• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Should [i]argumentum ad loudness[/i] be added to the list of fallacies.

Ladewig

I lost an avatar bet.
Ladewig
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
28,828
The Age of Trump has introduced another type of logical error: the loudest person is right.
We saw it in the debates, we saw it in the rallies, we saw it in the press conferences. Has it become common enough to formalize it?

Or. Is it more appropriate to add Trumpian Argument to the list of fallacies? A combination of ad hominums, shouting, making stuff up, making contradictory statements in a single argument, and denying that one has said things that have been recorded.

I know it sounds kind of silly to say that this style of argument needs a name, but given that so very many people fall for it, shouldn’t it be labeled?
 
Ladewig said:
The Age of Trump has introduced another type of logical error: the loudest person is right.
We saw it in the debates, we saw it in the rallies, we saw it in the press conferences. Has it become common enough to formalize it?

Or. Is it more appropriate to add Trumpian Argument to the list of fallacies? A combination of ad hominums, shouting, making stuff up, making contradictory statements in a single argument, and denying that one has said things that have been recorded.

I know it sounds kind of silly to say that this style of argument needs a name, but given that so very many people fall for it, shouldn’t it be labeled?
Click to expand...

Not sure that it is fallacious, at least in the sense of being logically flawed.
 
No because the Proudly Wrong have destroyed the very concept of a "Logical Fallacy" and just shout them like magic words to use in a discussion while you are losing with no actual understanding of what they mean.

We've already lost Strawman, Hyperbole, and Slippery Slope to the great stupid mass of "You made my argument legitimately look bad so I'm just going to call it a bad name and hope you go away."
 
But my point is the trolls and Proudly wrong will just turn it into "I'm being wrong quietly, so I'm right."

Just like how if you get annoyed at how wrong they are "You're being emotional, therefore I'm right."
 
Thermal said:
I think it's more a dominance thing. "The loudest arguer is the Alpha and hence right".
Click to expand...

Incidentally, this might actually be the one that needs a fallacy name, seeing that it actually started to be explicitly used as a form of bulverism fallacy. See for example the whole "soy boys" thing. It's a quite explicit claim that the other party only supports X (typically something about feminism or equality) because they're not as manly (hence as Alpha) as the ones being against X.
 
That said, I'm not sure we need another name for it, unless it actually starts being used in logical arguments. As in, if someone actually says X is right because the person Y saying it is the loudest.

Otherwise, if you just believe that that's why some other person believes proposition X, you're basically the one committing the Bulverism fallacy. (As in, "oh, you only believe X because here's what's wrong with your brain.")

But if you need to put a name on it, it's a member of the genetic fallacy group. As in, something must be right or wrong, because of who said it, or who coined it, or who came up with it, or generally some other way of where it comes from. More specifically it's a type of appeal to accomplisment (as in, "but he's the better speaker" or "he's the alpha male" or such), which itself is a subclass of the appeal to authority fallacy.
 
HansMustermann said:
Incidentally, this might actually be the one that needs a fallacy name, seeing that it actually started to be explicitly used as a form of bulverism fallacy. See for example the whole "soy boys" thing. It's a quite explicit claim that the other party only supports X (typically something about feminism or equality) because they're not as manly (hence as Alpha) as the ones being against X.
Click to expand...

Kind of a more direct Appeal to Authority, except being the bully is the only authority. Argumentum ad Blowhardium?
 
The argument from pugnacity is as old as -- Jesus, as old as I am. I encountered it on my first day at school. If I ever again submerge myself in my native people, I'm sure I'll have to deal with it once more, pure and unchanged.* I don't think that it's a subset of argumentum ad bellowing, either. Other way around sounds more likely.

* E.g.: "Hey, sackitt, shut up with yer five-dollar lojsickle flapassery! I wadn't a scared a you when we was kids n I ain't a scared now! Cmon, you fellers, hep me kick his commie ass!"

I'm sure you think I'm making that up.
 
Thermal said:
Kind of a more direct Appeal to Authority, except being the bully is the only authority. Argumentum ad Blowhardium?
Click to expand...

Well, ultimately all genetic fallacies can be grouped broadly into arguments from authority (SOME kind of attribute of mine makes my arguments true) or ad hominem (SOME failure of yours makes your arguments false), the rest are subclasses of one or the other. I'd say the way it's used is usually focused more on the ad hominem part, but I suppose it can also be used in an argument from authority way, as in "I'm right because I'm a proper alpha male."
 
sackett said:
* E.g.: "Hey, sackitt, shut up with yer five-dollar lojsickle flapassery! I wadn't a scared a you when we was kids n I ain't a scared now! Cmon, you fellers, hep me kick his commie ass!"
Click to expand...

That's actually textbook argumentum ad baculum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom