This content is cross-posted to Synthetic Daisies. To get the most out of this post, please review the following materials:

The peer-review committee for pure rationality. For more, please see [1].

In this collection of essays and interviews, the overuse of logical fallacies itself is cited as a fallacy of composition, and provides better ways to construct arguments. These include several general observations related to the validity of reason itself. These transcend the popular “identify the fallacy” model. One theme involves making the case for consensus through joint argumentation. Correct answers are not to be found via the most rigorous argument, but by exploring many complementary arguments, each with their own flaws. Another theme involves being mindful of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias or cultural preferences. Even when an argument is highly rigorous by the standards of logical consistency, they may still suffer from a lack of perspective. The third major theme involves the recognition that ignorance is a valid starting point [5] for many arguments. It is impossible to know everything about a topic, so any principled argument is bound to be incomplete. And the traditional fallacy model [6] is likely to make things worse.

NOTES: [1] This is a list of 24 common logical fallacies, courtesy of Yourlogicalfallacyis.com (Jesse Richardson, Andy Smith, and Som Meadon). Also, most of these are individually found on Wikipedia with a more detailed explanation.

[2] Reinert, C. Denialism vs. Skepticism . Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies blog, February 23 (2014).