History Main / FallacyFallacy

23rd Dec '16 10:56:23 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. The best you can say is that they have not convincingly supported it.

For extra rhetorical effect, this can be combined with StrawmanFallacy when your opponent has both fallacious and valid arguments, by refuting the fallacious arguments and ignoring the valid ones.

to:

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. The best you can say is that they have not convincingly supported it. \n\nFor extra rhetorical effect, this can This also applies to the Fallacy Fallacy itself: Bill's argument is a fallacy, but it would be combined with StrawmanFallacy when your opponent has both fallacious and the same fallacy to conclude that Ginger ''is'' a cat because of that, since Tom's only "proof" is not a valid arguments, by refuting the fallacious arguments and ignoring the valid ones.
argument.



* The use of red lighting to treat smallpox. (By placing dyed cloth over the windows of a room.) This was believed to aid the balance of humours in the body. Now it is assumed to have been effective because the red dye was a natural shield against ultraviolet light.
27th Nov '16 3:40:59 PM chc232323
Is there an issue? Send a Message





** Note also that this sort of bias need not involve deliberate lying--people will interpret ambiguous evidence as favoring the conclusion they desire or already believe. That is, we would expect the Ban All Mining And Especially Strippit activist group to report that the mining would harm the caribou whether or not it actually would--and not necessarily through any lying or even lack of diligence on their part.

to:

*** Additionally, the value we place on Strippit's evidence in part depends on context. If, for example, mining is well-regulated and companies are investigated by thorough, incorruptible officials who are likely to find any malfeasance and fines for deceit are punishingly high, we can consider Strippit's real vested interest is in being honest. The same might be true without laws in an environment where people internalize social responsibility, such as if Strippit's corporate culture consisted of people from the land to be mined and they valued environmentally responsible mining.
*** An example of this sort of policing is in clinical trials, where a pharmaceutical company really is interested in catching common adverse effects during the Phase III trials (before releasing the drug to market), as there are whole bevies of lawyers waiting to discover a drug has adverse effects that were swept under the rug. More problematic are rare side effects discovered during Phase IV (post-release surveillance), as the population taking the drug explodes and new events may be found that didn't show up in the first few hundred trial participants.
** Note also that this sort of bias need not involve deliberate lying--people will interpret ambiguous evidence as favoring the conclusion they desire or already believe. That is, ''assuming the evidence is ambiguous'', we would expect the Ban All Mining And Especially Strippit activist group to report that the mining would harm the caribou whether or not it actually would--and - and not necessarily through any lying or even lack of diligence on their part.
8th Nov '16 4:42:02 PM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Bill's rebuttal is an argument from fallacy, because Ginger may ''very well'' be a cat; we just can't ''assume'' so from Tom's argument.

to:

Bill's rebuttal is an argument from fallacy, because Ginger may ''very well'' be very well ''be'' a cat; we just can't ''assume'' so from Tom's argument.
3rd Jun '16 12:39:06 PM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. The best you can say is that they have not convincingly argued it.

to:

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. The best you can say is that they have not convincingly argued supported it.
3rd Jun '16 12:37:24 PM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong.

to:

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. The best you can say is that they have not convincingly argued it.
3rd Jun '16 2:11:42 AM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy.

to:

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but using this as "proof" that their claim is false is the Fallacy Fallacy.
Fallacy. Somebody arguing their point badly doesn't automatically mean they are wrong.
3rd Jun '16 2:10:50 AM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but if a position (such as an already-accepted objective fact) is completely dismissed as false because one of the arguments used to defend it happens to be fallacious, this is the Fallacy Fallacy.

to:

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacy is not fallacious in itself (you're doing it right), but if a position (such using this as an already-accepted objective fact) "proof" that their claim is completely dismissed as false because one of the arguments used to defend it happens to be fallacious, this is the Fallacy Fallacy.
31st Mar '16 4:03:51 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* One specific FallacyFallacy is based off of the AppealToRidicule. This is very common in political debates, wherein if an individual ridicules some position without backing up the ridicule, the opposing side will assume that the AppealToRidicule was made because the person has no actual argument to make. Instead, the person who made the argument was just trying to be funny, or was just taking some time to enjoy disparaging the opposition. Or the argument was ''so'' transparently ridiculous they didn't think it was worth their time to discredit it (who wants to be the politician caught on camera spending half an hour to explain that they can't disprove the existence of an orbiting teapot?). And of course, even if the person was engaging in a fallacy, it doesn't say anything about others who share their point, and may very well be able to back up their claims.

to:

* One specific FallacyFallacy Fallacy Fallacy is based off of the AppealToRidicule. This is very common in political debates, wherein if an individual ridicules some position without backing up the ridicule, the opposing side will assume that the AppealToRidicule was made because the person has no actual argument to make. Instead, the person who made the argument was just trying to be funny, or was just taking some time to enjoy disparaging the opposition. Or the argument was ''so'' transparently ridiculous they didn't think it was worth their time to discredit it (who wants to be the politician caught on camera spending half an hour to explain that they can't disprove the existence of an orbiting teapot?). And of course, even if the person was engaging in a fallacy, it doesn't say anything about others who share their point, and may very well be able to back up their claims.
6th Sep '15 1:59:05 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


See also RightForTheWrongReasons and DumbassHasAPoint.

to:

See also RightForTheWrongReasons RightForTheWrongReasons, DumbassHasAPoint, and DumbassHasAPoint.
DontShootTheMessage.
17th Mar '15 3:25:47 PM DCC
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


** Alternate hypothesis analysis shows that an organization coming to a conclusion that suits their vested interest *is* evidence that the conclusion is true--just very weak evidence. Consider: if the mining would harm caribou, what would we expect Strippit Mining to say? That it wouldn't harm caribou,of course. But, suppose the mining would in fact not harm the caribou--what would we expect Strippit to say? Why, that the mining would not harm the caribou. Since one would expect Strippit to say the same thing whether or not it is true, their statement doesn't seem to be evidence one way or the other--and definitely not evidence that their finding is untrue. However, if the mining would harm caribou, there is at least some chance Strippit would admit the harm. Organizations, like people, are sometimes honest even when it is against their best interests. But if the mining would not harm the caribou, it is hard to imagine Strippit lying and saying it would, a lie which would be against their own interests. Therefore, their claim of harmlessness is weak evidence of harmlessness, based on how likely Strippit is to be honest against their own interest. (And Strippit reporting that their mining plan would harm caribou is rather strong evidence that it would. Organizations don't usually lie to harm themselves.)
** Note also that this sort of bias need not involve deliberate lying--people will interpret ambiguous evidence as favoring the conclusion they desire or already believe. That is, we would expect the Ban All Mining And Especially Strippit activist group to report that the mining would harm the caribou whether or not it actually would--and not necessarily through any lying or even lack of diligence on their part.
** And of course if either Strippit or Ban All Mining offers actual proof, this is not disproven by their own self-interest or preexisting ideology.
This list shows the last 10 events of 59. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.FallacyFallacy