History Main / FallacyFallacy

In other words, pointing out somebody's fallacies are not fallacious in themselves (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, it's this FallacyFallacy.

Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position is invalid or used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallacious argument ''makes no sense'', and this rule may seem like a frustrating MindScrew to understand, but...

->Tom: OK — I'll prove I'm English — I speak English so that proves it.
->Bill: But Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. You have committed the package-deal fallacy, assuming that speaking English and being English always go together. That means you are not English.

Both Bill's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy, because Ginger may or may not be a cat, and Tom may or may not be English.

In other words, pointing somebody's fallacies are not fallacious in themselves, 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, it's this Fallacy Fallacy.

An argument using fallacious reasoning is capable of being consequentially correct. In logic, "invalid" (fallacious argument) and "false" are ''not synonymous'' (See SoundValidTrue for a more complete explanation of this.) This basically shows that [[TropesAreTools logic is a tool just to get to or show factual or plausible conclusions]].

Another excellent proof of how a [[RightForTheWrongReasons false argument can result in a true conclusion]]: in medicine, pressure around the brain can cause severe headaches. Ancient surgeons assumed that it must be demons in the patient's head causing the pain, and that exposing them to light would kill them or drive them out; therefore, they drilled holes in the patient's skull. The end result relieved the pressure and actually ''did'' cure the headaches, even though their reasoning was entirely faulty.

* Likewise 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.

An argument using fallacious reasoning is capable of being consequentially correct. In logic, "invalid" (fallacious argument) and "false" are ''not synonymous'' (See TrueValidSound for a more complete explanation of this.) This basically shows that [[TropesAreTools logic is a tool just to get to or show factual or plausible conclusions]].

An argument using fallacious reasoning is capable of being consequentially correct. In logic, "invalid" (fallacious argument) and "false" are ''not really synonymous''. This basically shows that [[TropesAreTools logic is a tool just to get to or show factual or plausible conclusions]].

Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallacious argument ''makes no sense'', and this rule may seem like a frustrating MindScrew to understand, but...

An argument using fallacious reasoning is capable of being consequentially correct. This basically shows that [[TropesAreTools logic is more of a tool to show factual or plausible conclusions]].

* Any StrawVulcan character is bound to be written as if "illogical" is a synonym for "wrong."
* A good many theories about the world over the years including many scientific ones have taken observations and filled in the gaps with guesses that lead to the right conclusions but for the wrong reasons. Freud's theories, for example, are sometimes useful but are based on dated inaccurate knowledge of the mind.

:: Another excellent proof of how a [[RightForTheWrongReasons false argument can result in a true conclusion]]: in medicine, pressure around the brain can cause severe headaches. Ancient surgeons assumed that it must be demons in the patient's head causing the pain, and that exposing them to light would kill them or drive them out; therefore, they drilled holes in the patient's skull. The end result relieved the pressure and actually ''did'' cure the headaches, even though their reasoning was entirely faulty.

-->"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
-->"That's rubbish. Taking digits away is not a valid way to simplify a fraction. Therefore, 16/64 is not equal to 1/4."

:: This may be a frustrating MindScrew to understand, but claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallacious argument ''makes no sense'', but...

:: This may be a frustrating MindScrew to understand, Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallacious argument ''makes no sense'', but...

:: Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallacious argument ''makes no sense'', but...

:: Another excellent proof of how a [[RightForTheWrongReasons false argument can result in a true conclusion]]; in medicine, pressure around the brain can cause severe headaches. Ancient surgeons assumed that it must be demons in the patient's head causing the pain, and that exposing them to light would kill them or drive them out; therefore, they drilled holes in the patient's skull. The end result relieved the pressure and actually ''did'' cure the headaches, even though their reasoning was entirely faulty.

* Of course, a proposition may fallaciously be declared correct due to an argument against it fallaciously claiming that a particular argument ''for'' it is fallacious, thus committing the ''Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy''.

** Young Earth creationists employ this regularly trying 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.
* A joke: Three old men went to the doctor for their checkup. Since they're getting on in years the doctor decides he should check their mental faculties as well. So he asks the first man, "What's three times three?" "273." Then he asks the second man the same question. "Tuesday." Finally he asks the third man. "9." "Great! How did you get that answer?" "I subtracted 273 from Tuesday."

** Young Earth creationists employ this regularly trying 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.

----
See also the {{Wikipedia}} [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy article on the matter]].

** Young Earth creationists employ this regularly trying 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.

!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy The Fallacy Fallacy]]''':

** Young Earth creationists employ this regularly trying 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.

* A good many theories about the world over the years including many scientific ones have taken observations and filled in the gaps with guesses that lead to the right conclusions but for the wrong reasons. Freud's theories, for example, are sometimes useful but are based on dated inaccurate knowledge of the mind.

* Any StrawVulcan character is bound to be written as if "illogical" is a synonym for "wrong."

-->"That's rubbish. Taking digits away is not a valid way to do division. Therefore, 16/64 is not equal to 1/4."

-->"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
-->"Oh, so you're telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?"

:: Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound like a rational thing to do since by definition a fallcious argument ''makes no sense'', but...