The "name that fallacy" thread: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » The "name that fallacy" thread » The "name that fallacy" thread

The "name that fallacy" thread
Can you identify these fallacies?

Page: 1 2

The "name that fallacy" thread

kamaleon
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 68

Posted 10/21/08 - 06:37 AM: Subject: The "name that fallacy" thread	#1
Hi folks, my new post here. Glad to be around. I was wondering if what I'm about to express is to be considered a fallacy, and if so, could anyone give me it's "name"? It would be something that would be described as " the use of words or expressions that have a generally accepted highly pejorative connotation in common sense language to describe something but without giving any logical arguments to justify one's disdain for that something". In exemple: when one says "vegans are extremists" one does not make any sound claim as to what one opposes in veganism, one only plays with peoples' acceptance of the word extremism as meaning something inherently wrong. I'm sorry if this is really confused but I'm not a native english speaker either. Thanks for your time.

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/21/08 - 02:49 PM:	#2
kamaleon wrote: In exemple: when one says "vegans are extremists" one does not make any sound claim as to what one opposes in veganism, one only plays with peoples' acceptance of the word extremism as meaning something inherently wrong. That is exactly correct. What you are (perhaps) looking for is the unstated generalization that is necessary to complete the argument. For example, if someone were to assert "vegans are extremists", we may take them for asserting If someone is an extremist, then they are bad Vegans are extremists --------------------------------------------- Vegans are bad Then again, there are pragmatic concerns as well. The tone, circumstances, etc. would have to be taken into account to get an accurate depiction of the speaker's intended meaning. Another example would be bumper stickers which read "ABORTION STOPS A BEATING HEART". We may take this to assert All things that stop a beating heart are bad Abortion stops a beating heart -------------------------------------------- Abortion is bad But of course this relies on the assumption that the individual displaying the bumper sticker is against abortion (I personally think that this is a safe assumption). As for a fallacy, I do not know the name which refers to the specific definition you gave, nor do I know that such a name exists. You could certainly say that the proponent is being vague, though this may not be what you are looking for. The "fallacy of equivocation" comes to mind, but these two are not one in the same. I would most likely call such an unjustified assertion "rhetoric", but that's just me Hope that helps.

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1716

Posted 10/22/08 - 03:12 AM:	#3
I think the name is, "Inference from a label" -- which says drawing conclusion merely from the name or label itself.

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/22/08 - 06:53 AM:	#4
"Inference from a label" would seem to imply that the faulty reasoning was on the interpreter, and not the giver of the argument, while kamaleon seems to be interested in the latter. I am not sure of this; I have never heard of "inference from a label", although it seems a reasonable title for such a situation.

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1716

Posted 10/23/08 - 12:05 AM:	#5
@Dr.Black, Yes, I think you are right, it is the latter that kamaleon is asking about. I can only say, then, that given what kamaleon said below, what it is, is simply "name calling" without a fallacy. Ad hominem is only a fallacy if the speaker (or a writer) is engaged in an argument with another person or group. A fallacious ad hominem is used to ignore, discredit, or mock the other party's view. But simply calling a person or a group a name isn't fallacious (surprising as it may sound). kamaleon wrote: In exemple: when one says "vegans are extremists" one does not make any sound claim as to what one opposes in veganism, one only plays with peoples' acceptance of the word extremism as meaning something inherently wrong.

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/23/08 - 09:33 AM:	#6
Ah, yes, good call, Caldwell. Kamaleon, I hope that these responses have proved helpful. Oh, and your English is just fine

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 272

Posted 10/23/08 - 11:00 AM:	#7
Yes, calling someone an "extremist" is an AD HOMINEM attack. It could also be considered an APPEAL TO EMOTION due to what the word "extremist" means to many people. Or a HASTY GENERALIZATION because not all vegans are, necessarily, extremists. All three are fallacious forms of reasoning. Hope that helps Kamaleon. Look up the capitalized words on wikipedia or something for more info if you want.
"A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

kamaleon
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 68

Posted 10/26/08 - 05:18 AM:	#8
Hi folks, I'm ever so sorry I didn't get back here earlier, actually, there is something wrong with the board as I had clicked "subscribe" the thread and I now have the option "unsubscribe" but I never got any messaging there were new posts. As such, and out of frustration I came here today to bump the thread - only to find your helpful posts! So thanks a lot, and let's try to catch up. So, yes, I suppose this could be both "name calling" - if, as Caldwell has quite cleverly pointed out there isn't an an engagement in further argumenting - and ad hominem if there is an argument. I also agree it is an appeal to emotion (is there any latin name for it?). I also think it is a straw man. Would you lot agree? I never realised one could make so many fallacies together in one sentence only Anyway, let me put another example: last friday I met an old friend on the street. I was meant to meet him at a gig the week before but he didn't show up; I know that he didn't come because he was at another show. I have known that on that show there was a professional stripper; when I met him I asked if that had been true. He said yes, and I told him I thought that was crass. He laughed and disparingly asked me if I had become a puritan. I believe this to be the exact same example of a faulty reasoning. I'm obviously not into puritanism; however I'm interested in ethics and I'm interested in gender-related issues. By calling me a puritan, it is a faulty reasoning because I do not adhere to puritanism, however I obviously share common values with many different moral frameworks. What would then be the name for the fallacy that would produce such a reasoning: Puritans are against public nakedness, therefore to strip tease as well. People who oppose sexism are opposed to strip tease as the exploitation of the female body. Therefore people who oppose sexism and are opposed to strip tease as the exploitation of the female body are puritans. Thanks a lot again!

Postmodern Beatnik
Or Is It?

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1465

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/26/08 - 06:47 AM:	#9
Fallacies concern faulty reasoning: they are names for illegitimate maneuvers in a logical argument. In order for there to be a fallacy, then, there must be an argument. As such, "Vegans are extremists!" and "Have you become a Puritan?" do not, on their own, constitute fallacies. It is true that we could construct an implied argument from such statements, but principles of interpretation typically restrict us to constructing only valid (though not necessarily sound) arguments. And given that valid arguments consist only of legitimate logical maneuvers, we will not be left with an identifiable fallacy. The given statements do, however, provide fodder for several possible fallacies -- which is one reason there is diversity in the answers being given on this thread. Depending on where the argument goes, we may end up with some version of an ad hominem attack, an instance of poisoning the well, or a good old-fashioned red herring. The hasty generalization fallacy probably won't be involved from this point on because if it is involved at all, it has already done its work (by generating the statements we are discussing). However, that depends on whether we are supposed to be taking the questionable statements as premises or conclusions -- another reason why we need to identify an actual argument before identifying a fallacy.
"It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." --Anthony Weston "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." --Anthony Weston

kamaleon
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 68

Posted 10/26/08 - 07:52 AM:	#10
You are right. I suppose when I hear these isolated sentences I always implicitely "hear" the sort of (illogical) reasoning that (may) have led to them. But I do agree with you and recognize that, on their own account, they are not fallacies.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.