning styles and approaches to so-called truth, for example, parables and painting and music. And speaking as a legal professional who lives with a librarian, the Internet can lead you astray as often as it can set you free, especially as Big Media takes over (shades of Luna).

[cressida0201.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing me to that essay! I thought it was excellent.

So you post on TORC, or used to? I wonder if I've ever encountered you there? I post as Cressida, though I haven't been very active there since last spring.

Applying the points of the article to fandom once again: something about LOTR fandom clicked for me while reading that essay and your reaction, about why some people are driven completely up the wall by the movies and others absolutely cannot understand why they feel that way. I really think the scripts for the movies are full of logical fallacies. They want us to accept post hoc as propter hoc, they have many non sequiturs that the audience must scramble to fill in, they sometimes argue from ignorance in ways that the audience may not be naturally inclined to follow, etc. Some people, for whatever reason, find it easy to go along with these fallacies and follow them in the direction that Peter Jackson & co. apparently want them to go. A kinder way of putting that might be to say that the filmmakers rely on the audience making intuitive leaps along with them. But to those who see the fallacies as fallacies, who aren't willing or able to make the leaps unless led to do so by a chain of evidence, the movies are going to be profoundly unsatisfying.

Whatever people say about the movie adaptations of the Harry Potter books, at least they do not have that problem.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I did post on TORC, yes!

I don't know whether you could call something in a movie a fallacy. They seem more like plot holes. They're not making an argument, really, or proving a point. All movies expect us to fill in something--a lot, really--but when they fail you're going, WTF?

I actually think the HP movies do contain these kinds of gaps. I don't know them that well, but I remember specifically that the third movie left out something that was necessary to get from one point to another. Something about the map or never explaining that Lupin and Sirius made it, etc. I forget what it was, but I remember asking somebody (since I didn't see the movie) how it worked and they figured they just filled it in from knowing the book. Then somebody else said it was asked by someone who didn't know the story and so didn't get it. I guess anytime you adapt a book you're probably going to have some leaps where you try to take a short cut and cut things out. The trouble is when the audience just gets lost.

[cressida0201.livejournal.com]

Maybe it would be better to say that the plot holes in the LOTR movies take the form of logical fallacies, or are constructed like them? For instance, "Arwen is dying" seems like one big non-sequitur. And practically everything about movie-Faramir is screwy in one way or another (not that I'm bitter about THAT, nooo, not at all...).

You may have a point about the third HP movie, as they did leave out huge chunks of the book. I didn't like that one very much, so I've only seen it twice (once in the movie theatre and once on DVD last Christmas). I was thinking mostly of the first two when I said that.

[cressida0201.livejournal.com]

Er. It's occurred to me (and should have occurred earlier, given the atmosphere of TORC) that you might be one of those who has no trouble with the LOTR movie scripts. If so, I apologize if my comments are annoying. It's just that I find the scripts incredibly frustrating, and borrowing the tools of logical debate to explain the bits that frustrate me seems like a useful technique. A lot of the problems I have are because the explanation of the situation in the movie is IMO insufficient.