Hey there! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 16 of my series on here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.
Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on…
With this modern fallacy, someone would claim that if something isn’t measurable or cannot be measured, replicated, or quantified right now then it doesn’t exist or is pseudoscience or simply trivial. This could be used to ignore certain factors to an argument. Don’t be confused with calling out someone for arguing off moral virtue or emotion with not having quantifiable arguments. It’s more specific like for example one might claim that a single cause was the reason for a disaster occurring because it’s the only thing they measured and thus could argue that nothing else is quantifiable.
Claiming to know what someone means or that they understand something speculative better than their opponent and thus have the authority on the claim. This is outrightly rejected in court when assertions call for speculation, they are always fallacious. So, if someone claims to have a better grasp on a recent bill that was passed than the judge because they know the person who wrote the bill, that would be fallacious. Any claim where you claim that you have authority based on a speculative assertion is a baseless one.
The opposite of the previous fallacy Mind-reading. This has also been known as the autist’s fallacy which is a complete denial of the human capacity for the theory of the mind. It basically argues that minds are so complex that we couldn’t properly understand each other’s thoughts etc. which isn’t useful in court or in any debate because if you could argue this then you are clearly mentally well enough to utilize this fallacy and otherwise they clearly wouldn’t be of the mental capacity to be debating with seriously.
This is a great one that we see a lot in many ways and maybe most relatable in trying to improve ourselves. We say “just this one time won’t hurt” because we feel that by saving up enough good karma or disciplined behavior or whatever it might be that we can commit an immoral act without being concerned for the consequences. This isn’t so much as something for debate as it is to be mindful of in life in general, and it’s possible to see in debate, but typically more for manipulating people even if innocently. People say it all the time to help you fall off your disciplined habits and come down to their level, like “why not just have a piece of cake with us, don’t make us eat this cake all by ourselves, this one time won’t hurt.”
This is the opposite of moral licensing where essentially someone would do the opposite where instead of excusing one moral misdeed, they obsess over accidents, and unforgiven misdeeds and because of those, they are headed for indefinite damnation. This fallacy and the last relate a lot to religion and how it’s affected psychology. This is something to be mindful of again and not seen a lot in arguments, but you might see it where someone might argue why they had to do something in order to atone for that misdeed and may continually use it as an excuse in arguments.
Check out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
You can support me via: