Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It is a common rhetorical technique, equivalent to ad hominem in that it attacks the message rather than the argument (I guess that would be ad messaginem :-) The general form is <fact>:<error claim>:<ad hominem> but to detect such you might need to extract a list of claims in the source article compare them to find the singular intersection with the comment, and then the ad hominem insult as well. Multi-fact/claim messages would get by of course.

Rather than having a single numerical up/down, some kind of multi-dimensional list of fallacies?

So what we're talking about would be a +1 on the "Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent" anti-pattern, more or less?

Wikipedia has a nice list of fallacies which would make interesting tags.

One thing I know for certain is people like to imagine they personally invented their own fallacy, and get all outta whack if you identify their wisdom/insight as merely a poorly implemented manifestation of fallacy type #34 with aspects of type #11.

For example discussions of scalability always seem to devolve into steaming buckets of pragmatic fallacy and it would be interesting to filter out because its pretty tiresome. Someone who's a total noob might actually want it because a poor map is better than no map at all, or at least they can skim some definitions out of context. Or, personally I think amphiboly is hilarious and I'd filter it up by +100, although it adds absolutely nothing to a discussion other than joy in my life, however I can see how someone could get sick of it and want to filter it out if they were looking for actual knowledge rather than a rare laugh.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact