thomblake comments on Catchy Fallacy Name Fallacy (and Supporting Disagreement) - Less Wrong

23 Post author: JGWeissman 21 May 2009 06:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 21 May 2009 05:34:34PM *  1 point [-]

Correct - I wonder in what sense this is supposed to be a 'fallacy'. If anything, it more resembles skipping steps in a proof. Top-level comment to follow.

ETA: link

Comment author: MendelSchmiedekamp 21 May 2009 05:45:56PM 2 points [-]

Most classic fallacies are arguments which can be easily and accidently extended beyond their area of applicability. So they should be used with caution.

For example, if I'm arguing with you not to trust someone's research paper, ad hominem could be applicable, if I mention previous fraudulent papers, less so the moral stance of the researcher on spousal fidelity.

The point is labeling an argument a fallacy puts that cognitive warning sign on it, which demands that you you go the extra mile and show why this argument is valid in this case. If you fail to do so, you are asking those who don't currently agree with you to bear the entire burden of proof to substantiate that you are not simply committing a fallacy. Which is at best naive, at worst self-sabotage.