Fallacies can be hard to google sometimes, they are designed to confuse, so a description of them can be hard to nail down.
One I’m coming up against a lot lately is what I’d call the “you don’t even know me” fallacy. It says that since I’m not familiar with a person’s history or all the books they’ve read or how they’ve put all their data together, I can’t comment on their opinion. Is there a better name for that?
The trouble with it is, if I refuse to accept it, I’m equally fallacious in claiming that they need a degree in something, or need to read the definitive book that I’ve read. It’s tied up in the misunderstanding of the fallacy of authority. Or maybe it just is that. Just thought I’d throw it out there.
Appeal to accomplishment probably.
That’s pretty darn good.
I think the problem comes in when the appeal is actually correct. Most fallacy references don’t discuss this. Some will explain that an appeal to authority is correct if the authority is really an authority and the appeal is relevant to their authority. Or in this case, if the accomplishments were relevant to the issue being discussed.
Here’s an application I’m thinking of: I tell people I’ve read a lot of theology, talked to Bishops, been a member of and visited many churches, and I have concluded that churches are not designed for self-reflection and change and therefore are not leaders in socially progressive movements. They say, “well, you haven’t been to my church”.
They’re right. I haven’t. I have no right to judge something I have no experience of. However, what are the odds that this mythical church exists? If if is so special, why has no one written a book about them, or at least a blog post? And if it’s a leader of social change they are claiming, shouldn’t there be some evidence of what followed them and what changed?
At this point, if those questions can’t be answered, the “accomplishments” are vapor and it becomes an appeal to personal experience, aka “anecdotal”.
I think the problem you’re having is that it can’t really be boiled down to a single fallacy. There are a huge number of biases and fallacies that could be the cause. (Look through here for a while and see what I mean.) It’s very likely each individual is falling victim to their own particular combination of mental roadblocks.
try here…
The one you mention sounds like the “Anecdotal” fallacy.
Fallacies can be hard to google sometimes, they are designed to confuse, so a description of them can be hard to nail down. One I'm coming up against a lot lately is what I'd call the "you don't even know me" fallacy. It says that since I'm not familiar with a person's history or all the books they've read or how they've put all their data together, I can't comment on their opinion. Is there a better name for that? The trouble with it is, if I refuse to accept it, I'm equally fallacious in claiming that they need a degree in something, or need to read the definitive book that I've read. It's tied up in the misunderstanding of the fallacy of authority. Or maybe it just is that. Just thought I'd throw it out there.Please cite the source of this "you don't know me" fallacy. I have not come across it on websites or elsewhere. As far as I know, you don't have to know anything about your opponent to debate a topic rationally. What would be necessary to know? That he or she is irrational? Lois
'you don’t know me" is the name I gave it because I didn’t know a better name. You shouldn’t have to know someone to know if their logic is accurate, that’s the fallacy. The question is, what’s a good way to identify it and to counter it.
If we find no other fallacy really fits and we have to make a new one, I hereby dub it the pouty teen fallacy.
“Dear diary, I got in an argument with someone today and they wanted me to give them facts and proof. Can you believe that? They don’t know me. They know my life, my struggles. How can they judge the truth of what I believe. What I know. What I’ve been through.”
If we find no other fallacy really fits and we have to make a new one, I hereby dub it the pouty teen fallacy. "Dear diary, I got in an argument with someone today and they wanted me to give them facts and proof. Can you believe that? They don't know me. They know my life, my struggles. How can they judge the truth of what I believe. What I know. What I've been through."Sounds egocentrc to me. That person should be taught that, in order to establish real truth, "The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim"
“pouty face teen” works for me, but let’s not have too much fun with this. It depends on the delivery, some people actually do come across as immature and simply offended that anyone would question how special they are and how their belief system supports them so well. This is almost always in-group support. It can be seen even within churches. Within a church, there are people who are popular and well thought of and they get more support than others. They in turn speak well of the church and claim that it is the morals and values of it that are nourishing them. This leads others to buy in to whatever those values are so they can be like the popular person. But it’s really just a popularity contest and only so many people can be winners.
'you don't know me" is the name I gave it because I didn't know a better name. You shouldn't have to know someone to know if their logic is accurate, that's the fallacy. The question is, what's a good way to identify it and to counter it.Ok, now I understand what you meant. It IS a fallacy to claim personal issues have any place in a debate. All you can do is point it out and refuse to allow the discussion to get sidetracked into personal issues. Point it out every time your opponent tries to bring them in. If he or she continues to do so, say you won't engage in a discussion about personal issues and stick to your guns. The issue under discussion, if framed right, should have nothing to do with personal issues. Keep it objective and on track. LL
'you don't know me" is the name I gave it because I didn't know a better name. You shouldn't have to know someone to know if their logic is accurate, that's the fallacy. The question is, what's a good way to identify it and to counter it.Ok, now I understand what you meant. It IS a fallacy to claim personal issues have any place in a debate. All you can do is point it out and refuse to allow the discussion to get sidetracked into personal issues. Point it out every time your opponent tries to bring them in. If he or she continues to do so, say you won't engage in a discussion about personal issues and stick to your guns. The issue under discussion, if framed right, should have nothing to do with personal issues. Keep it objective and on track. LL We know that is true, but try convincing ideologues. I've had a few encounters with them on Facebook and they refuse to acknowledge that their personal experience does not trump collective experience. Often when they bring up personal experiences they project them onto our entire society, committing the one-to-many fallacy. I have seen this in discussions ranging from the Affordable Care Act to Christianity to ESP.
ESP is a good example because almost universally, people who claim to have it, claim it is a unique and special power. Some will be humble about it, usually fake humility, some might say they can teach you, for a fee of course. But it’s really no different than my friend who claims to receive power from the universe and have all sorts of spiritual connections. When I say I didn’t notice that the full moon shifted my consciousness, she says it’s because I have those logical powers, but she has these higher powers. I’ve quit arguing with her that it comes off as arrogant.
I like to say that a fallacy is an instance of uncritical thinking.
Now, what is critical thinking, the opposite of which is uncritical thinking?
Critical thinking is the use of our reasoning power to come to knowledge that is grounded on truths, facts, and logic.
Uncritical thinking which is fallacious thinking is the opposite of critical thinking.
Here is an example of uncritical thinking, from a Buddhist website:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm Do Buddhists believe in a god? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says: Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines. Dp. 188 [ Etc. ]The question is about the existence of God, whether He exists or not; but the writer goes directly into a dodge, avoiding the actual question, and dwells on the emotional instinct of fear. which moves people to wish for the existence of God -- but you notice the writer does have a concept of God, namely: a power that helps people in a situation of danger. That is an example of a fallacy, namely, thinking that is not grounded on truths, facts, and logic. What is the ingredient missing in the quotation above? The logic ingredient, which logic ingredient requires a thinker to attend to the substance of a question, and not to go astray into a dodge. What do you folks here say?
Removed for redundancy.
Lois
LoisL says:
Removed for redundancy. Lois [ Edited: 20 November 2015 11:28 PM by LoisL ] SignatureIf I may, sir LoisL, what is your point? I can't see any point you are if at all making, to contribute to the thread. The thread is about "Topic Title What’s the fallacy?" And the point I am making is that fallacy is an instance of uncritical thinking, and by uncritical I mean that it is thinking that is not grounded on truths, facts , and logic. Suppose you react to my concept of what is a fallacy, is that all right with you? so that we can both gain more insights by our exchange of thoughts come to know better what is a fallacy.
LoisL says:Not sure what you're referring to. I removed my last post because I overlooked that I had already commemted on the OP. My subsequent commemt added nothing to the previous one. That was all. No hidden meanings See my post#11. .Removed for redundancy. Lois [ Edited: 20 November 2015 11:28 PM by LoisL ] SignatureIf I may, sir LoisL, what is your point? I can't see any point you are if at all making, to contribute to the thread. The thread is about "Topic Title What’s the fallacy?" And the point I am making is that fallacy is an instance of uncritical thinking, and by uncritical I mean that it is thinking that is not grounded on truths, facts , and logic. Suppose you react to my concept of what is a fallacy, is that all right with you? so that we can both gain more insights by our exchange of thoughts come to know better what is a fallacy.
Mdejess seems like an automated response, generated by computer. Notes how the title is cut and pasted, including the words “Topic Title”. Also, there is no recognition of Lois’ deletion of her post. You need to understand context to understand what the words in a deleted post mean, a computer program would have trouble with that, so it just responds with argumentative words. The choice of words is strange too, the English is broken but the vocabulary is sophisticated, very unusual as an “accent”.
Mdejess seems like an automated response, generated by computer. Notes how the title is cut and pasted, including the words "Topic Title". Also, there is no recognition of Lois' deletion of her post. You need to understand context to understand what the words in a deleted post mean, a computer program would have trouble with that, so it just responds with argumentative words. The choice of words is strange too, the English is broken but the vocabulary is sophisticated, very unusual as an "accent".I think you're right, Lausten. We have a chat bot in our midst.