There was an interesting counterargument on an old blog. If you can look past the uncivil language in the title, the author makes some good observations about how "baloney detection" tends to show up in the wild:<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140219225908/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20140219225908/http://plover.net...</a><p>A snippet: "In the real world, it's not sufficient simply to identify a fallacy in an argument. You've also got to think why the fallacy is a problem in that particular instance, and what consequences it could have for the rest of the argument; often it will have less consequence than you might think. If you think you've dismissed an opposing argument just because you think you've seen a fallacy, then you're deluding yourself."<p>I never found out who this "plover" author is, or why they took down their blog. Maybe someone here knows more.