People shouting 'fallacy' when there is no fallacy

[Meadmaker]

The "no true scotsman" fallacy. It occurs when someone asserts that a non-definitive characteristic is actually a definitive characteristic. In its original formulation, a violent act was committed by a Scotsman, but the arguer asserted that it could not be a "true" Scotsman because Scotsmen don't do that. On JREF, any example of "no true X" will bring up a characterization of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, regardless of whether or not it applies.

The "slippery slope" fallacy. Sometimes, changing a law or custom really will lead to a change in people's behavior. It isn't a fallacy to point that out. Sometimes, slopes really are slippery.

The "straw man". Sometimes, someone misunderstands an argument. Not every mischaracterization is a straw man. Straw men exist only when someone deliberately distorts an argument for the purpose of appearing to refute the original. Most accusations of "straw men" on JREF are not really straw men.

 

[epepke]

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

Fish!

 

[Walter Wayne]

Fish!

That just a red herring.

 

[Barber Shop]

I have not had a chance to revisit this thread in a while and I am happy to see some interesting comments.

I did want to response to a few posts because, based on the responses, I may not have made my point very clear.


I know that any appeal to authority, even a reliable and valid authority, does not MAKE something true. It is true because it is true, regardless of what Professor Smartypants or the respected Journal of Whatever says.

But, I don't think that you have committed a fallacy by simply mentioning a reliable source. You commit a fallacy when you think that this source MAKES your statement true or your argument valid.

My real point in mentioning the "appeal to authority" is that some people, including some folks on this very forum, seem to actually think you WEAKEN your argument by citing reliable sources. They seem to think that you have lost the argument because you reference a knowledgeable person.


@Dave Rogers --- I suppose that everything you say is true, but not necessarily related to what I am trying to say. I am not saying that appealing to an authority overrides contradictory evidence. Nobody's credentials override reality.

Joel Katz stated: "If they claim that what the source or expert says is true because that person is an expert, that is a fallacy. " Yes, of course it is a fallacy. Who would disagree with that?

Again...perhaps this is my fault for not making my point clear...but I wanted to point out that there is nothing WRONG with citing a reliable source. You have not lost the argument by doing so.

 

[JoeMorgue]

One problem is the difference between a logical fallacy and a properly used rhetorical device can often be subtle. There is not always a huge difference between a perfectly valid hypothetical situation or "taking things to their logical extremes" and a fallacious slippery slope.

 

[gnome]

Most false accusations of slippery slope or bad analogies are failing to acknowledge that the person is using the analogy or extension to refute a proposed (or implied) maxim, rather than equating the significance, or suggesting the extension is likely, in practice. Refusing the point generally leads to special pleading.

For example, someone says "I don't like that serial killer, killing is always wrong."
Someone else responds, "But this war hero killed a lot of people too."
The first says "Seriously? You're likening this war hero to a serial killer?"

No, they're not. They're just refuting the rule that killing is always wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Indeed. And I think most people realize that for the most part all rhetorical devices are inherently imperfect. Metaphors, similes, analogies, comparisons, parables, etc are not meant to define the topic, only to put them in certain perspectives.

Bob: "X is like Y"
Ted: "X is not the same as Y!"
Bob: "I know. It's like Y, not equal to Y. 'Like' is a statement of comparison, not one of definition or implied equality."

That and practically all rhetorical devices only work to a certain level and then break down and you have to abandon them. This doesn't mean they are unreasonable to use though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I understand the distinction you (and others) are trying to make, but I think you miss the reason why ad hominems are fallacious. They are fallacious inasmuch as they are irrelevant. That is, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red herring or irrelevant fallacy.

If you're in the context of a debate and one person insults the other, it is a fallacy, as is ANY statement put in place of an argument that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

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.

I've seen that technique. I think some people reject that implicit statements are real. It's not usually difficult to show that the words they actually used would have no meaning if they didn't mean to imply what they're later claiming to be a straw man proposition.

On the other hand, I've seen people wrongly deny the accusation of making a straw man fallacy on the basis that someone somewhere did indeed voice that position. It can be fallacious to ignore the position held by the people you're debating and the majority of people who share an opinion by focusing on an extreme minority expression of that position. This site refers to this subtype of strawman fallacy as the "extreme man" fallacy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The "slippery slope" fallacy. Sometimes, changing a law or custom really will lead to a change in people's behavior. It isn't a fallacy to point that out. Sometimes, slopes really are slippery.

I think you're bringing up an important point about informal fallacies. They're not really fallacious in the same way formal fallacies are. Formal fallacies really are strictly about whether or not a conclusion can be made from the premises--whether it logically follows. Informal fallacies have a lot more to do with whether or not a way of thinking is useful or. . . I dunno "good". (Begging the question, for example, isn't technically a fallacy. It's just asserting a conclusion as a premise. In a way, all question begging arguments are validating arguments, and must be valid. But that doesn't prove that the premise is true. Just that if it's true, it's true is valid logic!)

A lot of arguments to the consequences are used all the time. In discussing whether a law is a good or bad idea, or whether a court decision should go one way or the other, we hope reasonable people will consider the consequences of the decision. But technically, those are all slippery slope arguments and don't necessarily talk about the inherent merits of the proposition in front of you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I understand the distinction you (and others) are trying to make, but I think you miss the reason why ad hominems are fallacious. They are fallacious inasmuch as they are irrelevant. That is, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red herring or irrelevant fallacy.

Errr I don't know. I certainly understand the "play the ball, not the man" rule for both basic politeness reasons and intellectual standards.

But I think we've all been in conversations with someone that is obviously bringing outside personal issues into the discussion. Bias, ulterior motives, personal emotional issues and baggage... these do all exist and sometimes do get brought into conversations and do influence them and that influence can be observed. I don't think its fair to expect everyone to just pretend to not notice this because of some idea that a standard exists that we can't even bring the person's possible motivations into the conversation.

So if someone is arguing that people should buy more widgets, and I learn the person is CEO of the #1 widget company in the world, I think there has to be some level were I can bring up the possibility that he is not looking at the topic objectively without it simply be dismissed as an ad hominem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But I think we've all been in conversations with someone that is obviously bringing outside personal issues into the discussion.

Yes, and inasmuch as those outside personal issues are irrelevant, they are fallacious.

I like this Taxonomy of Fallacies. I think it sheds light on the fact that the reason ad hominems are fallacious is that they are a subtype of the irrelevancy fallacy.

Now, if the issue being discussed it the character of a person (as might come up in a political race or in a criminal trial), then remarks about the person are not irrelevant and not fallacious (at least not simply because they are remarks to the person).

Also, if the conversation in question isn't a debate of some sort, then personal attacks are just insults because they're not being made in the place of an argument. Of course, there are all kinds of conversations that are somewhere in the middle or a mixture of just conversation and engaging in reasoned argumentation. I think the rule of thumb is, again, whether or not the statement is relevant and whether or not it is a statement made where you would expect an argument or part of an argument.

That's why Dan Akryod's old, "Jane, you ignorant slut" was such an over the top ad hominem. It was made as his opening remark in a piece set up as a semi-formal debate called Point/Counterpoint. He never did say, "Your position is wrong because you are an ignorant slut", but it was a fallacy nonetheless because it was irrelevant to the debate topic and it occurred exactly where you'd expect an argument.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So if someone is arguing that people should buy more widgets, and I learn the person is CEO of the #1 widget company in the world, I think there has to be some level were I can bring up the possibility that he is not looking at the topic objectively without it simply be dismissed as an ad hominem.

Sorry--I guess I should have read your entire post before replying.

Yes, you are correct, and this fits with what I've been saying. If there is a reason for personal observations to be relevant, they're not fallacious.

But saying you should consider a conflict of interest or some such doesn't refute any argument that that person may have made. Those arguments stand or fall on their own merits. So even if you observe that person A might have a conflict of interest or something that means he may not be looking at things objectively, that observation does not refute any argument made by person A.

 

[Varanid]

One of the better threads I have seen. Thanks all!

Though I vaguely remember a class called phil 102 or something in college (I don't recollect much from then...) I only really got "into" fallacies recently. I wanted to add my thoughts as they relate to JREF specifically-

1) It has been stated ad nauseum, but I will echo: An insult is not an ad hom. Saying X is true because Person A was wrong about Y, is an ad hom. As a pseudo-hypothetical, I often see this one in the economics subforum-
"Don't believe member A, he thinks we should go back on the gold standard". This is a blatant example of an ad hom. It irritates me, because I am trying to understand the world of finance better, and these statements do nothing to advance the discussion. Forget what else he/she says about the gold standard- why are they wrong on "this"?

These also relate to #3 (below), appeals to authority.

2) Strawman - Easy. Be the first to shout this in any argument and you win the thread. What? That's not how it works?

In all seriousness, I think this is one of the more important fallacies to recognize as it is an invasive little trend. Watch any political press conference thread in the politics subforum, and they run rampant. "Death Panels" is one example, some of the "Class Warfare" sentiments on the other side are another example.

3) Appeal to Authority - This is a very trickly one. I find myself battling with this one often. As a good jumping off point:

Errr I don't know. I certainly understand the "play the ball, not the man" rule for both basic politeness reasons and intellectual standards.

But I think we've all been in conversations with someone that is obviously bringing outside personal issues into the discussion. Bias, ulterior motives, personal emotional issues and baggage... these do all exist and sometimes do get brought into conversations and do influence them and that influence can be observed. I don't think its fair to expect everyone to just pretend to not notice this because of some idea that a standard exists that we can't even bring the person's possible motivations into the conversation.

So if someone is arguing that people should buy more widgets, and I learn the person is CEO of the #1 widget company in the world, I think there has to be some level were I can bring up the possibility that he is not looking at the topic objectively without it simply be dismissed as an ad hominem.

Yes, Joe (if I a many be so familiar ), there is good reason to apply scrutiny to this CEO's opinion. Regardless of what it is- it has no bearing on the truth.

To me, I break down the appeal to authority / ad hom problem this way: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks- the truth is the truth. While it may be instructive or helpful to analyze the opinion of those with direct information/expertise, it should be a starting point and not the end.

I think I have personally "grown" (how friggin lame does that sound? I am going to have to pound two more beers than normal to make up for any potential "maturity") the most by understanding the "be kind to collegues and ruthless with theories" approach that I first read about in Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies. I think the resistance to it (even subconciously) is that in the end, you may find that the most compelling argument is not personally palatable for you. Alternatively, somebody unpalatable to you may be making the best argument. In either case, the "better skeptic" weighs the evidence, and sides with the best argument- not the best people.

Should you listen to expert A rather than layperson B? I think reasonable minds would rightly say "yes". But in no way does that prove the truth of a situation.

So here is where it gets hard:
I know next to nothing about physics or astronomy (compared to the sharp crayons here). I have no reasonable way to look at the math in some peer reviewed journal and understand it in any way. I have to look towards the opinions of other posters. You see the problem....

I try my best to look at the discussion "structurally". No, I don't have any idea what those equations meant. But, I can understand when someone is dodging questions, proposing strawmen, etc. Knowing that it is entirely possible that I/they will be wrong, I can cautiously pick a side.

 

[Varanid]

Taxonomy of Fallacies.

I just got a nerd-on. Thanks for that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, and inasmuch as those outside personal issues are irrelevant, they are fallacious.

I like this Taxonomy of Fallacies. I think it sheds light on the fact that the reason ad hominems are fallacious is that they are a subtype of the irrelevancy fallacy.

True but if you think about it the defining characteristic of any logical fallacy is it's irrelevantness. I'd had a hard time considering anything which was relevant to the topic to be bad argumentative form.

That's why Dan Akryod's old, "Jane, you ignorant slut" was such an over the top ad hominem. It was made as his opening remark in a piece set up as a semi-formal debate called Point/Counterpoint. He never did say, "Your position is wrong because you are an ignorant slut", but it was a fallacy nonetheless because it was irrelevant to the debate topic and it occurred exactly where you'd expect an argument.

Indeed and there's a difference between bringing up a personal possible angle to a person's stance on an issue and simply attacking them outright.

But saying you should consider a conflict of interest or some such doesn't refute any argument that that person may have made. Those arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

To be sure which is why I grew tired of the old "You made a logical fallacy ergo I won the argument!" style of debate. You can use every logical fallacy in the book and still be 100% correct. There's an annoying trend amoungst what I mentally refer to as "Coffee Shop Intellectuals" online to simply quote a person's entire argument nothing but the name of the intellectual fallacy they feel they the person made, a style of argument I could not find more tiresome.

If in the course of a debate you feel a person does make a logical fallacy, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. But don't just start your victory lap over it. Bring up the issue to the person, get their point of view on it (because as we've already established on person's logical fallacy is another person's valid rhetorical device. This ain't exactly a perfect science.), correct for any deviation it caused in the conversation and move on.

 

[JoeMorgue]

3) Appeal to Authority - This is a very trickly one.

Yeah the Appeal to Authority is another one I'm really... uncomfortable with at times. I understand the dangers with any kind of blind following of any source of information... but on the other hand I accept the reality that for most subjects people exist that know more about the topic then I do. Recognizing the fact that someone is more likely to be correct on a given topic then the general layperson via is not a logical fallacy. It's the very concept of someone having a body of knowledge.

I've heard it said, I can't recall by whom at the moment, something to the effect that science is so effective because "It only has experts, not authorities." Or as Sam Harris put it during his TED speech. "Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. "

So if I install some wiring in my house and I ask a licensed electrical contractor to double check my work I'm not making an "Appeal to Authority" I'm simply recognizing the fact that their exists people who's job it is to know more then I do about a this particular topic.

To me, I break down the appeal to authority / ad hom problem this way: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks- the truth is the truth. While it may be instructive or helpful to analyze the opinion of those with direct information/expertise, it should be a starting point and not the end.

Oh I totally agree. The truth exists in a vacuum. Sadly our disussions don't always.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

True but if you think about it the defining characteristic of any logical fallacy is it's irrelevantness. I'd had a hard time considering anything which was relevant to the topic to be bad argumentative form.

I think you're confusing relevance for valid logic in general. There are many categories of fallacies that aren't based on irrelevance. All of the formal fallacies are fallacious for reasons other than irrelevance, for example.

Put another way, relevance alone doesn't guarantee a valid argument.

You can use every logical fallacy in the book and still be 100% correct.

Well, your conclusion could be true, but by definition if your argument is fallacious it is not a valid argument, and therefore not "correct".

ETA: Rather than "correct" I would use the terms "valid" and "sound". To be valid is the same as saying the argument has no fallacies, which is the same thing as saying the conclusion follows logically from the premises. (Being valid doesn't say anything about the truth value of the premises or conclusion.) To be sound, the argument must be valid, and the premises (and therefore the conclusion) must be true.

If in the course of a debate you feel a person does make a logical fallacy, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. But don't just start your victory lap over it.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, just refuting an argument does nothing to establish a contrary position. I hate to mention it, but asserting that it does is yet another named fallacy!

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

That would be the 'making up a fallacy and hoping no one will call you on it' fallacy. I just invented it.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

But conversely, I too often see the opposite: people doing broken logic and then arguing why it's not really a fallacy.

The appeal to authority you mention is such a complex case, and it's just as often misunderstood by both sides.

Ultimately a conclusion must follow from true premises and valid logic. It doesn't actually matter who said it, anyone can be wrong. Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant in his own theory, for example.

So in formal logic, an appeal to authority is always a fallacy. Sorry, there is no exception. Even Einstein about GR is not exempt. The conclusion must be true because of the supporting evidence, not because of who said it.

In informal logic, it is basically allowed to shortcut that, and evaluate how much you trust a certain source with just taking their word for the conclusion. E.g., if you just want to know whether you should take tamiflu for your viral infection, you don't necessarily need to go all the way to the clinical trial data, you can start with just trusting some medical authority to know about that.

But here's what a lot of people seem to miss: even in informal logic it's not what makes a conclusion true. That conclusion must still follow from premises. You're just allowed to take someone's word that it does, if you need to work from there.

Basically even for tamiflu, it's not that it works because Dr Some Smart Guy says so, but it works because it has the clinical trial data to say so. The latter is what actually makes it true or false. The allowance in informal logic is to just trust that Dr Some Smart Guy knows that stuff so you don't have to.

But that can't be used in a talk where the whole point is whether the conclusion follows from the conclusion. If the whole point is whether the clinical trial data adds up to the claimed confidence level, you can't insist that it's true just because some authority says so. Doing that is still an appeal to authority.

 

[HansMustermann]

To be sure which is why I grew tired of the old "You made a logical fallacy ergo I won the argument!" style of debate. You can use every logical fallacy in the book and still be 100% correct.

No. If you arrive at a conclusion by way of a fallacy, by definition you're not 100% correct. Sorry.

The conclusion may still be true or false regardless of that -- which is why we also have an argument from fallacy fallacy -- but a fallacious reasoning still is not correct, and hasn't supported anything.

E.g., I could say that

P1: All students wear backpacks.
P2: Jack's grandfather wears a backpack,
C: therefore Jack's grandfather is a student.

It's a classic fallacy (fallacy of the undistributed middle, to be precise), and therefore by definition not correct. But nevertheless, it could be that said grandfather re-enrolled in university to get a degree in his old age. But the argument for that is still broken.

If that is the only argument offered for the fact that Jack's grandfather is a student, then really the person reading it hasn't seen any logical support for that. As far as they know, there is no evidence that Jack's grandfather went back to school. So don't be surprised if someone asks for some actual evidence there.