The advocate is overly quick to claim a proponent has made a fallacy when in fact they have not.
The question mark is because I think the name needs some work, although it could sound quite condescending, which is a plus. An example is a comment I made at Evolving Thoughts <http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/09/fallacies_on_fallacies.php#comment-1118789>:
...something is not a fallacy just because it seems like one. This, I think, is one of the hardest things for people to differentiate. Calling someone an idiot [for example] is only fallacious if that's the basis of your argument. E.g., "The type of home insurance recommended by Andy is wrong because he's an idiot." Andy may indeed be an idiot; however, he might (even if by chance) be recommending a home insurance policy that meets your needs exactly.This is similar to, though not the same as, the Fallacy Fallacy.
Whereas the following is not fallacious even though you are still calling Andy an idiot: "Andy is an idiot because he has recommended you get home insurance that doesn't cover you for a fire, and fire cover is essential in any home insurance policy."
I.e., you are saying Andy is an idiot because his claim is wrong, not his claim is wrong because he is an idiot.
_____________
Update Oct 11: How's the Red Flag Faux Pas as the name for this mistake? See comments for elaboration.
2 comments:
Isn't this the same as a derivation of the "Red Herring" - the Genetic Fallacy. (see generally http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html )
Consider the following quote:
Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message.
Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (Third Edition) (Prentice Hall: 1998), p. 5.
Look at:
Julian Baggini, "Mental Manoeuvres: The Genetic Fallacy", New Humanist
Hi Anon,
I see what you're saying but what I'm talking about is neither of these. The genetic fallacy, much like Cultural Origins is to do with the history of the claim or where it came from. A Red Herring is when someone mentions a point that is completely irrelevant to the topic (similar to moving the goalposts). Look at the examples linked to above to give you the flavour.
The closest fallacy that I can think of that is similar to what I'm getting at is the Fallacy Fallacy (linked to Fallacy Files in the post - here's the wiki version). However, it's not this either. In a Fallacy Fallacy the advocate has correctly identified a fallacy, but then gone on to make an unwarranted claim, viz: because their opponent made a fallacy, their opponent's position must be wrong. This is a non sequitur. Here's a very crude example:
My friend thinks that as I can't prove all crop circles are not produced by Alien spacecraft - even if some are produced by hoaxers - Aliens therefore exist and visit the earth. This is the Burden of Proof fallacy and as he is making it, his argument is incorrect. Therefore aliens don't visit the earth in spacecraft.
The bit I've bolded is where the advocate has gone on to make the Fallacy Fallacy.
This still, is not what I'm getting at.
I've come up with a better name (IMHO) than "Eager Beaver". How's Red Flag Faux Pas?
I use "Red Flag" because there are particular things one looks out for that could mean a fallacy is in play, such as emotionally loaded language (leading to Weasel Words) or name dropping (leading to Appeal to Authority). And I use "faux pas" because of its alliteration and etymology – it sounds good and literally means “false step” in French. I.e. just because there is one of these "Red Flags", it doesn't necessarily mean a fallacy is being committed and it is very easy to make this "false step" and say there is a fallacy when there is not.
I don't think this kind of mistake, probably because it's a mistake, has been coined yet. The Red Flag Faux Pas is an argument that has gone wrong because the advocate claims their opponent has made a fallacy, when in fact their opponent has not made a fallacy.
Here's one of the first examples that got me thinking about this. It's actually a pretty powerful fallacy. As soon as you say someone has made a fallacy, people who are not tuned in to such things or have little knowledge of the structure of arguments might believe you, even if you are wrong in saying something's a fallacy.
To summarise, all the others above are based on a "correct" fallacy. That is, a fallacy has been made and correctly identified. The Red Flag Faux Pas is the claim that a fallacy has been made, when in fact it has not been made.
Post a Comment