Fallacy fallacy fallacy?

[NigelW]

Hi, I was listening to an audiobook by Steven Novella titled "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills." He was running through a list of fallacies and gave explanations for each. Emotional pleading to true Scotsman fallacy. I found it very useful! One fallacy that threw me through a loop was the fallacy fallacy.

I feel acute discomfort in posting this. But it may be worth exploring.

 

This fallacy is described on Wikipedia as:

The formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.

 

Example 1:

 

We should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, therefore we should eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

 

Example 2:

 

We should pay taxes because our government said so. Therefore we shouldn't pay our taxes.

 

Example 3:

 

Racism shouldn't be banned because we're racists. Therefore racism should be banned.

 

Example 4:

 

Cell phones in classrooms shouldn't be banned because if there is an asteroid heading towards Earth we need to know about it. Therefore cellphones should be banned.

 

Example 5:

 

Our country is self sufficient, we are apart of our country and therefore we are self-sufficient. Therefore you are not self-sufficient.

 

Example 6:

 

Our city is like any other city because of God. Therefore our city is not like any other city.

 

Example 7:

 

Our Family is fine because family is family. Therefore Our family is not fine.

 

 

[TheRobin]

Why is that causing you discomfort? Iirc that's one of the first things about syllogisms that I learned, that you can only judge whether the reasoning is valid and not whether the statements are factually correct.

[Sal9000]

http://static.existentialcomics.com//comics/fallacyMan3.jpg

[Pepin]

Maybe there is something I am missing, but some of those examples don't sound right. Once issue is that the argument from fallacy simply claim that an argument is false if fallacious, it does not make a counterclaim.

 

If a nutritionist claims the spinach is healthy to eat, and I claim that they are wrong because hamburgers are healthy to eat, then I am not using the argument from fallacy as I am just making a counterclaim. The issue with the counterclaim is that the two being health are not mutually exclusive. For it to be a fallacy fallacy, I would claim that the nutritionist is wrong because they are making an argument from authority.

 

Like in your example, if they claim that a food is healthy because it is popular, the fallacy is an argument from popularity. It of course does not imply that the food is unhealthy, but neither would such a fallacy imply that another completely different food is healthy or unhealthy. It would make sense to claim that the argument is false due to the fallacy, just not the conclusion.

 

The fallacy fallacy is most prominent in cases where a statement fits some criteria for a fallacy, but is not an actual fallacy. It is very easy for people who lack critical thinking skills to go overboard in identifying fallacic forms, when what is being argued is not in the shape of a penis.

 

If I am to say:

 

"John is known for lying. In his deposition he said he didn't steal the laptop. He is most likely lying".

 

Many people will say that this inference is incorrect as it is an ad hominem argument, which is defined as a dismal of a claim based on someone's character. This is an ad hominem argument, but it is not a fallacy as John's character and history of lying is completely related to whether he is lying or not.

 

Another example is:

 

"Health experts recommend staying away from suntan booths".

 

Someone may hear this is retort that this is fallacy in that it is an argument from authority, that just because an expert says it is true, does not imply that it is true. Examples of times when scientists were wrong before are likely to be provided as evidence. Yet, though this is an argument from authority, if the expertise of the health experts can be established, it is not at all fallacious as their profession is completely related to the validity of the claim.

 

The fallacy fallacy is big on youtube and especially in the comments 

[NigelW]

Thank you for the correction, Pipin. I am trying to improve my ability to think, it's really quite hard and I don't expect 12 years of public school, years of video game, drug and alcohol abuse to magically disappear.

 

I think I know why I felt uncomfortable posting this.

[hannahbanana]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

[Ace]

I think that the definition of the fallacy makes sense. But the examples seem not to really follow it. The conclusions kind of seem like non sequiturs.

 

On Wikipedia it defines it logically as:

 

If P, then Q.P is a fallacious argument. Therefore, Q is false.

 

I think it's more along the lines of - "Nutritionists say that we should eat healthy food. Therefore we should eat healthy food. That we should eat healthy food because nutritionists say so is an argument from authority. Therefore we should not eat healthy food."

 

An argument which contains a fallacy cannot be accepted as true according to the rules of logic. But you can't then logically conclude that because it contains a fallacy that it is false.

[NigelW]

It just occurred to me that I ignored how atrocious the comment section can get for Stef's videos. I don't know how he does it.

 

I wonder why I ignored it?

[Pepin]

I think it's more along the lines of - "Nutritionists say that we should eat healthy food. Therefore we should eat healthy food. That we should eat healthy food because nutritionists say so is an argument from authority. Therefore we should not eat healthy food."

 

Just a minor correction, an example of an argument from fallacy ought not to contain a refutation, rather just a rejection of the conclusion. Like in your example, the falseness of the nutritionists claim does not necessarily entail eating unhealthy food as truth, as it could be argued that there are no healthy or unhealthy foods, or that eating food altogether is unhealthy.

 

Though the phrasing is completely comprehensible, it is difficult to see the issue I am addressing when in this form. To rephrase the argument:

 

Nutritionists claim that consumption of X class of foods are required for health

Nutritionists are making an argument from authority

Consumption of X class of foods are not required for health

 

The falseness of the nutritionists claim does not imply anything about foods which are not required for health, rather it only implies that there is no correlation between health and foods which are considered to be required for health. From the example, we can not infer that unhealthy foods, foods that are claimed to be detrimental to health, ought to be consumed.

 

I hope I am not being annoying and overly technical.

[Kason]

Yesterday in the call in show - there were a lot of comments on youtube saying that

 

X fallacy was committed when you did Y. Y is not true because of Z (Empirical reason)

and then someone responded that they were committing a "Fallacy Fallacy" and therefore it was false.

I think that you could respond to the Fallacy Fallacy claim and call it a ... Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy and open up a 

mobius strip of "Fallacy" war.

 

OR - my personal approach was to look at the first logic and determine the truth value based on the statement made.

manipulation of language does not change the reality of things. I'm not very well spoken, so I might appeal to authority;

However, The proof needs to be outside the realm of language. and in the world of 

 

     Logical Consistency

and

     Empirical Evidence.

 

(Universally Preferable Behavior: a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics explains this why, far better than I hope to be able to.) 

If truth isn't determined via UPB. a Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy "War" could be waged indefinitely. Stalemating into the cold trenches of sophistry.

(Slippery Slope, Appeal to emotion, BUT still true. Amiright?)

[DrTruthiness]

When deconstructing a stupid argument one day (I can't even remember what it was) I was challenged by the person who posited it and what they said stuck with me: "Rather than use reason as a weapon to destroy my argument, you should interpret what I"m TRYING to say in the best possible way and address that." Lazy on their part? Absolutely. Good point? ...dammit, actually yes.

 

I have to humbly confess, they raise a damn good argument. What the hell good is it to deconstruct a stupid argument, when the true core of what is TRYING to be said should be addressed? The real gold is there.

 

Maybe this isn't addressing the fallacy fallacy exactly as you intended it, but it feels very close. After all, you're focusing on the failure of a person to make a purely logical argument, and focusing only on that in your response.