I haven't seen this particular fallacy described elsewhere. It happens often enough that I was thinking it ought to have a name, and I was thinking of calling it the fallacy fallacy, but that refers to a different fallacy, and it seems to me it's better to leave it unnamed, in light of its nature.
So what is it? It's the belief that calling out the name of a fallacy is an argument. "That's a straw man" or "That's a No True Scotsman" are things you'll hear all the time in debates, but it's almost never a good idea to use the name of a fallacy in an argument, for several reasons.
First, it's very often misused. Knowing the names of fallacies is no guarantee that you actually know what makes them invalid. Many people seem to think that ad hominem just refers to name-calling, for example, or will call out "No True Scotsman" if you try to define a term in a way they don't like.
Second, it's lazy. Even if you do happen to properly understand what the fallacy is and why it's a fallacy, simply naming it is seldom an efficient shortcut to making clear your opponent's error, in part because (remember the first reason) there's a good chance your opponent either won't, in which case you're wasting words.
Third, it very often leads to completely unnecessary side-arguments about the definition of the fallacy itself. "What? That wasn't an ad hominem! Ad hominem is when I say you're stupid, therefore your argument is wrong." "No, ad hominem means a personal attack!"
Fourth, it's likely to be seen (often correctly) as showing off, an attempt to telegraph that you know something about the technical aspects of argumentation and therefore are not to be messed with, you master of logic you.
Finally, it's almost always completely unnecessary. Remember that a fallacy is a flawed argument, an error in reasoning that makes it vulnerable. You don't need to name the flaw in order to attack it. For example, recognizing that an ad hominem is a form of non sequitur where the premise ("You're stupid") does not lead to the conclusion ("therefore, you're wrong"), you can note that you do not need to refute the premise. "I may or may not be stupid, but stupid people can be right and smart people can be wrong. Show that my argument is wrong."
That is, by the way, why it's definitely useful to have names for the various types of fallacies, so we can discuss and analyze them and learn how to recognize and counter them, and to avoid committing them ourselves. Shop talk about rhetoric benefits greatly from having terms of art like these. But naming them in the middle of an actual argument is rarely a good move.
You totally lost me with this Topic. I guess it's over my head. I know what a fallacy is, but when anyone has a mistaken Belief I'm not that inclined to Debate it. Since perhaps my own Beliefs could be mistaken... even if I assume otherwise. And even if they're operating with faulty reasoning, so many initial Debates can just end up being pointless Arguments and I find Argumentative types to be too annoying to endure. I never really gave much thought to whether a fallacy has a specific Name tho', that's something to ponder I guess.
ReplyDeleteI should mention that I tend to use the word "argument" not in the sense of conflict, but as a structured chain of inferences leading to a conclusion. So arguing about something isn't so much a matter of fighting as it is of analyzing and assessing reasons and evidence, which may have an adversarial element but is not inherently unfriendly.
DeleteTo put it another way, it's the claims themselves that are competing with each other to see which one prevails, and while the humans debating may have preferences as to which claim survives and will probably be more motivated in attacking some claims with critical scrutiny than others, ideally all claims will be subjected to the same degree of rigor.
So what I'm talking about here is why, if you are engaged in argument (or discussion, if you prefer) and you notice your partner has made an error of reasoning that has a technical name like "argumentum ad hominem" or "post hoc ergo propter hoc", it's usually not a good idea to use that technical name, and instead you should just articulate the logic of the error directly.
I would call it "negativity bias" (say if you know other, more proper name of it).
DeleteUsual problem in converstaion between people who have some beaf in science and rational thinking in general --
we do not like to discuss something that is well-known and/or looks obvious and correct. Even to point it out with an explicit agreement.
That's why our talks look like quarrels because of small and smaller indestinguishable to outsiders problematic points. :-)
While more simple-minded people tend to show agreement and praising each other more.
What you talking about here is more like bias, than fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThere is lots of biases too. Cognitive biases, and etc.
Do I need to provide link?
\\First, it's very often misused. Knowing the names of fallacies is no guarantee that you actually know what makes them invalid. Many people seem to think that ad hominem just refers to name-calling, for example, or will call out "No True Scotsman" if you try to define a term in a way they don't like.
ad hominem -- it's using personal traits of an opponent in/as substitute of an argument.
Like "you do not have degree in phylosophy -- that means you cannot have oponion or even pose with an argument about anything related to Socrates". ;-P
"No True Scotsman" -- re-definition of meaning of words on the go, to promptly examplify it out of pressing countre-argument provided by opponent.
Classical example -- Plato's definition of a human as "bipedal without feathers".
And, YOU must be know clever refutation of Socrates to it yourself.
Well, still, it didn't stopped former from re-applying that NTS.
\\ Finally, it's almost always completely unnecessary. Remember that a fallacy is a flawed argument, an error in reasoning that makes it vulnerable. You don't need to name the flaw in order to attack it.
If someone uses term "fallacy" incorrectly. Or points at some named fallacy incorrectly.
Isn't that ONLY way to attack it -- it's by pointing out it's incorrect.
As with any other case of wrongly stated fact.
Or what DO YOU propose?
Trying to argue while allowing INcorrect facts???
Well, that's possible. I know it too. But that'll be not discussion based on logic and facts anymore. And just a showdown of rethorical wits and persuasion proves. "Authoritarian mindset" as you name it.
So, what's your point again? ;-)
"I may or may not be stupid, but stupid people can be right and smart people can be wrong. Show that my argument is wrong."
Yap. :-)
The last line there which you quoted was meant as an example of how to call out an ad hominem fallacy without invoking the name "ad hominem".
ReplyDeleteThis whole essay was concerned with why one should avoid using the names of fallacies in the midst of an argument. But you do raise the other question: what do do when your opponent uses the name of a fallacy to attack your argument.
Usually, I ignore it, and here's why: The name of a fallacy is not a magical incantation that refutes your argument all by itself. It's an allegation that needs to be proven with specificity, and if the specifics are not offered, they haven't met their burden of proof and you need not waste time and attention on it. You can ask for the specifics, if you think it's likely to lead anywhere useful, but I've found that often people use the names of fallacies as a lazy shortcut rather than a rigorous diagnosis, and in such cases it's usually better to ignore it and focus on something more important.
\\The last line there which you quoted was meant as an example of how to call out an ad hominem fallacy without invoking the name "ad hominem".
DeleteNever worked on my watch. :-)
\\But you do raise the other question: what do do when your opponent uses the name of a fallacy to attack your argument.
No.
I thought that I was prompt and proper enough with stating it as "what to do if opponent thinks that he entitled to his own facts?". And showed that there is proper dichotomy of strategies that can be used:
if you want discussion properly logical and factual -- you need to point at logical flaws (e.g. fallacies) and incorrect facts,
OR,
you can ignore it, and proceed as if nothing happend... but that makes it battle of rethoric, and not of facts and logic.
Well, still, rethoric is like that molten cheese in a pizza or lazania -- required ingredient to make even strictly logical and factual discussion more digestable. ;-)
\\Usually, I ignore it, and here's why: The name of a fallacy is not a magical incantation that refutes your argument all by itself. It's an allegation that needs to be proven with specificity,
I see it differently.
If opponent educated, he would know and understand such reference.
If not, then it's really pointless to use it. Well, usually, it do not even come to such a need with unreasonable people anyway. (like with christian believers, for example)
\\but I've found that often people use the names of fallacies as a lazy shortcut rather than a rigorous diagnosis, and in such cases it's usually better to ignore it and focus on something more important.
Your choice.
Thank you for elaborating.
Can't leave my comment under that post.
ReplyDeleteI must admit my mistake here. Your avatar foto misguided me. I thought you are way younger.
Now it explains way and things your are talking about.
And reason of my blunders.
Sorry about that, blame is all on me.
Well, not sure that we can talk about much anything.
But still, I could come from time to time and leave my unsolicated "wise remarks" here, if you permit. :-)
Wait, you were arguing with me because you thought I was younger? I don't want you to defer to me just because I'm older than you assumed.
DeleteI do intend to be writing a post about citizen's dividend soon, so you will have opportunity to argue with me still.
No, that affected HOW I tryed to talk...
DeleteIt's interesting for me to understand things.
And my interest about your "citizen's divident" too.
Though, I did'nt saw too much economical back-play.
So, the very next idea was - to understand your way of thinking.
Sorry for bluntness, if something.
Would be glad to hear your idea - why and what you find interesting in talk with such a noisy anonimous? Humbly yours. :-)
I post things here because they are ideas I want to share, and which I think other people might find interesting. Sometimes people comment, usually they don't. I welcome comments because they can help to refine the ideas I present.
Delete\\I welcome comments because they can help to refine the ideas I present.
DeleteThat's what I tryed to do. With obvious limitation by my own prejudiced and silliness. :-) Which cannot be helped, if only through honing one's wits with exchange of sharp and to the point arguments. ;-)
To me that seems like different stages of technique mastery. At first, you handle the argument at the face value, therefore, you are easily lead by the opponent. Next, you learn to recognize the technique and point it out. It's like knowing where you are about to be hit and throwing hands there in an attempt to block, in hopes that the angle of attack will not shift. The next level is what you describe, recognize the "attack" and react to it in the "appropriate" manner, be it by addressing the reason behind the use of fallacy or moving conversation in a different, more constructive direction.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, you are right, sometimes the context is "I know what you are doing, therefore, I am superior and will not find anything valuable in this conversation". That's no fallacy. Just arrogance.
P.S.: while we are on the topic, it may be prudent to differentiate between argument for the sake of contemplating vs arguing for the sake of proving the opponent wrong. In case of the former, fallacies tend to be pointed out to rid the conversation of inefficiencies and move on to better understanding of the topic. In case of the latter, fallacies are pointed out to underline opponent's disingenuity. As in, if you can prove the lack of "good sportsmanship", you may as well stop the argument as the opponent is now "disqualified". I find Facebook to be notorious for this "sport squabble" kind of interactions.
Hope this is relevant.
Yeah. Relevant.
DeleteBut sadly, I do not see what additional meat you added to a grinder here. Just all same and same dry breadcrumbs. :-)
Obviously, it's me, another anonimous, different from this one.
One who have written all that higher.