Keys to productive internet discussions

[MathGeek]

There are days on the forum when there is a lot of less useful information and a lot of wasted bandwidth. Here are some of my guiding principles for better discussion:

1. I try and distinguish between what I know from firsthand observation, what I know from reliable (usually published) sources, and what I "heard somewhere."
2. I try and clearly communicate my confidence level in information and/or conclusions.
3. I work hard to present the best facts possible without veering off into logical fallacies:

3A. A common fallacy is the ad hominem (at the man) attack. In legal cases, it is often said to argue the facts if they are on your side. If you don't have the facts supporting your case, argue the law if it is on your side. If you have neither the facts or the law, then attack the character of your opponent. Attacking the character of parties on the internet takes several forms such as insults, put downs, attribution of impure motives, etc.

3B. The straw man fallacy is mischaracterizing the essential points of your opponent's position to make it easier to discredit. Often a position is represented as more extreme than it actually is or peripheral issues are exaggerated as if they are essential to the opposing view.

3C. The burden of proof fallacy either shifts the burden of proof or demands a higher level of supporting evidence than is customary in supporting a position in a given field. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In food safety, the burden of proof is often to show that food is safe for consumption. In most other areas of government regulation, the burden of proof is on the government to show compelling evidence that restrictions of individual liberty are both consistent with the US Constitution and necessary for the common good. We should always work to compel the government toward less regulation until compelling evidence is presented in need of more restrictive regulations. "Better safe than sorry" is a manipulative mindset for growing government and infringing liberty.

3D. The bandwagon fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because it has a lot of supporters.

3E. The appeal to authority fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because certain authorities have supported it without due consideration to the soundness of reasoning expressed by the authorities in support of a position.

3F. The appeal to fear suggests the negative consequences for not taking the advocated action overwhelm the weakness of the actual case supporting the advocated action.

There are lots of other logical fallacies that tend to detract from the productivity of discussions, but these are the prominent ones I've seen here. I won't pretend to be perfect in carrying out discussions, but I think if we work together we might improve our helping each other to reach common goals (catch more fish!) by working harder to implement these guidelines for improved civility and discourse.