Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

Started by MrBogosity, September 24, 2009, 04:12:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Argumentum ad Nauseam is droning on about something until everyone is tired of hearing you talk, and then declaring yourself the winner when no one wants to talk to you anymore.

I believe there is a term for what Shane is talking about, but for the life of me, I can't remember it. Argumentum Verbosium comes kinda close.

I just thought of another one. Why it occurred to me now  :shrug:

Anyway, it's the "opposite to appeal to authority" argument. In this argument, the person hears you state the position of a known expert in the field in question, and then dismisses it because it's made by that expert.

For example, because Microsoft says it's browser is safe MEANS Microsoft's browser is not safe.

Quote from: dallen68 on June 20, 2013, 02:52:01 AM
For example, because Microsoft says it's browser is safe MEANS Microsoft's browser is not safe.

Yeah, conspiracy-mongers do this all the time. The government says something, so it must NOT be true. Sure, government lies, but not all the time, and it's hardly the ONLY entity that lies.

Another one: Demanding "peer-reviewed" sources in a general public discussion.

While not necessarily a FALICY, it's an unfair demand. Since I am not currently enrolled in an educational institution, and I am not employed in any field where keeping up with the latest whatever is crucial, I do not have access to peer reviewed "anything". The most I have is "general public" websites and publications. Get over it.

Quote from: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:03:20 AM
Another one: Demanding "peer-reviewed" sources in a general public discussion.

While not necessarily a FALICY, it's an unfair demand. Since I am not currently enrolled in an educational institution, and I am not employed in any field where keeping up with the latest whatever is crucial, I do not have access to peer reviewed "anything". The most I have is "general public" websites and publications. Get over it.

Google Scholar Search that shit, brah! http://scholar.google.com/
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on June 30, 2013, 03:12:05 AM
Google Scholar Search that shit, brah! http://scholar.google.com/

I was well aware of that. It lets you access the summary of a paper, and has a link to the paper. If you click the link, you either have to enter your institution's credentials, or "pay" to read the paper.

Quote from: dallen68 on June 30, 2013, 03:40:11 AM
I was well aware of that. It lets you access the summary of a paper, and has a link to the paper. If you click the link, you either have to enter your institution's credentials, or "pay" to read the paper.

I've generally been able to click around a bit and find a free PDF of the paper, but generally not if it's a recent publication.

I random-ly thought of another one: argumentum you-us mis-pronounced something. This is when the entire argument against "something" is based on an individual mispronounces a word. For example: Due to "creator induced malformations" I can not say "S" "SH" "CH", with out all three sounding exactly identical.

Love Canal fallacy: Claiming that we need A to prevent B from causing C, when in fact A is the cause of C.

Obvious example is when people blame the Love Canal disaster on the free market (when we all know it was caused by govt), thus we need govt to regulate the free market to prevent pollution.
Failing to clean up my own mistakes since the early 80s.

I don't know if it has a name, but I'm calling this one "argument from masculinity."

I'm seeing too many people claiming that Zimmerman is guilty because "he's a pussy."

Folks, calling someone a pussy doesn't make someone guilty of a crime. If you can't see beyond this, you're just stupid.

Does this fallacy have a name?  Basically, when you refute someone and attach an insult to the end of it, they say, "ha! Because you insulted me you lose!"

Example of this in action:  https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=arBLUCO8_gM&threaded=1  RealmanPwns's comments with Shane here.  And yes, this is NOT the only time I've seen this happen either.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 08, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
Does this fallacy have a name?  Basically, when you refute someone and attach an insult to the end of it, they say, "ha! Because you insulted me you lose!"

Example of this in action:  https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=arBLUCO8_gM&threaded=1  RealmanPwns's comments with Shane here.  And yes, this is NOT the only time I've seen this happen either.
I don't think insulting is a fallacy.

Quote from: nilecroc on September 08, 2013, 10:52:33 PM
I don't think insulting is a fallacy.
It isn't.  And I'm not saying it is.  I'm saying when someone's insulted, and turn around saying the person insulting them loses the argument.  It's the person saying *that* not the person insulting, that is making the fallacy by turning any insult/name thrown at them into an unwarranted automatic "I WIN!" card.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 09, 2013, 06:57:42 AM
It isn't.  And I'm not saying it is.  I'm saying when someone's insulted, and turn around saying the person insulting them loses the argument.  It's the person saying *that* not the person insulting, that is making the fallacy by turning any insult/name thrown at them into an unwarranted automatic "I WIN!" card.

Sounds like a reverse ad hominem. Maybe The Nega Hominem?

I don't remember if anyone else brought this one up, but another one we see from creationists and statists alike: asking a question, not out of genuine inquiry, but with smug arrogance implying that there can be no possible answer, as if the question itself would expose the person as a complete idiot; e.g., "Why are there still monkeys?" or "Who will build the roads?"

Anyway, unless anyone has a better name, I was thinking of calling this "Pulling a Lindy" after Michael Lind.