People shouting 'fallacy' when there is no fallacy

[Barber Shop]

I have noticed that people occasionally accuse others of using fallacies even when there was no real fallacy.

I was interested in what others had to say about their experiences with this, as well as what particular faux fallacies are commonly 'spotted'.

The one I see the most is the accusation of 'appeal to authority'. While there are certainly illegitimate appeals, citing a reliable and knowledgeable source is not a fallacy. It seems that someone people think anytime someone mentions a source or expert they have committed a logical fallacy.

 

[Wildy]

It happens when people don't actually understand what the fallacy is in question. I had that problem with the old ad hominem, but as I started to actually understand what it was I stopped accusing people of it. Mine was a somewhat common misunderstanding where you associate ad hom with just an insult in general, which is very, very, wrong.

The problem with the appeal to authority is exactly as you have described. People confuse "authority within a particular subject" with a more generalised form of "authority". If you want a good example of a person who uses the appeal to authority properly I suggest Kary Mullis. Some of his comments have suggested that as a Nobel Laureate we should take his comments without question, no matter how wrong they might be.

 

[Noztradamus]

Outraged feminists.

 

[gnome]

Tu Quoque:

Legitimate use:

"People shouldn't steal from others."
"But you steal!"

That's an actual fallacy. It doesn't affect the value of the proposition "People shouldn't steal".

In a contest with two contenders:
"I should win because Snerdley cheated."
"But you cheated too!"
"Sorry, tu quoque fallacy."

Not a fallacy here. It is very relevant to the proposition that one contestant is superior to another.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The one I see the most is the accusation of 'appeal to authority'. While there are certainly illegitimate appeals, citing a reliable and knowledgeable source is not a fallacy. It seems that someone people think anytime someone mentions a source or expert they have committed a logical fallacy.

In formal logic, though, even the legitimate appeal to authority is a fallacy. The appeal to authority is valid for forming provisional conclusions, but does not override conflicting evidence. So, to construct a hypothetical* example, if a chemist states that the presence of certain reaction products indicates that a specific chemical reaction has taken place, then it is reasonable to assume in the absence of conflicting evidence that his expertise makes him likely to be correct. If, however, he fails to account for the fact that the energy yield of that reaction is insufficiently high to account for the heat produced by the process, then this contradictory evidence over-rides his expertise. If his original conclusion is still defended on the basis of his expertise, then this is fallacious, even though still (in principle) a legitimate appeal to authority.

Dave

* OK, so it's not really hypothetical.

 

[mysteronyx]

In formal logic, though, even the legitimate appeal to authority is a fallacy. The appeal to authority is valid for forming provisional conclusions, but does not override conflicting evidence. So, to construct a hypothetical* example, if a chemist states that the presence of certain reaction products indicates that a specific chemical reaction has taken place, then it is reasonable to assume in the absence of conflicting evidence that his expertise makes him likely to be correct. If, however, he fails to account for the fact that the energy yield of that reaction is insufficiently high to account for the heat produced by the process, then this contradictory evidence over-rides his expertise. If his original conclusion is still defended on the basis of his expertise, then this is fallacious, even though still (in principle) a legitimate appeal to authority.

Dave

* OK, so it's not really hypothetical.

Would it still be an appeal to authority if no contradictory evidence has been found?

 

[RLBaty]

Or as my "authority" puts it, in part:

> "The argument ad verecundiam is committed when someone
> argues that a proposition is true because an expert in a given field
> has said that it is true.
>
> An expert's judment constitutes no conclusive proof; experts
> disagree, and even when they are in agreement they may be
> wrong.
>
> However, reference to an authority in an area of competence
> may carry some weight, but it doesn't prove a conclusion.
>
> Ultimately, even experts need to rely upon empirical evidence
> and rational inference.
>
> The fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority arises
> when the appeal is made to parties who have no legitimate
> claim to authority in the matter at hand.
>
> In every instance, an argument must be judged upon its
> own merits."

 

[One Tenth]

I most commonly see false accusations of the following two fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem. Telling someone they are wrong because of x, y, and z, and that they are also an idiot, is not an ad hominem. It's a rebuttal and an insult.

2. Strawman. A lot of people say something but couch it in weasel words so they can call strawman later. They want to assert (or at least insinuate) something, but they don't want to actually have to back up the assertion.

 

[mysteronyx]

Non sequiturs run rampant online. People frequently say things that have no connection to their conclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

Would it still be an appeal to authority if no contradictory evidence has been found?

It could be.

The actual appeal to authority is when someone says "It must be right because so and so says it is right."

An examination of the evidence is what critical thinking is about, in the case where confounding factors, alternative explanation and bias have not been explored then the conclusion drawn should be 'more examination is warranted".

Now ehen people talk about mainstream theories and complain about appeal to authority they are usually not going to talk about teh evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

I most commonly see false accusations of the following two fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem. Telling someone they are wrong because of x, y, and z, and that they are also an idiot, is not an ad hominem. It's a rebuttal and an insult.

2. Strawman. A lot of people say something but couch it in weasel words so they can call strawman later. They want to assert (or at least insinuate) something, but they don't want to actually have to back up the assertion.

The usual strawman attack is more blatant than that, mostly it is setting up a false dicotomy to knock it down, or drawing false conclusions and knocking them down.

 

[blutoski]

I have noticed that people occasionally accuse others of using fallacies even when there was no real fallacy.

I was interested in what others had to say about their experiences with this, as well as what particular faux fallacies are commonly 'spotted'.

The one I see the most is the accusation of 'appeal to authority'. While there are certainly illegitimate appeals, citing a reliable and knowledgeable source is not a fallacy. It seems that someone people think anytime someone mentions a source or expert they have committed a logical fallacy.

I actually blogged about this problem: [Skeptical MythConceptions – part 1 – Authority]

My impression is that skeptics may be interested in critical thinking, but are not very experienced in it, and no better at it than laypersons.

One of the consequences is the misperception that identifying fallacies is the definition of critical thinking - that a formal fallacy means a bad argument. This is untrue.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I have noticed that people occasionally accuse others of using fallacies even when there was no real fallacy.

Sometimes people are overly interested in proving others wrong.

 

[Piscivore]

The usual strawman attack is more blatant than that, mostly it is setting up a false dicotomy to knock it down, or drawing false conclusions and knocking them down.

That's what an legitimate strawman fallacy is. Altering or misstating an opponent's argument in order to render it easier to refute.

Most of the time "strawman" is actually used around here, it's just an emotional exclamation. Considering the context in which I most often see it employed I've determined the utterer apparently means by it "I don't have any facts, evidence, or even a coherent argument to refute what you just said, but you're wrong anyway!"

 

[RLBaty]

(S)keptics may be interested in critical thinking,
but are not very experienced in it,
and no better at it than laypersons.

I think my own, recent "critical thinking" exercise here provides a little empirical evidence that the above observation is justified.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208300

 

[RLBaty]

I actually blogged about this problem: [Skeptical MythConceptions – part 1 – Authority]

Speaking of "SkeptiCamp", it just so happens that I happened to speak at the local one recently, participated in a panel discussion, and was able to attend a variety of other presentations!

 

[Dave Rogers]

One of the consequences is the misperception that identifying fallacies is the definition of critical thinking - that a formal fallacy means a bad argument. This is untrue.

I think the second half of that is a bit overstated. It's generally true that an informal fallacy means a bad argument, and it's often true that a formal fallacy means a bad argument. However, identifying a bad argument doesn't refute the conclusion of the argument. For example, if I say, "I believe aspirin is an effective pain killer because Tim Minchin says it is," that's an extremely bad argument because it's an appeal to an invalid authority, and if I say, "Aspirin is definitely an effective pain killer because my doctor told me so," that's still at best a weak argument even though the authority is a valid one. However, aspirin is still an effective pain killer.

Dave

 

[JoelKatz]

The one I see the most is the accusation of 'appeal to authority'. While there are certainly illegitimate appeals, citing a reliable and knowledgeable source is not a fallacy. It seems that someone people think anytime someone mentions a source or expert they have committed a logical fallacy.

If they claim that what the source or expert says is true because that person is an expert, that is a fallacy. An expert can make a claim worth listening to. And you may provisionally accept the claims of an expert because they have a history of being true and it doesn't matter enough to invest the time to understand it yourself. You may accept the claims of an expert because you don't have the ability to work things out yourself. But ultimately, an expert is an expert because he makes arguments that are valid and has a repository of verifiable information, the reverse is only statistically likely, and only when there aren't other reasons to think it's not so.

The biggest problem with experts is the selection problem. A Christian, for example, is likely to consider prominent Christians to be authorities on religion. After all, they have a pattern of making claims and arguments that he considers true, whereas atheists and Muslims (regardless of their educational credentials) do not. Accepting experts can feedback loop you into a significant mental commitment to a house of cards. This is probably a large part of why people so rarely change their core religious or political views.

 

[JoelKatz]

I actually blogged about this problem: [Skeptical MythConceptions – part 1 – Authority]

I think your blog post creates a false dichotomy between having to personally verify everything yourself and accepting something merely because an authority says so. Both of these positions are incorrect. For example, you say:

If I reject all arguments with this type of format, I may run into serious problems promoting skeptical views. How do I know that Homeopathy doesn’t work? Experiments show this. My experiments? Well, no. Some other people did them. I’m pretty sure the results are correct, because I’m pretty sure the scientists involved are competent. And I guess this is the case because other scientists say they are competent, and anyway, their findings were peer-reviewed by a panel of scientists whom the publisher selected for their competence (no doubt, based on the opinion of their peers).

The point is, this is all investigation you personally did. Your conclusion is the personal synthesis or large amounts of information from multiple sources.

In an imaginary dialogue with a non-skeptic, every argument we bring forward will ultimately be exposed to be based on a statement by some authority, be that a famous skeptic or physicist, or a publication like JAMA or Cell or Science, or a textbook, or Wikipedia…

Exactly. That's why we need more than one argument. Presenting the word of a single authority and claiming it is true because that expert says so is wrong. We must marshal evidence from multiple sources and independently synthesize them to a conclusion.

You can use any input you want, but you must think for yourself.

If we were to decide that we no longer accept scientific publications we have not personally vetted to the last detail, what are we going to use when making decisions?

Nobody, so far as I know, argues that. "Homeopathy is a farce because X says so" is nonsense regardless of who X is. But "Homeopathy is a farce because homeopaths themselves say X and Y says X is invalid because of Z, and these studies A, B, and C have been done by Q and R, and ...." That's fine.

You can take input from any source you want, and you can weigh the reliability of sources. But you cannot take the conclusion from a source. You must reach the conclusion on the basis of the evidence. You needn't do anything literally personally but reach the final conclusion.

 

[sphenisc]

... if I say, "I believe aspirin is an effective pain killer because Tim Minchin says it is," that's an extremely bad argument ...

No, "Aspirin is an effective pain killer because Tim Minchin says it is", is an extremely bad argument. Your statement isn't an argument at all, (which I suppose makes it an extremely bad argument)... I think I'll go out and come back in again.