Most fallacies aren’t really fallacies when you reinterpret them as Bayesian reasons to give an idea more credence rather than iron-clad syllogisms. Without [...] the “ad hominem fallacy” [...] you’d give all your money to Nigerian spammers.That's a very nice formulation of the idea that the "fallacies" of logic are amongst the tools of rehtoric. This is an notion that has fasinated me ever since I first read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintainance. The rhetorical apporach may not demand agreement (in the way that a sound and valid argument would) but it does tend to persuade. And the answers given by fallacious arguments are not neccessarily wrong, just uncertain.
Many folks in the IT industry seem to want to bludgeon their interlocutors into agreement with something that looks a lot like a proof (mea culpa). As I get older the gentle art of persuasion seems more and more attractive.
