The "Fallacy fallacy"

[Memeticemetic]

I was originally intending to draft this in the ongoing list of logical fallacies but I believe it deserves its own place as it technically encompasses all fallacies, formal or informal; but most especially informal. Simply stated, the fallacy fallacy can be defined as a form of red herring wherein dismissal of an argument comes in the form of identifying fallacies in the structure of the argument. In other words, instead of actually addressing the argument, one attacks the form it takes. Sometimes the identification of the fallacy is technically correct, other times it is not. A simple example:

You are a fool for believing x. [Argument demonstrating why x is false]

My opponent has chosen to use ad hominem attacks rather than addressing my points.

In the above case, debater2 has incorrectly identified an ad hominem fallacy and failed to respond to the subsequent argument.

You are a fool for believing x. [Argument demonstrating why y is true]

My opponent has chosen to use ad hominem attacks rather than addressing my points.

Here, debater2 is technically correct. His opponent did, in fact, commit an ad hominem fallacy without addressing the argument presented. But debater2 ignores the subsequent argument made by focusing on the fallacy, thus committing his own fallacy.

Often this takes an even more simple and absurd form when someone misunderstands, deliberately or otherwise, an argument and simply dismisses it as "a strawman" My favorite example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=jauUjxWpcyc#t=566s

Here Comfort is being confronted with an uncomfortable argument, or more properly, question, deflects a few times and eventually incorrectly identifies it as a strawman. In these cases, if the identification is accurate; if your opponent truly is erecting a misrepresentation of your position to defeat it, he would be justified in ignoring the question or identifying why it was not worthy of answer. Comfort is not only wrong, he doesn't even attempt to show why he is right.

But, above all else, the problem with the fallacy fallacy isn't that it is fallacious, but that nothing derails a debate or discussion more thoroughly than a digression into arguments about arguing. I've seen this happen on these forums fairly frequently, when one member will quote fallacy after fallacy in another members post and never actually get around to delving into the meat of the argument. Nothing new is learned about the subject at hand, no consensus is being worked toward. The only benefit is that someone may be able to say, "I win". Well, when you engage in this type of tactical maneuvering, no one wins, and we all get just a wee bit dumber for having witnessed it.

I think, instead of fleshing this out further, I will post it as is and we can expand upon it further at our leisure. Maybe I can be shown why I'm a fool for thinking this way. Assuming anyone is interested, of course.

 

[Andiferous]

Really want to steal you for philosophy forum. Very interesting topic, thank you.

 

[Aught3]

Interesting post.

Is the second instance really an example of an ad hominem fallacy? An ad hominem is dismissing an argument because of the characteristics of the arguer. For instance, 'of course you would be in favour of vaccines - you work for the pharmaceutical companies. The reason this is a fallacy is because even if it were true that the arguer worked for a pharmaceutical company that does nothing to address the argument. Calling someone a fool is just an insult, not a fallacy.

So you committed the fallacy fallacy! :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I like the one where Person A says something without thinking through the logical consequences, and when those consequences are pointed out to them Person A claims that people are attacking a strawman rather than admit that their idea is flawed.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Interesting post.

Is the second instance really an example of an ad hominem fallacy? An ad hominem is dismissing an argument because of the characteristics of the arguer. For instance, 'of course you would be in favour of vaccines - you work for the pharmaceutical companies. The reason this is a fallacy is because even if it were true that the arguer worked for a pharmaceutical company that does nothing to address the argument. Calling someone a fool is just an insult, not a fallacy.

So you committed the fallacy fallacy! :lol:

We are discussing informal fallacies here and this would, indeed, be a very informal ad hom. My example was intended to be a simplified version of ad hom wherein the implication was that we can dismiss the argument entirely because his opponent was a fool. So, if I oversimplified, that's my fault, but hopefully my intention was still clear.

And, of course I didn't commit the fallacy fallacy. Even if I was incorrect, I wasn't addressing an argument. If I'm wrong in this setting, I'm just straight up wrong. Or perhaps I've used fallacious reasoning (which is where formal fallacies dwell). Which can, and should, be pointed out while continuing to address the core arguments contained within my overall reasoning. If only the weaknesses in my structure are addressed without addressing the actual argument, then the fallacy fallacy has occurred.

 

[Andiferous]

He just told you why not to use the name, so it does not exist Aught, and you are wrong.

It is a great illustration of how people like me can get completely confuzzled by fallacies and lingo and have no clue what you guys are saying in conversation, too, a fantastic argument for the same.

 

[Aught3]

And, of course I didn't commit the fallacy fallacy. Even if I was incorrect, I wasn't addressing an argument. If I'm wrong in this setting, I'm just straight up wrong. Or perhaps I've used fallacious reasoning (which is where formal fallacies dwell). Which can, and should, be pointed out while continuing to address the core arguments contained within my overall reasoning. If only the weaknesses in my structure are addressed without addressing the actual argument, then the fallacy fallacy has occurred.

Very good sir, I withdraw my accusation.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I like the one where Person A says something without thinking through the logical consequences, and when those consequences are pointed out to them Person A claims that people are attacking a strawman rather than admit that their idea is flawed.

Exactly. This person is using accusations of informal fallacies as get out of jail free cards. As if the fact that the structure is faulty implies that the actual argument is faulty. This is the kind of tactic freshman debaters tend to use. Like they've just discovered their genitals and just can't resist the urge to grab hold of them and wave them in their opponents face to distract him from the fact that they don't even know what genitalia is for.

 

[Aught3]

He just told you why not to use the name, so it does not exist Aught, and you are wrong.

What? Are you saying that the fallacy fallacy isn't real, because that's not how I read the OP.

 

[Andiferous]

Sort of...
If I failed any relevance,
keep in mind I'm mostly trying to demonstrate the point that using fallacy lingo is bloody confusing.

 

[Gnug215]

... and then there's the fallacy fallacy fallacy.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Imagine a white paper where every explanation of a fallacy committed the fallacy it was trying to explain. Would those who pointed out the fallacy be committing the fallacy fallacy fallacy or just the fallacy fallacy?

 

[Memeticemetic]

Imagine a white paper where every explanation of a fallacy committed the fallacy it was trying to explain. Would those who pointed out the fallacy be committing the fallacy fallacy fallacy or just the fallacy fallacy?

Maybe we could just call those meta-fallacies to avoid the infinite regress this line could take us down. Because one of these smart-asses (including, and especially, me) will just take it one more step down the line for the lulz.

Let me try again to make myself more clear in my definition. The fallacy fallacy only applies if it is being used specifically to duck an argument or avoid making one. Just like an insult in and of itself is not an ad hom, so to is pointing out a fallacy in and of itself not a fallacy fallacy. And the misidentification of a fallacy is not a necessary or defining characteristic of the fallacy fallacy.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Theowarner did a video on something very similar to this:

 

[Andiferous]

You know I completely agree with you and your opinion on using empty fallacy claims without substance, or filling up an arguments with terms. And I think fallacy fallacy is an ironically fantastic name.

Also, the internet has a whole bunch of new fallacies I've never heard before. It seems to invent them.

But I am very curious about the formal debate aspects of this. In formal debate, is it standard to use fallacy terms and definitions? That'd be really horrible...

 

[Memeticemetic]

Theowarner did a video on something very similar to this:

So he did, it appears. And he has a similar opinion of it to mine. I wouldn't go so far to say that this tendency is exemplified in apologists, however. I see it on all sides of the ongoing conversation.

You know I completely agree with you and your opinion on using empty fallacy claims without substance, or filling up an arguments with terms. And I think fallacy fallacy is an ironically fantastic name.

Also, the internet has a whole bunch of new fallacies I've never heard before. It seems to invent them.

But I am very curious about the formal debate aspects of this. In formal debate, is it standard to use fallacy terms and definitions? That'd be really horrible...

I thrive on irony and am glad to see it's use is appreciated.

What new fallacies are you referring to? Things like Gish Gallop or Godwin's Law, perhaps?

Public, live debates generally don't have much of this kind of thing. At least not one worth watching. But people skilled in debate generally have an intimate knowledge of formal and informal fallacies and may even identify particularly egregious transgressions of logic. The place where where debate and discussion really gets bogged down in over exposure of named fallacies is right here on the intertubes. The longer people have to craft their responses it seems the more likely they are to deconstruct opponents words in such a fashion. Or, perhaps it's the fact that any mouth-breathing cretin who can bang his head on a keyboard in some semblance of a pattern can end up being read by someone is the thing.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

So he did, it appears. And he has a similar opinion of it to mine. I wouldn't go so far to say that this tendency is exemplified in apologists, however. I see it on all sides of the ongoing conversation.

I was surprised at that as well. Indeed, if I were to wager a guess at which side of the debate were more guilty of this then the other, I would probably have gone with the atheists; much as I would prefer it otherwise.

Then again, he does deal with Craig's ilk quite a lot, so I could see how he might get that impression.

 

[Memeticemetic]

So he did, it appears. And he has a similar opinion of it to mine. I wouldn't go so far to say that this tendency is exemplified in apologists, however. I see it on all sides of the ongoing conversation.

I was surprised at that as well. Indeed, if I were to wager a guess at which side of the debate were more guilty of this then the other, I would probably have gone with the atheists; much as I would prefer it otherwise.

Then again, he does deal with Craig's ilk quite a lot, so I could see how he might get that impression.

Agreed. I see dabblers in debate come and go fairly frequently. They watch a few atheist videos on youtube about logical fallacies and think they've suddenly become experts. Theramintrees and Qualiasoup (for example), while excellent and informative, have given many people that little bit of knowledge that makes them dangerous. Ok, not dangerous, just irritating.

There just aren't as many role models these days for apologists to get their little taste of knowledge to be annoying (Craig being the only one I can think of off the top of my head). I guess apologists just come by their annoying side more naturally, atheists at least have to put a modicum of effort into becoming insufferable jerks. Lord knows, I've invested quite a bit of time and effort into becoming one myself. :ugeek:

 

[Andiferous]

That said, Freud might say fallacy fallacy was phallic x 2.

 

[Memeticemetic]

That said, Freud might say fallacy fallacy was phallic x 2.

:lol:

I'm betting that's why I came up with this metaphor:

This is the kind of tactic freshman debaters tend to use. Like they've just discovered their genitals and just can't resist the urge to grab hold of them and wave them in their opponents face to distract him from the fact that they don't even know what genitalia is for.