History Main / FallacyFallacy

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.
7th Nov '14 9:49:35 AM R1ck1
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Wrong Means Fallacy[[note]]which is really the [[{{Pun}} converse]]. The fallacy fallacy itself is actually "fallacy means wrong".[[/note]]

to:

* Wrong Means Fallacy[[note]]which is really the [[{{Pun}} converse]]. The fallacy fallacy itself is actually "fallacy Fallacy means wrong".[[/note]]
Wrong
7th Jul '14 7:51:23 AM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Young Earth creationists employ this regularly to attack evolution theory on the basis that early evolutionary models have had to be discredited and revised and that some early evidence of transitional forms (such as the Piltdown Man) turned out to be frauds. Of course, in some cases, they're simply trying to argue that this proves that certain advocates are more committed to the idea than the facts.
*** They are also fond of pointing out how 'Science changes', claiming that you can never trust science because it's been wrong in the past. This is especially absurd because the fact that science changes is 1) How we knew we were wrong before, and 2) Why science is so useful in the first place, because it updates itself.
*** It should be mentioned that it is very, very, very, ''very'' difficult for a person to be objective. It's a bit easier for a ''group'' of people to be objective, but said group of people needs to consist of people with wildly different viewpoints and a willingness to calmly and rationally debate over their disagreements to arrive at the answer with the most basis in reality; ''most'' groups are either composed of people with highly similar viewpoints (thus reinforcing their own biases) or formed of people more prone to {{Flame War}}s than intelligent, reasonable discussion (which is just plain messy and doesn't answer any questions other than "Who's the alpha wolf?" In practice, people, including scientists, ''will'' have biases and prejudices that distort the information they look for, discover, and present. Because of this, science is nowhere ''near'' as apolitical as people tend to believe. Even scientific data needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it will inevitably be influenced by the social beliefs and customs of the time and place where it was written.
** Of course, when medical theories are based on illogical premises but turn out to be true, it's only a fluke the ''first'' time. After, that, the reasoning becomes "Drilling holes relieves headaches because we've done it, and it does." Often ThatOldTimePrescription was used for centuries before scientific experimentation finally established how it worked. This isn't very satisfying from a scientific point of view, of course -- and is wide open to ConfirmationBias -- but it's still somewhat present even in modern medicine. Not knowing why a medical procedure works isn't going to stop you performing it if somebody's health is at stake.



** "[[MemeticMutation Yo dawg, I heard you like fallacies...]]"



--> Alice: "The environmental survey says there will be no damage to caribou populations if we open this area to mining."
--> Bob: "Of course that's what those greedy bastards at Strippit Mining Enterprises would say. They're just publishing research which supports their point of view."
--> Alice: "Hold on; you're just dismissing the report because [[AdHominem the company]] did the research without even examining the report."
--> Bob: "And you're [[AppealToAuthority uncritically accepting their authority]] when they have a clear interest in the conclusion."
--> Charlie: "So basically...you're both talking out of your rear ends."

to:

--> Alice: "The -->'''Alice:''' The environmental survey says there will be no damage to caribou populations if we open this area to mining."
--> Bob: "Of
\\
'''Bob:''' Of
course that's what those greedy bastards at Strippit Mining Enterprises would say. They're just publishing research which supports their point of view."
--> Alice: "Hold
\\
'''Alice:''' Hold
on; you're just dismissing the report because [[AdHominem the company]] did the research without even examining the report."
--> Bob: "And
\\
'''Bob:''' And
you're [[AppealToAuthority uncritically accepting their authority]] when they have a clear interest in the conclusion."
--> Charlie: "So
\\
'''Charlie:''' So
basically...you're both talking out of your rear ends."
15th Feb '14 9:01:42 AM TheDocCC
Is there an issue? Send a Message


--> Bob: "Of course that's what the company would say. They're just publishing research which supports their point of view."
--> Alice: "Hold on; you're just dismissing the report because the company did the research without even examining it."
--> Bob: "And you're [[AppealToAuthority accepting their authority]] when they have a clear interest in the conclusion."

to:

--> Bob: "Of course that's what the company those greedy bastards at Strippit Mining Enterprises would say. They're just publishing research which supports their point of view."
--> Alice: "Hold on; you're just dismissing the report because [[AdHominem the company company]] did the research without even examining it.the report."
--> Bob: "And you're [[AppealToAuthority uncritically accepting their authority]] when they have a clear interest in the conclusion."
--> Charlie: "So basically...you're both talking out of your rear ends.
"
This list shows the last 10 events of 56. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.FallacyFallacy