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 20 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…
This is a logos related fallacy meaning an appeal to logic taking the position that there is a limited amount of information that can be exchanged before understanding is lost rather than gained. This one is really interesting because people can use it to try to shut down discussion like for example, one might say that you've given enough thought and shared enough evidence that any more would just be confusing, whereas if you wanted to prove your point, it would be detrimental to your side to withhold evidence or dismiss further discussion.
This is another fallacy of logos where someone uses a generalization and claims it would override all cases. So, for example when a people want to organize a straight pride parade and there was outrage because they generalized that if they are celebrating straight pride, they are refuting other forms of sexual pride when that is not the case. I explain a form of this in my video of "Oh, so what you're saying is ______?" where someone purposefully misinterprets your argument to be able to easily attack it.
This is a post-modern fallacy of logos. Post-modern refers to a very recent fallacy discovered in the late 20th century. This fallacy states that since there are so many variables and factors and we never have the full and complete set of data to make the most accurate decision that no action should be taken until otherwise forced by circumstance. Therefore, we have theories and laws. We have a proven law of physics and for the infrastructure and origins of the universe, we have theories like string theory and the big bang theory. Otherwise one could say we have no understanding whatsoever of the origins of our universe unless we can absolutely prove it which is a corruption of logic because that will halt progress if you refuse to explore and research.
This is a fallacy of ethos which is an appeal to ethics. This is also similar and coincides with the political correctness fallacy. The concept here is that by using passive terminology you subtly manipulate how the other person perceives the information. For example, an easier way to fire someone and make it seem like you had no hand in the decision would be to say "The team came to a decision that it cannot handle taking on more members and will have to pass on you this time" in other words "you've been rejected" but they make it seem like the person telling you was hardly involved and it was out of their hands and they imply that maybe you'd get accepted under the right circumstances. Really, they just rejected you and hired the next person. That's political correctness. Sometimes it's not wrong, but all too often does it become authoritative political correctness that censors and restricts speech.
This is a form of ad hominem and a fallacy of ethos where you dismiss someone's argument claiming they themselves or their argument is too childish or refusing to argue stating "I won't debate a child or someone acting like one." It's a condescending way to try to shut down discussion that you may dislike so instead of responding with a rebuttal you attack them or their character which is why it's really just an ad hominem but is used to point out a more specific form of it.
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: