What kind of fallacy is this?

[Jotto999]

I'm not sure what kind of fallacy this is, but I have noticed it. It seems similar to fallacies of relevance. Here is a description:

Fallacy of arbitrary distinction
When two things are of the same type or property in the given example, but made to sound as if they are different.

Proponents of substance dualism often make this fallacy. For example, certain types of mental thought processes might be described by them as being of some supernatural type, like feelings of spirituality, when really it is a process in the brain, like other types cognition. The implied distinction is therefore arbitrary and fallacious. Arguably, the phrase "physically and mentally" makes this fallacy.

Another example:

It also includes the "micro vs. macroevolution" argument. Creationists accept microevolution, but claim that macroevolution is impossible, implying that there's a qualitative difference between them, when it's really just a difference in quantity.

Does it fit into the group of fallacies of relevance? Could it fit into an already commonly described fallacy? Do you agree with my definition/description?

 

[5810Singer]

I'm not sure where it fits, but I'm pretty sure it's known as "false dichotomy".

 

[Deleted member 619]

No, not a false dichotomy, because no dichotomy is presented. A false dichotomy would be when only two options are presented when more options are available. The classic example is 'design' versus 'chance'. You are only given the two options while a third (and the correct one, in fact, demonstrating why it's a fallacy), 'well-defined and testable natural mechanisms', is excluded.

I would say it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. In this instance, the argument is rooted in the fact that certain thought processes are not entirely understood, so they insert their own explanation with no justification.

 

[5810Singer]

No, not a false dichotomy, because no dichotomy is presented. A false dichotomy would be when only two options are presented when more options are available. The classic example is 'design' versus 'chance'. You are only given the two options while a third (and the correct one, in fact, demonstrating why it's a fallacy), 'well-defined and testable natural mechanisms', is excluded.

I would say it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. In this instance, the argument is rooted in the fact that certain thought processes are not entirely understood, so they insert their own explanation with no justification.

Point taken about "false dichotomy", and I can see where you're coming from with argumentum ad ignorantiam, but Jotto seems to be asking if there is a specific term for describing a phenomenon (singular),...as though it were phenomena (plural).

Is there a term for this that you know of Hack?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Nope. The argument from ignorance is the only one I can think of that fits the bill. Perhaps you have elucidated a new fallacy.

Edit: Although I would tend to think that any arbitrary distinction comes under the heading of 'special pleading'.

 

[creativesoul]

non sequitor

 

[Deleted member 619]

No, not a non-sequitur, although I can see how it might be read as such. A non-sequitur would be running off at a tangent.

 

[Aught3]

No, not a non-sequitur, although I can see how it might be read as such. A non-sequitur would be running off at a tangent.

That's a red herring, non-sequitur means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises i.e., more of a structural error in the argument.

This fallacy of arbitrary distinction is a bit like the genetic fallacy, but it is something different - I like it.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

I'm not aware of any name for this kind of a fallacy, but doesn't it also include the "micro vs. macroevolution" argument.
Creationists accept microevolution, but claim that macroevolution is impossible, implying that there's a qualitative difference between them, when it's really just a difference in quantity.

 

[Jotto999]

No, not a non-sequitur, although I can see how it might be read as such. A non-sequitur would be running off at a tangent.

That's a red herring, non-sequitur means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises i.e., more of a structural error in the argument.

This fallacy of arbitrary distinction is a bit like the genetic fallacy, but it is something different - I like it.

Glad you like it!

I'm not aware of any name for this kind of a fallacy, but doesn't it also include the "micro vs. macroevolution" argument.
Creationists accept microevolution, but claim that macroevolution is impossible, implying that there's a qualitative difference between them, when it's really just a difference in quantity.

Yes! That's a good example. That kind of thing was what I had in mind, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[creativesoul]

The conclusion of a thought having a spiritual essence/source because it has a spiritual content is an invalid argumentative form.

Begging the (implied)question...

Non-sequit(u)r...

The content of one's thought does not prove that that content actually exists anywhere other than in the mind of the thinker and it certainly does not constitute grounds for concluding that the content, itself, is the source of the thought.

I think of a pink unicorn, therefore my thought proves not only that they really exist but also that they are the source of their own content in my thought?

It does not follow.

My .02 anyway...

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well, I think that what we've established here is that it's fallacious in so many ways it's difficult to pin down.

 

[Jotto999]

The example I gave has many fallacies, yes. I was trying to use it to point out the arbitrary distinction, and not all the other fallacies associated with substance dualism. Sorry if there was any miscommunication there. I think the micro/macroevolution argument is a much better example of what I'm trying to say, actually.

 

[creativesoul]

Indeed.

Pardon my hyper-focus...

The micro vs. macro is not quite as arbitrary as the 'spiritual thought' though. The creationists can dig their heels into the fact that we have not yet witnessed a genus evolving... and do! That seems like solid ground for them. Yet it still does not prove creation of 'kind'.

 

[AndromedasWake]

It seems to me to be the opposite of a fallacy of equivocation, where two meanings of a word are lumped together where they shouldn't be.

WLC used this to 'defend' the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument from the objection that we have no observational basis for the beginning of physical reality. He claims that he began to exist, therefore all things begin to exist, but 'he' (read 'I') is not the same species of thing as a hadron, photon, or dimension.

In this fallacy, it seems that the offender is deliberately creating multiple species of things at their convenience.

 

[Case]

I'm not aware of any name for this kind of a fallacy, but doesn't it also include the "micro vs. macroevolution" argument.
Creationists accept microevolution, but claim that macroevolution is impossible, implying that there's a qualitative difference between them, when it's really just a difference in quantity.

Funnily, there's also the continuum fallacy, where differences in quality are thought impossible to result from differences in quantity.

And the described fallacy does look like a false dilemma. Probably nobody thought of the possibility that someone could increase the number of options instead of reducing them to 2 yet.

 

[DeistPaladin]

If I may offer, the term I like to use is "distinction without a difference".

For example, the Boy Scouts of America claim they don't discriminate against atheists and gays; they merely exclude them. Oh well then...

 

[Pulsar]

There are two ways to look at this:
if macro-evolution means speciation, then the creationist argument is simply a lie (or a false premise), since speciation has been observed.

But usually, they mean by macro-evolution any form of evolution that hasn't been directly observed, and then argue that macro-evolution hasn't been observed. In other words, they use a circular definition, creating a false dilemma (a continuum fallacy) and moving the goalposts, followed by an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity and a god of the gaps fallacy. Well, that's what I make of it.

We could save ourselves some time and call creationism one giant fallacy

 

[Deleted member 619]

In rigorous terms, macroevolution is simply change in allele frequencies at or above species level. Speciation is one example, but a better example to demonstrate it in a manner that can't be denied is extinction. Any extinction is a change in allele frequencies at species level, going from some alleles to none, and is irrefutable. You want to prove macroevolution? Think dodo!

It's the one aspect of evolutionary theory that is categorically demonstrated by the fossil record and needs no reference to any other branch of science. The simple fact that sauropods existed and now they don't (apatosaurs would be a bit difficult to miss) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution is real.