I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart
I think everyone here thinks they are smart and has something to offer everyone else....I'd like my website now please. 
The only posts that get torn apart are the posts that are incredibly full of ignorance.
Trivial objections or commonly known as hairsplitting is a form of logical fallacy and a special case of red herring.
it is ok for me if my arguments are dissected thoroughly as long as it does not divert from the main argument. Long may it continue, I often follow threads where two or more partys rip each others opinions to bits ,I find them quite amusing and sometimes thought provoking.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart |
That is the essence of critical debate. This is a philosophy and religion forum and philosophy requires the critical examination of a belief or posit. Words are important in philosophy and what may appear to be 'splitting hairs' may in fact be a vital point of definition.
Academic discussion is quite adversarial in nature - particularly scientific and philosophical debate. The best way to test an idea thoroughly is to let others try to destroy it and see if it survives the process. It's a sort of evolutionary process - only the fittest ideas survive. The proponent of a particular idea should always open it up to the criticism of his/her peers. That, in fact, is an essential part of both science and philosophy.
That does not mean, however, that the process should be ill-tempered or abusive. Most philosophers and scientists are used to the system and do not take criticism personally. Unfortunately some people see such criticism as a personal attack on them. That is a mistaken interpretation of what is (and should be) happening.I agree with Bike
I think you are right the most important thing is not take it personally as is not to insult!
i beg to disagree, the most important thing is not to stray away from the main argument and to offer substantial reasoning and better yet, solid evidences to prove/disprove a claim
to "split hairs" by means of logical fallacies is the most disgusting way to arrive on a conclusion, while to prove something using Occam's Razor with valid arguments is way much better.
| redhakaw wrote: |
i beg to disagree, the most important thing is not to stray away from the main argument and to offer substantial reasoning and better yet, solid evidences to prove/disprove a claim
to "split hairs" by means of logical fallacies is the most disgusting way to arrive on a conclusion, while to prove something using Occam's Razor with valid arguments is way much better. |
Nobody is suggesting the use of logical fallacies - you will find that I am very critical of them when I spot them."hair-splitting" is a logical fallacy, in case you didnt know.
but anyways, basing on your post - i believe you are referring to critical thinking and not of hairsplitting. Indeed, critical thinking is the very essence of a sound debate.
| redhakaw wrote: |
"hair-splitting" is a logical fallacy, in case you didnt know.
but anyways, basing on your post - i believe you are referring to critical thinking and not of hairsplitting. Indeed, critical thinking is the very essence of a sound debate. |
Ahh, yes, my mistake. I read it as meaning questioning the meaning of words closely, but you are quite right - hair splitting is an informal fallacy. | Bikerman wrote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | "hair-splitting" is a logical fallacy, in case you didnt know.
but anyways, basing on your post - i believe you are referring to critical thinking and not of hairsplitting. Indeed, critical thinking is the very essence of a sound debate. |
Ahh, yes, my mistake. I read it as meaning questioning the meaning of words closely, but you are quite right - hair splitting is an informal fallacy. |
I would not say all cases of "hair splitting" are purposely or accidently deceptive, but rather can imply something from one party to another given the context of the debate based on a fact, the split hair itself may not be as important as what you attempt to imply,
Why do we even have the saying itself ?...... one reason could be we would sound a little silly berating someone who's only crime is being precise. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | redhakaw wrote: | "hair-splitting" is a logical fallacy, in case you didnt know.
but anyways, basing on your post - i believe you are referring to critical thinking and not of hairsplitting. Indeed, critical thinking is the very essence of a sound debate. |
Ahh, yes, my mistake. I read it as meaning questioning the meaning of words closely, but you are quite right - hair splitting is an informal fallacy. |
I would not say all cases of "hair splitting" are purposely or accidently deceptive, but rather can imply something from one party to another given the context of the debate based on a fact, the split hair itself may not be as important as what you attempt to imply,
Why do we even have the saying itself ?...... one reason could be we would sound a little silly berating someone who's only crime is being precise. |
No redhakaw was correct - there is a formal definition of hair-splitting which is indeed a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | redhakaw wrote: | "hair-splitting" is a logical fallacy, in case you didnt know.
but anyways, basing on your post - i believe you are referring to critical thinking and not of hairsplitting. Indeed, critical thinking is the very essence of a sound debate. |
Ahh, yes, my mistake. I read it as meaning questioning the meaning of words closely, but you are quite right - hair splitting is an informal fallacy. |
I would not say all cases of "hair splitting" are purposely or accidently deceptive, but rather can imply something from one party to another given the context of the debate based on a fact, the split hair itself may not be as important as what you attempt to imply,
Why do we even have the saying itself ?...... one reason could be we would sound a little silly berating someone who's only crime is being precise. |
No redhakaw was correct - there is a formal definition of hair-splitting which is indeed a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections |
Oh......How very caviler of me 
..... but I suppose two words to discribe what one can makes more sense.Usually, the more intelligent or should I say "know it all" people are susceptible to this type of fallacy. An argument becomes too complicated and too out of topic when hair-splitting is attempted. Like in the case of Louis Pasteur where he deliberately objected any experiments that were against his theories.
strawman tactics are very slippery forms of fallacies which we need to detect and avoid when engaging in an argument. Yes, agreed. I did post a page on common fallacies some time ago but it's dropped-off the radar now.
This is a pretty reasonable explanation of the most common fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
It might be useful for someone to prepare a posting on this matter to be included as a sticky? | Bikerman wrote: |
Yes, agreed. I did post a page on common fallacies some time ago but it's dropped-off the radar now.
This is a pretty reasonable explanation of the most common fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
It might be useful for someone to prepare a posting on this matter to be included as a sticky? |
Could you point me to the section where the mention of split hairs is ? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Yes, agreed. I did post a page on common fallacies some time ago but it's dropped-off the radar now.
This is a pretty reasonable explanation of the most common fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
It might be useful for someone to prepare a posting on this matter to be included as a sticky? |
Could you point me to the section where the mention of split hairs is ? |
Ahh..well hair-splitting is an example of an informal fallacy of the general class 'straw man'; so the section would be straw man, although hair-splitting is not explicitly mentioned in that class (that is another reason why it would be a good idea to have a posting on fallacies for this forum).
If you want a specific reference to the split-hair fallacy then;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections
A more comprehensive list would be :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart |
I actually quite like most of the posts on the philosophy and religion board. They are good opinions, and often backed with an argument.
I tried staying at a american evangelical christian forum. It was terrible. The words "rational" "logic" did not exist over there. It was a mixture of insults.
On this forum, people are quite nice. It's not often you find a poster who actually wants to "tear the other apart" as you have said. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart |
I could be wrong, mabye I don't really understand what hair splitting is. Many of the arguements in this post seem to be hair splitting, the defination/meaning of the word hair splitting. The fine details of an arguement are important, but debateing them should not overshadow the main subject, in my opinion. | kerryworkman wrote: |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: | I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart |
I could be wrong, mabye I don't really understand what hair splitting is. Many of the arguements in this post seem to be hair splitting, the defination/meaning of the word hair splitting. The fine details of an arguement are important, but debateing them should not overshadow the main subject, in my opinion. |
Well since the thread is about hair splitting I think it is reasonable to establish what that means and that is the main reason for the consideration of whether it is a fallacy and what sort of fallacy.
On the rest of the thread assertions...I don't agree that the philosophy and science forums are places where | Quote: |
| most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart. |
I certainly try to be objective and do not engage in personal attacks (ad-hominem fallacy) and it is my impression that this is not uncommon (oops - double negative). In any public forum there will be individuals who are abusive or overly aggressive but I can say from a fairly wide and long experience that these forums are certainly not over-populated by such individuals. | Bikerman wrote: |
| kerryworkman wrote: | | yagnyavalkya wrote: | I have seen this in most posts in this and the science forum
I mean I have seen people just " splitting hair" to put their view through or to dissect the other posters view
Is it the right way to continue a discussion
Seems most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart |
I could be wrong, mabye I don't really understand what hair splitting is. Many of the arguements in this post seem to be hair splitting, the defination/meaning of the word hair splitting. The fine details of an arguement are important, but debateing them should not overshadow the main subject, in my opinion. |
Well since the thread is about hair splitting I think it is reasonable to establish what that means and that is the main reason for the consideration of whether it is a fallacy and what sort of fallacy.
On the rest of the thread assertions...I don't agree that the philosophy and science forums are places where | Quote: | | most time the poster wants to tear the other poster apart. |
I certainly try to be objective and do not engage in personal attacks (ad-hominem fallacy) and it is my impression that this is not uncommon (oops - double negative). In any public forum there will be individuals who are abusive or overly aggressive but I can say from a fairly wide and long experience that these forums are certainly not over-populated by such individuals. |
I am sorry, I agree with you, I just thought it was funny. In my own experience, I have found most responses on this forum to be respectful of others opinions as well. My main point is that the hair splitting should not overshadow the subject. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | Yes, agreed. I did post a page on common fallacies some time ago but it's dropped-off the radar now.
This is a pretty reasonable explanation of the most common fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
It might be useful for someone to prepare a posting on this matter to be included as a sticky? |
Could you point me to the section where the mention of split hairs is ? |
Ahh..well hair-splitting is an example of an informal fallacy of the general class 'straw man'; so the section would be straw man, although hair-splitting is not explicitly mentioned in that class (that is another reason why it would be a good idea to have a posting on fallacies for this forum).
If you want a specific reference to the split-hair fallacy then;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections
A more comprehensive list would be :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |
That would be a No then.
Ahh well hairsplitting by most (if not all) other definitions go along the lines of, "a fine distinction of little importance" , the importance of the distinction surely rests on the context of the debate and is not allways a deliberate misrepresentation , am I nitpicking now ? 
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
That would be a No then.
Ahh well hairsplitting by most (if not all) other definitions go along the lines of, "a fine distinction of little importance" , the importance of the distinction surely rests on the context of the debate and is not allways a deliberate misrepresentation , am I nitpicking now ? |
Well it *is* an informal fallacy and you can find references to it if you google. I agree, however, that in most usage it means pretty much the same as 'nitpicking', and sometimes it is used interchangably with being 'pedantic'.
It is interesting, however, that those last two are both desirable activites.
Nit-picking is a social grooming activity in primates and important in maintaining the social structure.
Pedantic comes from the latin 'Paedere' meaning to teach, so a Pedant is literally a teacher.
Both have come to be used pejoratively over time - I'm not sure what that says about us | Bikerman wrote: |
Well it *is* an informal fallacy and you can find references to it if you google. I agree, however, that in most usage it means pretty much the same as 'nitpicking', and sometimes it is used interchangably with being 'pedantic'. |
I would agree that hair splitting *ect*, is seen in some (if not most cases) as a form of negative commentry, especially when its repeated toward one individual (and in some respect ideals) at every opportunity.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It is interesting, however, that those last two are both desirable activites.
Nit-picking is a social grooming activity in primates and important in maintaining the social structure.
Pedantic comes from the latin 'Paedere' meaning to teach, so a Pedant is literally a teacher.
Both have come to be used pejoratively over time - I'm not sure what that says about us |
It is interesting, I was pondering to myself about education/parents teaching us as children to internally split hairs ( teaching a child to share, is often seen from the childs point of view as initially unreasonable ) and you mention a connection with the word Teach.Hi all
I am surprised that this thread has gone this far!
anyway I am back Just finished watching the IND _ AUS test series and guess what I never had the time for this forum with so much read on the net
I guess there is enough splitting going on here as well although I must say not necessarily hair
